The proposed budget is available here.
Last year a few of the questions were answered.
According to the notice: "Also proposed will be an increase in the 2009-10 Budget from funds currently available." Does this mean that the Board philosophy is - even though we had a spending budget, because we received MORE money (overtaxed the people), we should spend it - rather than cut taxes?
- For the proposed budget itself, why have general fund revenues and expenditures increased about 55% since 2005?
- Why have total expenditures INCREASED by nearly 70% since 2005 with a student enrollment increase of about 18%? Click here for a Summary Report of the budget since 2004.
- While enrollment increased 4.5% 2008 to 2009, the total budget increased by 9% to $48 million. The prior year the increase in expenditure was 18% The projected student increase this year is estimated at 3% with another increase of 1.5% We, the taxpayers, should be excited that the rate of increase is slowing.
- Pg 3, item 131 shows Teacher Salaries steady at $13.6 million, but benefits increased by 10% to $7.4 million, or 54% of salary. In these times of economic woes, should the taxpayers who have to cut back be saddled with these increased cost?
- Teacher aides total salary has been reduced by 20% over two years, but administrative cost do not seem to be decreasing - $2 million for "School Adminstration" (pg 5- 2400); $1 million for "central" (pg 5- 2500); $1.2M for "staff" and "District Admin" (pg 6). Surely this is NOT a bare-bones budget?
- Page 10 shows a $5 M "fund balance" with another $2.7M in "debt service fund," $5M for "capital projects" - A total of $13M in 'rainy day' funds??? Where are the earnings reported on these funds? Where is the money invested? But there is NOTHING in the "Building Reserve Fund" (pg 22)
- pg 19 4502-100 Is there actually a salaried person ($65,000) for "building acquisition and construction"?
Where is the study for YEAR Round Education?
The Public Hearing Notice for the budget states that the public hearing AND the approval of the budget will occur at 6:30 PM. A subsequent notice for the actual meeting indicates it is an item on the agenda after several other items.
1 comment:
1. 55% increase since 2005. Do you think the bond for Old Mill Elementary and the bond for the new high school, might figure into that? *** Of course they did, however this was GENERAL fund expenditures (operating budget)***
2. Expenditures increasing faster than student enrollment. Let's see....cost of food has gone up, cost of fuel for the buses have gone up, heating fuel costs have gone up, electricity costs have gone up, etc. It's call inflation. And, yes even in a "down turn" costs of goods and supplies still go up. As an example, I am paying approximately $30 more per week just for food. ***Inflation from 2005 to 2010 was approx 13%, the per student cost increased by 41% - approximately 3 x the CPI - subtracting the increased debt/construction costs the per student cost is up 26 % or twice CPI***
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp#calcresults
3. I don't know what to say. I'm amazed at your assumptions. ***Sorry, that was a little facetious, the decreasing rate of increase to justify "economizing" is a common biggov ploy***
4. As I reported last month, the negotiations with the teachers, was to keep their salaries, as is. But, to continue to fund their Health Insurance. And, like my insurance, I'm sure the premiums went up. ***As does mine, however I, like many others, am now paying for it myself - not as promised by my former employer. Many taxpayers are finding benefit reductions, why should gov employees be exempt***
5. In my personal opinion, I feel that the school is top heavy. However, as to aides, I have mixed feelings on that. That's probably because I have had some negative experiences in dealing with aides when I have been substituting. ***As with teachers, there are good and not so good, it seems to me aides might be a way to decrease instructional cost - I'll defer to your experience. I'd still prefer people teaching to bricks and mortar***
6. $5 Million general fund balance. I can see your concern that this is too high. However, if the fund is too low, then we have to pay a higher interest rate on our bonds. I'm not sure where the trade off is. $2.7 Million "debt service fund", it is my understanding that this is how much is already there, to make the next bond payment. $5 Million for "capital projects"; more commonly known as major maintenance. We do want our buildings and grounds maintained, don't we. *** I, too, do not know - hence the question. If we are sitting on the money getting 1% interest and paying 4.5% it's not very cost effective***
7. No idea. ***This was a very quick review and questions that should be answered, but weren't last year - I'm just trying to get people to overcome their apathy.***
In my opinion, this is a fiscally responsible budget. Could it be better, probably. But, then I don't have ALL the information that the board has, so maybe I wouldn't make any changes. ***Nor do I, but I dislike the idea that we have the money, so we'll spend it - ALL*** That was why I ran for the board 2 years ago, and will run again in 2 years, maybe.
I agree that we should be looking at year round school. I know some of the arguments against it, but they are minor. I don't know if they have even started looking at various possibilities or not.
A couple of years ago, I asked a lot of questions about why some of the accounts were so high. I was shocked at how much money we spend on unfunded federal mandates.
This are my opinions. Feel free to agree, disagree, ignore....
leo smith
Post a Comment