Post by twinlaker on Jun 12, 2008 18:23:33 GMT -5
please follow along and tell me if I'm misinterpreting anything about the proposed budget:
pass= budget increase from $60M to $64.7M; fail = from $60M to $63.2M
following a year with an estimated 2.8% consumer price index:
pass = 7.8% budget increase; fail= 5.2% budget increase
assuming that budget increase represents 2.7% of bond payback (about $1.8M, mentioned elsewhere in this forum) in this year's budget, following a year with an estimated 2.8% consumer price index:
pass = about 5% "real" increase; fail = about 2.5% "real" increase
and if we go to contingency:
$ 0 - will be removed from the administrative budget
$ 50,000 - will be removed from the capital budget
$1,500,000 - will be removed from educational programs
$3,111,204 - will be added under contingency (see above)
so two questions:
1) even with the bond payback excluded, our proposed budget always was about 5%. isn't that still significantly higher than most comparable school districts this year? since everyone else had $4 gas, comparable increases from the state, etc., how or where did we wind up well outside next year's budget increase bell curve?
2) are the administrative and capital budgets, which includes a $640,324 increase alone in Operation of Buildings and Grounds after passing a significant capital bond last year, so tight and lean that out of the $15M proposed next year only $50 thousand (one-third of 1%) can be excised during contingency?
I'm not asking as a reason as to whether anyone should vote yes or no next week but more to see if anyone else thinks that this year's budget was so poorly put together and evaluated so that $15 million of non-student expense are so sacrosanct that the district will cut, at least, no matter what, $123 thousand of our kid's programs? ($41,515 of Occupational Education/Instructional Program plus $81,004 for Interscholastic Athletics).
it's a bad precedent if we allow next year's budget process to continue to cut kid's programs while non-educational programs are allowed to grow unchecked.
bonus question/rumor: did this proposed budget deplete any reserves the district had as to make the tax levy "seem" lower or do we still have some $$ put aside as we've always have?
thanks to everyone who has helped the thicker-headed ones among us begin to understand some of the issues involved in this process.
pass= budget increase from $60M to $64.7M; fail = from $60M to $63.2M
following a year with an estimated 2.8% consumer price index:
pass = 7.8% budget increase; fail= 5.2% budget increase
assuming that budget increase represents 2.7% of bond payback (about $1.8M, mentioned elsewhere in this forum) in this year's budget, following a year with an estimated 2.8% consumer price index:
pass = about 5% "real" increase; fail = about 2.5% "real" increase
and if we go to contingency:
$ 0 - will be removed from the administrative budget
$ 50,000 - will be removed from the capital budget
$1,500,000 - will be removed from educational programs
$3,111,204 - will be added under contingency (see above)
so two questions:
1) even with the bond payback excluded, our proposed budget always was about 5%. isn't that still significantly higher than most comparable school districts this year? since everyone else had $4 gas, comparable increases from the state, etc., how or where did we wind up well outside next year's budget increase bell curve?
2) are the administrative and capital budgets, which includes a $640,324 increase alone in Operation of Buildings and Grounds after passing a significant capital bond last year, so tight and lean that out of the $15M proposed next year only $50 thousand (one-third of 1%) can be excised during contingency?
I'm not asking as a reason as to whether anyone should vote yes or no next week but more to see if anyone else thinks that this year's budget was so poorly put together and evaluated so that $15 million of non-student expense are so sacrosanct that the district will cut, at least, no matter what, $123 thousand of our kid's programs? ($41,515 of Occupational Education/Instructional Program plus $81,004 for Interscholastic Athletics).
it's a bad precedent if we allow next year's budget process to continue to cut kid's programs while non-educational programs are allowed to grow unchecked.
bonus question/rumor: did this proposed budget deplete any reserves the district had as to make the tax levy "seem" lower or do we still have some $$ put aside as we've always have?
thanks to everyone who has helped the thicker-headed ones among us begin to understand some of the issues involved in this process.
