When the 2007-08 budget was announced I began to examine where money was being spent.
What concerned me most was that spending on regular education (line item 1100) was increased by $1,767,000 in this budget and even with that increase the percent of spending on regular education has gone from 45.5% of all expenditures (1998-99) to 40.1% (2007-08).
This tells me that the focus has not been on the education of the majority of students. One possible result of this lack of focus could be the less than expected (and in some areas declining) PSSA test scores. It could also be a possible area of discontent within the ranks of the teachers which led to the low morale and difficult negotiation of the most recent contract.
So where is money being spent? One place is on debt service.
Debt service is fixed, but it is also the result of decisions made by the Admin and Board (NASD). These decisions are critical as they stay with us for many years. The decisions already in place and that have obligated us to payments now result in 14.4% of all expenditures or $8,537,000 in the 2007-08 budget.
Recent figures released to me from the Business Office indicate that with no new borrowing the amount will slowly climb to $8,996,539 in 2011-12, but with the new Middle School Building, new Bond Series will be added each year bringing the 2011-12 total to $12,424,993.
In 2001-02 the Debt Service was at $3,592,000 - this represents a nearly $10Million increase.
The Act 34 Documents on the new Middle School indicate that we will be borrowing a total of $54,150,000. Page 49 of this document indicates that the total local effort for the debt service will continue until the year 2031 and the amount per year will range from $3.7 to $8.2 million per year.
All of this also assumes that between 2007 and 2031 no new debt is taken on.
I respect that some new facility is needed to meet the needs of the district, but it seems that we do have to watch every dollar that goes into this project or we are going to have little money left to spend on actually educating our students.
What do you think? Can you attribute a percent of spending toward a specific function? Can a significant amount of money be reduced from the MS plan to reduce the future debt we will incur? Should the NASD be allowed to incur this much debt? Is it responsible? What will it cost us down the road?
7 comments:
It is all so crazy, all the money spent without accountability,all the new building costs, wasteful spending, debt to increase and increase, taxpayers keep footed the bills for foolish spending. I certainly do not see much in increased educational cost with the pssa scores. Math scores in 11th grade are not so desirable. I do not see an end in sight only the start of continuous add on expenses with no rhyme or reason.
Two meetings next week will be critical in the future of our school and taxes - Monday January 8, School Board meeting (budget) and Tuesday, January 9, new Middle School Building meeting.
As noted, fixed costs continue for many years and the NASD just keeps agreeing to them. Infrastructure is needed, however, the new elementary/middle school will create an entire new set of fixed costs (debt service, overlapping administration, etc.). Costs need to be controlled. The architect's dream needs to be managed (fees as % of construction). The project value has balloned to $50M+...
The Act 34 Document (page 47)indicates ongoing, annual additional cost of $2,072,224 (new 'fixed' costs)in order to operate the new building. This would require a 2.69 mill increase.
It also notes that taking this amount in addition to the bond issues will result in a total of 6.51 mills.
Buildings are cheap. Very cheap. People are very expensive. Not sure the NASD averages but lets assume $45k/year salary on avg. for faculty and staff. You're looking at $4.5 M per 100 employees. Over 30 years, a $54M building is cheap compared to $135M in salary (and I've ignored fringe and benefits). The only way to reduce "real" costs is to decrease the number of students. It's not the best comparison but from ('01-'02 through '06 - '07) Pocono Mt. SD millage increased 27.4 mills. Over that time 4 if not 5 new schools were built.
Without question, staff is expensive, so it would seem we want to be most efficient with them.
A new building will result in a transfer of many teachers for those grade levels from other buildings (so we are already paying for them), not newly hired teachers.
The cost comes from maintaining the building and "managing" the teachers. We will need to hire new administrators, support staff, etc. The estimate to operate this building is an increase of $2.5 million per year.
If, for instance, a new elementary school "only" cost $1.0 million per year to operate and cost less to build (because it doesn't require all the extra amenities and significant parking) we would save the building cost plus the $1.5 million per year.
So you can reduce costs without reducing students.
We've added nine administrators, one each for past nine years. Taking one or two of these away would not stop education. It'd probably clear up some red tape the teachers currently experience.
I think there are more ways to reduce costs that won't hurt education if the NASD is willing to take a close, honest look.
Thanks for the comment and have a great week.
There are a number of problems we face. The county is going to do a reassessment and in the end we will see a doubling of our taxes. The county needs money to pay for their Taj Mahal. They reported last week that the prison is full and will need an expansion. When they reassess all taxes, school, local and county taxes will go up.
With agricultural preservation going into place, the builders will not be constructing a lot of homes if any. If impact fees are put into place, builders will leave and we will be holding the bag.
If you pronounce, as one sage did, that we can get the money from all the commercial development in the area, business will go elsewhere. Wal-Mart has already announced that they will not build in Pen Argyl.
The news will be out tomorrow, 1/12/07, that the Board is going to be challenged on its attempt to take land for the sports area from an established business.
This nonsense must stop. I would venture that folks are already planning to leave the district and of course, the people from Jersey and New York will look elswhere. Already Carbon and Schuykill Counties are becoming hot spots along the I-80 corridor.
We must work hard to stop this and I would suggest that we need the senior citizens to get out to the meetings. I would also suggest that we show up and demand that the Board resign because they certainly have become fiscally irresponsible
Post a Comment