It was noted that the budget will need to be on review for public display (see the link above). It will be updated based on the outcome of the meeting. The Board must adopt a preliminary budget by February 12. The district has received referendum exceptions for this year (the people will not vote on it even if the district exceeds 4.2% allowance). The Board must make a final adoption by June 18.
A presentation was made by the Audit and Finance Committee which presented 10 scenarios looking forward to the 2011-2012 school year (it was noted this would be available and while it wasn't this morning I'd anticipate it will be posted on this page).
Of great concern was that each scenario included a gap analysis that visually demonstrated an inability to balance the budget without fairly significant tax increases or use of the reserve fund.
I was also surprised to see that expenditures in 2006 were listed at $49 million, while those for 2012 are projected at $74 million. This represents a $25 million dollar increase in six years. In comparing enrollment the 2006 actual was 4604 ($10,643 per student) and the 2012 projection is 4809 ($15,388 per student).
The Committee determined that the NASD will need to cut about $1.2 million from this year's budget to balance it without using the fund reserve or more significant tax increases.
Superintendent Lesky identified 13 items that amounted to $912,000. The cuts included replacing retiring teachers with entry level teachers, eliminating two proposed IT positions, ending the NASD matching program for the rent-rebate program, having purchased a van this year (so as not to pay service next year), cutting the compensation to tax collectors, cutting three laptop labs for elementary schools, eliminating the MS/HS resource officer, reducing staff development, reducing the athletic budget (and possibly implementing a pay to participate system for all extra-curriculars), cutting the activity bus, and reducing EPED positions.
Even with that the NASD is nearly $420,000 short of the cuts requested by the Board.
At the end of the meeting Dr. Lesky asked the Board for guidance in regard to what he was to do about the budget. He gave them three choices:
- Raise taxes by 5.2% with cuts have noted.
- Raise taxes by 4.2% and cut an additional $420,000
- Raise taxes by 4.2% (I think this was the amount) and use the fund balance to make up the difference.
The discussion showed me that we have serious financial challenges. What surprised me most was that the cuts are framed in such a limited fashion. I'm no expert and I don't regularly attend these meetings (I'll stick to Council and if Brad can keep attending I'll be as happy as can be), but here are some areas that ought to be considered:
- Not once was regular transportation noted as a place where money could be saved. A 5% cut $3 million would result in $150,000. We recently purchased new software for busing and each day I watch half filled buses pull into the elementary school. We could actually increase state revenue and reduce expenses if we maximized our bus utilization.
- If we are going to roll back or cut, let's start in areas that don't directly impact student learning and activities. Support Services line items (2300, 2500, & 2800) for Admin, Business, and Central Office are budgeted for $4.6 million. A 5% reduction in these areas would result in $231,000 in savings. Five years ago these services cost a little less than $3.1 million and eight years ago it cost $2.4 million.
- Budgetary Reserve. This may be a case of not planning well, but up until 2006 we did not contribute money to the reserve in the budget. This year we are scheduled to spend $150,000 on this item. Again, I don't know what we are carrying, but if we don't spend it why cut programs to add to it? Maybe it is that low, but if it is how can we even have the discussion of borrowing from it?
- There is a line item I'm unfamiliar with so if someone can explain it that would be great - community services. We are budgeted for $145,000 for this item. Until 2002 this amount was mid $30,000's, then it jumped to $54,000, $82,000, $93,000, and up over $100,000.
- The Blue Eagle Education Foundation is in place to assist with professional development and grants. It would be insightful to know what money and programs they have available that could be used to offset cuts in teacher development. It would also be important to know if any funds exist to sponsor student activities led by staff (EPED positions) or in what other ways the Foundation could assist the NASD financially as there is support the other way around.
- Finally, there is not much that can be done in the way of revenue. There are big changes with the shift to EIT and reduction in property. One area we can realize some additional revenues is in Facility Use. Obviously the NASD walks a fine line between providing space for the public and charging for that space, but it is an area that could be examined in more detail. Often fees are waived for groups and there is often good reason, but at the same time if we are looking at cutting teachers (by not replacing retiring ones), cutting teacher development, cutting paid positions for student activities, we should at least look at this.
20 comments:
The Public doesn't know every detail regarding the budget but it does appear that this school is TOP HEAVY. That is a great place to save some money. STOP HIRING MORE ADMINISTRATORS. The district used to have a facilities director and a custodial director. Then an administrator was hired to oversee the department and direct Support Services - Judy Z. Now there is a new Director of Facilities at $20,000 higher than the director that was replaced. The custodial director is now the assistant director and getting paid more. There is still the consultant that has been working for well over a year at somewhere between $70 and $100 per hour. Then Judy S. was hired to direct all of them. I also understand that more and more duties are being outsourced at a greater cost - lawn mowing, snow removal, equipment service contracts. Utilitiy bills have also increased. So the tax payers are paying more and getting less. The maintenance of the facilities is in deed very important but should be run efficiently to maximize the money available for actual education.
The prior comment really tells it like it is . What a wasteful, disregard for taxpayers money.
I understand that an assistant for Judy S. is also in the works... in the words of Sonny and Cher "The beating goes on!"
The admin has gotten considerably bigger, I think it is one new admin per year for ten years when I last checked.
Not unlike government, once the positions are created they have to do something and more often than not their plans and programs are passed down to teachers who need to implement them taking time from classroom planning and teaching.
As we'll all recall one of the issues was the number of meetings and lack of time for the teachers during the negotiations.
The outsourcing of services is tougher to determine. For something like snow removal, in additional to employees there is equipment costs to consider. It may make more sense to have it contracted.
Grass cutting again comes down to equipment and personnel. If they are seeking to keep hires and staff down, it is a good way to do it, but you also need to know the numbers before you can say it is costing us more, it could be saving money.
Obviously we are going to have more grounds than ever to maintain once the new MS goes through so these areas will increase quite substantially.
As you noted (9:56) we do have to maintain these facilities so they last as long as possible and are safe environments, but we also need to do it cost effectively.
Regarding the utilities and electric this is one area where the facility use policy can come into play. We have groups and organizations using the building for meetings all the time. As a result the electric and heat is on well beyond the normal school day.
It may or may not add up to a lot and I don't want to see people turned away altogether but if we are at a point where we are raising taxes and cutting services, we really do need to see if this is an area where savings could exist.
And they use the whole pool issue to become top headlines...so therefore when nasd decides no pool, they can continue on with all the unnecessary spendings. Since the pool might be a issue no longer... as this will be the sacrifice to please those who oppose it... then the taxpayers are happy because that was a big ticket item. BUT that still leaves what? 50 million or a huge amount t ostill be spent on a 2 graded school only. The pool issue hides and is deceiptive to all the other frivilous spendings this district employs. Certainly a elem school or 4-6 would be keeping us on the right course and the pool was planned to be part of the gym complex. How did we get steered off the original plans?
To clarify, the pool was not a part of the plan for the gym complex, I only said it made more sense to locate it there (will be more available to the public and already has locker rooms, team rooms, weight rooms, parking, etc.).
It is a two grade school despite capacity of 1300 (1350?). Brad and I spoke briefly with the Bob Furst after the meeting and the floor and wing set-up is designed to accommodate two grades only. As a result, in the future if you wanted to pull 9th grade down and expand to 7, 8, & 9 with each at or around 425 you couldn't do it.
This is the type of flexibility and forward thinking/contingency planning I wish we'd incorporate.
In light of that, an elementary not only seems to be more cost effective, but more flexible in terms of the number of grade levels it can accommodate.
Unfortunately, as Brad noted it was pretty clear from the last meeting that the district was "committed" to this building. Further, there was no visible public contention (there was a single comment about the building) to the plan or use of eminent domain.
Given that, why would they even consider doing anything but moving forward?
It is my understanding the pool was planned first to be the lower level of the future gym complex, near north campus. However that was changed to have more weight, locker, and wrestling rooms, like a community center type sprawl. The 7/8 building was planned for a 4-6 building. So it was said. Not sure when the change of plans took place. They sound solid as a go ahead for a new 7-8 building.
What we really burned me up about the meeting is how many times (at least 3 that I can recall) Dr Lesky stated we would have to have larger classroom sizes if we can't meet the budget---never does he mention looking within admin to look for the addt'l 419K needed to balance the budget---know that is a ploy to insight reaction and to justify tax increases but still raising class size levels should be such a last straw that I don't see why he has to mention offhandedly like it doesn't have a profound impact on our kids and their teachers---furthermore it is like using our kids and their educations as a pawn which is what everyone got upset with the teachers for, threatening strikes if the contract dispute wasn't resolved so why don't we see more reaction to the threat of compromised educations because they can't seem to cut corners eternally? Removing mobile computer labs for elem and not giving senior citizens rebates but support serv and admin saw little cutbacks---was also very surprised to see/hear no outrage at the emminent domain proceedings but then again I sat quiet with most everyone else-but 3 hrs was a long one and by 10:30 my ability to speak coherently is definitely compromised
I have to agree. It seems there are only a few items the admin is willing to consider looking at for cuts and it always seems to be items people are willing to support.
I don't think people would rally to stop cutting admin costs or making transportation more efficient as much as they would if we make kids pay extra to not only walk in graduation but also to participate in an extracurricular activity.
There are more places we can look if we are willing too.
Regarding the people, there really weren't many there considering the district covers six municipalities, maybe on average seven people per municipality (assuming it was evenly distributed), and I believe a population of about 30,000.
As I said earlier, it was a clear indication to the Board that they can continue as planned despite demonstrating that they can't figure out how to pay for what they are doing.
Having said that, if people don't like what they are doing, we are still in drawing and planning stage, it is an uphill battle, but it doesn't have to be over already.
I agree that there are probably cuts here and there that could be made to "find" the additional $500K. I say $500K because at the meeting, it was mentioned that due to Act 1 raising the income level from $15K to $35K, instead of paying $100K for senior tax rebates, we will now owe $180K. Since this issue would appear to be the proverbial "third rail", I will venture a guess that this cut will not get made (and I agree it should not be cut).
As for transportation.... Making our bus runs more efficient and cutting expenses sound great, but I don't think it's possible. I mean, how do we think we'll be able to cut transportation costs when we go to the K-3, 4-6 type class structure. They can't ride the same buses (like they do now). So that means juggling class schedules and most likely extra bus runs.
I was looking at next year only in regard to the transportation. The leaner we get it now the less additional we'll have to spend later.
But you make a good point and one that we did discuss that being if they don't yet have the bell schedule or know how they are going to handle transportation once the new building is operating, they also can't know the cost. The $2 million annual operating will probably go up accordingly. This is only one known unknown, you have to wonder how many more there are not to mention the unknown-unknowns.
See the article today in the Morning Call.(http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-a1_5taxesjan25,0,6404131.story). Nazareth isn't the only District facing these issues. Your comments intended to smear the District administrators should be directed to the State legistators.
Some folks should also listen a little more when they do attend the Board meetings. Several of the little questions raised here were actually answered at the meeting.
If you have answers to any of the questions put up it'd be great if you could share them.
Not everyone attends the meeting, and even for those that do, after three hours of discussion one could easily have missed something.
Unfortunately your link cut-off, but I think I did read the article you reference.
At the Board meeting there were words by the NASD complaining about the law being too tough on the local boards, but the article actually noted that the law doesn't have teeth. That there are too many exceptions for districts to utilize that they won't be held to a referendum.
I don't know if I like the idea of a referendum, but at the same time I don't like the fact that the school can raise taxes year after year without being critical of its own spending.
Yes, you can try to affect change on the state level (though I'd disagree you have to 'smear' anyone), but at the same time, you can't abdicate your responsibility on the local level.
It is the Board's responsibility to make the budget work in a way that doesn't negatively impact student learning.
Given the narrow focus and areas the NASD doesn't seem to want to review, maybe asking the administration to find the cuts isn't the best way to go when the cutting gets tough.
No one is smearing the administration. It is the Board that continues to hire more and more administrators. Perhaps Lesky should figure out a way to manage without creating the new positions. How did we manage in the past with less.
A lot of talk is generated regarding tranportation costs. The service could be bid to try and get a better price. I don't even understand how the public entity can hire one company without going out for bid. Jennings does do a good job but when there is no competition, the costs are most likely higher than they need to me.
Regarding the transportation, the issue is not that Jennings charges too much per run, its that Nazareth doesn't efficiently utilize the buses they are paying for.
I can't speak to the current contract, but in the past, Nazareth paid per bus run regardless of miles. As a result, the less runs, the less you pay, the more you get reimbursed by the state (because the bus has higher capacity get more money).
Jennings was not responsible for the route or roster (though as the ones responsible for driving them they do obviously have input and make recommendations), that is why the NASD bought the busing software, it is their responsibility.
Just a comment on the transporation angle here. Everyone agrees that the busses aren't full when they pull into the schools, but that has a lot to do with parents driving their kids in. The district has an obligation to provide transportation...but parents don't have to use it. If they need it once in awhile, that needs to be in place. I hear at all elementary schools, parent drop-off and pick-up lines are huge. How do we take care of this problem?
RE: Busing, you need to know what the buses are rostered at. The roster is what the state uses for its reimbursement calculation.
A bus holds up to 72 (I think). If a bus has two runs during the day, elementary and secondary, the reimbursement is based on the highest number that ride the bus at any time, not the average for the day.
When the MS was opened the 6th grade left the Elementary, but we kept the same number of bus runs. As a result the bus roster (not riders) dropped from mid to high 60s to mid to low 50s. 10 or 15 doesn't sound like much until you multiply it by the number of buses and then by 180 days. It adds up fast.
The decision to not eliminate buses was due to growth (how many times have we heard that?).
The big question is not how many ride, but how many are rostered. My guess is they are still rostered in the mid 50 range and 1/3 to a 1/2 aren't riding making them look half full (72 - 3 to a seat full, 48 - 2 to a seat, 37 - 55 less a third or what looks like a nearly empty bus)
Yes parents drive the kids who should be bused, but this all the more reason to roster them up to capacity - we know they won't all ride so 3 to a seat probably won't happen.
Last two deletions were spam ads, not sure how they are getting on since I at least have the authentication.
Hope it doesn't become more problemic in the future.
Post a Comment