Saturday, June 05, 2010

BOE To Adopt Contingent Budget Tuesday

BoardDocs isn't working as of this writing, so I can't access the proposed agenda for the upcoming BOE meeting. I do know that the BOE plans to vote to adopt the contingent budget Tuesday at their regular monthly business meeting. Here's a summary from the GCSD website of what that contingent budget looks like:

On Wednesday, May 26, the Board of Education decided against holding a revote following the May 18 budget defeat and instead will adopt a contingent budget. The Board majority felt the estimated cost of conducting a revote, $47,000, was too high.

Board members did, however, cut an additional $2,113,605 from the budget total rejected by voters in order to bring the tax rate increase to 3.93 %. Those cuts include:
  • Non-contingent items such as equipment purchases and capital work.
  • High school summer school transportation changes. (Students will be responsible for transportation to a common site from which they will be bused to summer school.)
  • Staffing cuts, including 3 administrators, 6 teaching positions, and 1.5 support staff members.
  • The elimination of the 4:30 p.m. late bus runs at secondary schools.
  • Capping legal expenses.
  • The reduction of baseball/softball and football teams at the secondary level.
The $193,269,666 contingent budget will be voted on at the June 8 Board meeting. If approved, the 2010-11 tax rate is expected to be $22.55 per $1,000 of assessed valuation.


Anonymous said...

I find it funny that the BOE is looking to cap legal expenses. They need to get their Administrators to understand what that means. Without that, it will never happen.

SCATS said...

To 9:23AM ~~ I find it funny that the BOE would cap legal expenses given the fact that they use the lawyers to babysit them through almost every decision even though the BOE Prez. is a lawyer! I'll believe it when I see it .

george hubbard said...

1. Newly reported 2010-11 Contingent budget on GCSD website.

2. GCSD Budget increase 2010-11 Contingent compared 2009-10: $193.3M/$195.5M = -1.1%.

3. GCSD Tax Levy increase 2010-11 Contingent compared 2009-10: $95.1M/$90.9M = +4.6%.

4. Crude graph below shows all 17 M.C. suburban districts per D&C May 16, 2010: x = 16 other districts, y = GCSD#1 Proposed Budget, z = GCSD#2 Contingent Budget.
2010-11 COMPARED 2009-10

Anonymous said...

G. H. What you say??

george hubbard said...

To: Post 08:09am... thanks for asking question... others may have similar... try this.

1. The plot is scatter diagram for 17 Monroe County school districts.

2. Ignore the numerous horizontal lines. These are necessary to position “x”, “y”, and “z” letter symbols as a plot/graph in a text based page like SCATS blog. Sorry about that.

3. The position of each “x” symbol represents one of 16 MC districts... horizontal position shows ‘Spending Change’ left to right... and vertical position shows ‘Tax Levy Increase’ up and down... these according to 2010-11 budget data in D&C table May 16th.

4. GCSD is shown twice. Once as GCSD#1 Proposed Budget, and second as GCSD#2 Contingent Budget.

5. GCSD#1 Proposed Budget at position “y” labeled GCSD#1 (horizontal: Budget Change = -0.1%) and (vertical: Tax Levy Increase = +7.6%).

6. GCSD#2 Contingent Budget at position “z” labeled GCS#2 (horizontal: Budget Change = -1.1%) and (vertical: Tax Levy Increase = +4.6%).

7. Scatter plot shows GCSD near low end (far left) on Spending Change compared to 16 other districts.

8. Scatter plot shows GCSD for “y” point highest... and “z” point coming down, but still near highest for Tax Levy Increase compared to 16 other districts.

9. Going from Proposed Budget to Contingent Budget, GCSD moved from “y” to “z”... down and to the left compared to 16 other districts.

Hope this helps 08:09am. Any more questions?

Anonymous said...

G.H. Too much work. So in conclusion.....???

george hubbard said...

To: 1:40pm... I don’t usually post conclusions, but for you an exception... since I have so many.

1. A single scatter diagram from one year-to-year set of data... proves no right or wrong, no good or bad... only comparisons of high or low.

2. Conclusion #1: GCSD held spending increase (both Proposed Budget and Contingent Budget) lower than most other MC districts. Historical data shows GCSD is often positioned here.

3. Conclusion #2: GCSD tax levy increase was higher... as proposed much higher... contingent less so than most other MC districts.

4. Allow me to introduce more data - Exhibit #1, to see a trend... and make more conclusions more compelling on tax levy.



2007-08__+1.65%__Contingent budget

2010-11__+7.6%__Voter Rejected budget
2010-11__+4.6%__Contingent budget

5. Notice above... the low +1.65% (Col 2) was followed by two near zero tax levy increases in succession for 2008-09 and 2009-10, then a sudden jump to +7.6%... this when other MC districts were up about 3% to 3.5% for 2010-11 (see scatter diagram above). Historical data does not show that successive near zero increases could be sustained and still support GCSD operations financially.

6. An alternative sequence ending at the same tax levy could have been +1.65%, +2.5%, +2.5%... followed by +2.5% for 2010-11.

7. Conclusion #3: The seeds for a sudden jump in tax levy 2010-11... ego a defeated budget were sown by BOE tax levy approvals 1, 2, and 3 years ago. Out of the norm exceptions need an explanation. I’m not aware BOE offered any!

8. As the saying goes, “It’s not the fall kills you, it’s the sudden stop.”

9. Well, the corollary in budget votes might be, “It’s not the tax rate that defeats a budget, it’s the sudden jump.”

10. Conclusion #4: In general, BOE is not managing Tax Levy for stability as well as most MC districts... and not well enough to satisfy voters.

11. Conclusion #5 – a conclusion about process: BOE could avoid/minimize sudden tax levy jumps by using data-driven multi-year financial goals and trend analysis. The BOE Finance Committee has been advocating for this, but so far has not succeeded in getting BOE attention.

Okay 1:40pm, that will teach ya... be less work to create your own conclusions next time... but now its your turn... and no excuses please.

SCATS said...

To George ~~ I'm just curious ... have you EVER run out of data? :)

george hubbard said...

To: SCATS 4:57pm

Previously only once... but I don’t have the data to prove it... so now its twice!

Data comes from measurement... and I subscribe to the mantra of continuous improvement, “What’s important gets measured, and what gets measured gets better.”

george hubbard said...


Q#1: Are total budget reductions less than they first appear? Is some spending “cut” in 2010-11 not really "cut"... but spending “deferred” to later years?

Q#2: Can GCSD go without spending on certain ‘big ticket’ items and capital improvement projects (bus garage lift, loading dock redesign, water lines etc)... for more than a year or so?

1. Using 2009-10 as a base, seems like these spending items are deferred:




Q#3: Does backlog of deferred budget items amount to approx. $4.5M... these on top of items that would normally be budgeted in future years? Are there other equipment items to be included on this list?

Anonymous said...

If only the BOE would use data and polish it the way they do the pseudo-data in their glossy advertisements! Maybe then the district could vote with understanding.
Thanks, George, for trying to use data and explain why we got where we are and where we really are relative to the other districts.
Any more data of interest that can help us uderstand this district?

SCATS said...

To Geo ~~ They can always defer capital repairs and then try to get a separate proposition passed in the future.

SCATS said...

To 9:32PM ~~ Calling it "pseudo-data" elevates it much too high! That Connection brochure was filled with outright lies, deception, spin and twisted "facts."