Showing posts with label 2009-10 budget. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2009-10 budget. Show all posts

Saturday, April 30, 2011

What a Difference a Day Makes

At Monday's Finance Committee meeting, Treasurer and Finance Chair Jim McCourt was all "Man the torpedoes and we can cut this budget". That sentiment didn't last long as at Tuesday's Board Work-Study meeting, his tone changed from cutting to increasing spending. Maybe he was on a sugar high Monday night??

While preventing a levy increase might not be in the cards, McCourt was optimistic that school board members would be able to decrease the levy increase. “One of our board goals was a 10 percent or above fund balance. Even with that, we are going to be 11.5 percent at the end of next year, so obviously one of the options that is out there is we’ve got some extra fund balance that potentially we could use, and if we made an adjustment of another $450,000 to the fund balance, it would get us down to a levy increase of 2.5 percent. It would still keep us at 10.5 percent of the fund balance. I think we have some room there to potentially do something.
---Jim McCourt

McCourt also said that even though the board added $255,000 back into the building and grounds department budget, he has not heard anyone asking for the budget restoration. If the reinstated dollars were removed again, it would decrease the levy by another 0.6 percent, bringing the levy increase down to 1.9 percent.
---excerpted from the Sun Prairie Star

Whalen offers a different perspective
During the work-study meeting, the board reviewed the district's request to add the following to the 2011-12 budget:
$75,000 originally planned for the HR Specialist; District still thinks they can use this cash
$165,000 (7000 hrs @ $24/hr) for Response to Intervention Math/Reading tutors
$110,000 for 2FTE English as Second Language Teachers
$ 176,000 for 3 total FTE Social Workers
$65,000 for 1 FTE Technology programmer
-----------------------------------------------
$591,000 (raises the tax levy about 1.3%)

Whalen's response:
"I like these ideas. I'm toying with the idea of going back to 4.5% [tax levy increase] and putting all these in [the budget]."

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Gifts for the Teacher?


Got your school supply lists?

Pencils-sharpened...96? Check. Wait...does Junior really need 96?
Glue sticks...20? Check...wait...TWENTY freakin' glue sticks????
Dry erase markers? Check...

Wait...What?
Does Junior really use dry erase markers?

Parent: "Junior...do you use these dry erase markers in class?"
Junior: "Oh...those are gifts for teacher."
30 years ago, kids brought apples as gifts for teacher. Now..they shower them with dry erase markers for those spanky new white boards.

We get providing Junior with the supplies that Junior will use during the school year.
But supplies for the teacher to use...not so much.

Class supply lists are out of control.
Suddenly class supply lists have become extensions of the school district budget heaped onto the shoulders of parents. It's a nice way for the district to get supplies it needs outside of the budget, so they can spend budget dollars on more important things...like raises...and KitKats...and bottled water...and newspaper subscriptions to read in the john.

It's not right...but nothing will change until people take a stand and speak out. We hear the grumbling, but the school board needs to hear it.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

$1.3M Pendulum Swing

At last night's Finance Committee meeting, a major budget development was revealed.

The bottom line:
Instead of taking $800,000 from Fund Balance in addition to making $1.2M of temporary budget reductions, after virtually all bills are in, the budget picture grew a whole lot rosier.
We actually INCREASED Fund Balance by $500,000.

That means a net change in the budget picture of PLUS $1,300,000

You will hear the details of this at tomorrow night's public hearing on the budget.

What does it all mean?

Remember all those snide comments about those horrible elector type people that severely damaged the district? Nuh uh.

Remember all that fear mongering about "the rebound effect" and that our credit rating would drop? Poof!

Perhaps the board's "outcry" regarding the electors' decision was more feigned than real. The district likes to have their play money, but very clearly, we CAN do just fine---in fact have a surplus--even with a little cutting.

Yes, Virginia, there MUST be a Santa Claus....because, in the end the levy was reduced by $2,000,000 and we STILL had a surplus of $500,000.


Sunday, January 31, 2010

Fahrenheit 69

So..the big ole' mean ole school board and administration have cut building temperatures by 2 degrees to 69 (although we wonder if the same applies to the District Office). We hear reports of kids and teachers freezing in their classrooms. Maybe now we know why the school board and administration focus so heavily on Reading and Math, and never on Science (until Obama's "STEM program that is) or Language Arts.

You see...all it takes is a little scientific ingenuity to thwart the all powerful and temperature controlling tamper-proof thermostats. It seems that several teachers and students have already Googled their way to toastier classroom. All one has to do is place a cold damp cloth--or better yet, a cloth with ice--over the thermostat. Presto! Change-O! The dumb ole thermostat is "tricked" into thinking that the room is cooler than the setpoint, and the heat comes on. Bill Nye would be quite proud. em>

" My sister’s college apartment had a thermostat with a lock on it so that only the landlord could adjust the temperature. During the winter the
girls taped a bag of ice to the thermostat to increase the temperature in the
rest of the apartment. "

But...won't that impact the budget reductions?!!!

You'll recall that last November the school board approved a "plan" to come up with $1.2M in budget reductions. Built within that November 23 plan were two seemly innocuous items:

1. Reduce room temperatures by 2 degrees; from 71 to 69 in all classrooms and offices. Expected Savings: $ 40,000 (Based on estimates provided by Princeton Energy Resources, $40,000-$50,000 of the natural gas cost can be avoided by reducing the temperature 2 degrees district-wide. Of course, classes may be less comfortable for learning. )

2. Raise air-conditioned temperature by 2 degrees. Expected savings: $ 15,000 Based on estimates provided by Princeton energy Resources, cooling accounts for $150,000-$200,000 of the district’s $800,000 electrical expenditures. A 2 degree increase in cooling temperature should net a $15,000-$20,000 reduction in those expenditures. Classes could be less comfortable, especially summer school classes.

Leveling the Playing Field- The Power Cost Adjustment
Of course....they made these plans back in November and THEN, come January, they release this little unsettling factoid:


"After meeting with SPW&L and WPPI, the electrical supplier to SPW&L, it was explained to us that the Power Cost Adjustment was used to adjust for any needed revenue to cover their costs of operation. One of the reasons that the June PCA was so large was that the amount of [sic]electricitiy used throughout the system was significantly lower than anticipated. Overall, through November of the current base year, we have used about 30,000 KWH less than the same period last year. We have paid about $20,000 more than last year for that reduced amount of electricity. One of the main reasons is the additional cost generated by the Power Cost Adjustment. "
--from a Situation Report submitted by Tom Brooks, Buildings & Grounds
Manager

If the Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) cost us $10,000 (20% of the "projected budget reductions down the you know what) of unplanned costs in November, what do you suppose the PCA will cost us in the the next four months, which include three of the coldest months of the year?

Remember...we only started cutting BACK on the temperature in November. And the more we save on power consumption, it appears the more we PAY on the back end in terms of the PCA.

So much for spending $432,000 on an energy contract for the last 4 years. So much for having an Energy Manager at a cost of over $200,000 in salary and benefits for the past 4 years. That $630K could have bought us a school supplies for struggling parents, a grand piano AND lights on the new sports fields.
Now, of course, electricity isn't all of the cost. There's also the gas cost. But do remember that the thermostat triggers all finds of fans and blowers...so electric power IS involved.

The Problem is the Budget Process
We're not blaming the power utility. They gotta make a profit...right? The problem is that the district needed to make $1.2M in HARD budget cuts. Instead, they chose the route of "soft", temporary "fixes" backed by a wing and a prayer.

But we don't even think you should blame the district. After all...they are only guilty of proposing these unrealistic reductions. It's your elected leaders, the school board, who can't find the time to do a little research...or even offer some independent thought...and back it up by making administration accountable.

Is 2 degrees Really Such a Big Deal?
You know...we hear frequently about how teachers and kids are "freezing" in their classrooms as a result of lowering the thermostats.

First of all...IT'S TWO $#%@ DEGREES PEOPLE! It's not like the kids' snot bubbles are freezing solid.

More to the point, we're betting (confirmed by a highly non-scientific poll) that at least 95% of the kids and teachers set their thermostats at home even lower.....like at 65 to 67. A large number of these kids spend much of their at home time sitting in front of a computer or some other electronic device. How do they stay comfortable enough there to do homework?

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Whatever Happened to "No Take-Backs"

At this week's school board meeting, one very prominent agenda item was dubiously listed as, "6.02 Request of the Sun Prairie Education Association to re-open the 2009-2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement regarding furlough days and/or other reductions in the total compensation package "

What a professional way to do business...er....cover up your own errors. NOT! The issue at hand is a memorandum, drafted by Tim Culver for the school board members' signatures, requesting that the teacher's union (SPEA), agree to re-open their contract to include one furlough day each in 2009-10 (yep, the year that's half over) and 2010-11.

Clearly the school board and Culver understood the economical climate.
Clearly, they knew they would be receiving a large cut in state aid.
Clearly, they knew that the QEO was being repealed effective July 1, 2009.
Yet, they rushed forward to reach an agreement before the QEO was repealed.
Yet, they rushed forward without even a hint of a district budget in place.
And then they patted themselves on the back for making the deal.

And now they want to "take it back"?
We don't think so.
How DARE they!

What this is all about is that the board --and Chief Culver-- were so busy patting themselves on the back, they didn't have a spare hand to put a finger on the pulse of the community that was struggling in the deepest recession of our lives.


It is simply unconscionable that the elected school board, who refuse to do their jobs and serve as the voice of the people instead of the voice of Culver, would now resort to "calling out" the teacher's union to "give back" some of the contractual monies that they negotiated on in good faith. It's more than that. What unmitigated gall Culver and the board have to use their "board meeting" to put public pressure on the teachers to give back what Culver and the board gave them 6 months ago.

At the risk of violating politically correctness, we had a phrase for this when we were growing up...it's called "Indian giving".

Getting a little more "PC", we had another idiom for it. Remember when we were young and we were making a "deal" with a neighbor kid? Perhaps over baseball cards or a treat? These "deals"--contracts, if you will-- even involved the pittance of allowance we received back then.


We frequently sealed these deals with the firmly stated, "NO Take-Backs!".
From the "Urban Dictionary"
No Take Backs

The command that instructs another party that once they have given you something they cannot change their mind.
Call it whatever you wish: renege, breaking your word, go back, welshing, backing out, repudiate, break a promise...it's all the same thing. And it's despicable.

YES...we have a budget crisis. But did you see anything on either the school board or committee agenda about the 2010-11 budget? If things are in crisis, shouldn't we have a standing agenda item to address these growing concerns? Especially when citizen representatives of school board committees (ahem!) have stated on record the need to begin openly discussing the 2010-11 budget TWO MONTHS AGO!!!

YES...perhaps the board should not have been so generous when agreeing to the contract they did.

YES...it's perfectly understandable why Culver and administration would have supported--recommended--the contract because it is school board policy that administrators are "entitled" to the percentage increase that the teacher's union received in the previous year!!! Gee...there's a term for that, isn't there? Ummm...perhaps conflict of interest?!

YES these are our ELECTED (so called) leaders (and three of them...Diedrich, McCourt, and Slane) are running for re-election in April. Keep THAT little note on your refrigerators.

But...all that being said...a DEAL IS A DEAL. A contract is binding. (Unless you are the Governor, of course).

At the heart of the issue is this:
" ...If the SPEA agrees to a furlough day in 2009-2010, it would save $165,508 in the 2009-2010 school year. If the SPEA agrees to a furlough day in 2010-2011, it will save approximately $170,239 in the 2010-2011 school year. This will significantly help address the budget deficit in 2009-2010 and the budget challenges for 2010-2011, which in turn will maintain the educational opportunities for students that our community has come to expect. "

YES...SPEA agreeing to take a furlough day in both this year and next year would "save" the district $336,000. And that would certainly help out the budget challenges.

But it's not right. It's wrong to publicly hang the teacher's union for a contract at least THEY negotiated in good faith. The blame here lies squarely with the school board (and administration) for not doing their jobs six months ago. Hopefully, this will be a lesson learned in the future.

In the meantime, it's time for administration--and the school board-- to put on their big boy (and girl) pants and fix this on THEIR OWN BACKS.

Before any of you rush to judgement on ole SP-EYE.... Let us be clear. We firmly maintain our stance that the contracts negotiated last June were unacceptably generous. Did any of you catch today's State Journal that wages nationwide were DOWN 1.6% in 2009??? This is a different issue. This is about wrong and wrong. The board was WRONG to agree to those contracts, and they are equally WRONG to request they be re-opened NOW.

Besides...there's a quiet element of contract discussions that most don't understand, but should be known. In fact, it would have never been discussed save for district resident (and school board candidate, we might add) John Welke speaking out during the meeting. Welke asked Culver and the board to clarify whether or not the SPEA contract was just like state employee contracts in that once re-opened, discussions are not limited to the "intent" of the re-opening. They reluctantly revealed that, once open for re-negotiation, ALL parameters in the contract are subject to negotiation.
Oh...and one other thing neither the board nor Culver mentions: the teachers are being asked to give up a furlough day in BOTH this year AND next year. We have heard no mention that the board will impose an equivalent sanction on the Administrators or Admin Support groups for next year. Geee...we guess the teachers just are supposed to TRUST them, eh??? Trust. Yep that's something we just have oodles of in this district. NOT.

Whether you agree with the teachers' contract or disagree, put yourself in THEIR shoes. Given this situation by YOUR employer...would YOU be amenable to renegotiate? We don't think so. You don't have to like that...but you have to agree that it makes no sense to do so...so let's not judge SPEA should they (as we expect they will) decline this magnanimous offer to renegotiate their contracts to give back wages which were negotiated in good faith.

Sorry school board, but you're going to have to put a little firmer hand on that budget knife. And do NOT even attempt to threaten "the kids" before you tap into the rich veins of administration.

Monday, December 7, 2009

$1,106,572 To $15,334

Jeopardy question of the week:
A ratio of 1,106,572 to 15,334

The Answer:
What is the ratio of ONE YEAR (2009-10) budget savings relative to PERMANENT savings approved by the school board at its November 23, 2009 meeting.

Batten the hatches and sew your pockets shut, because the bounceback WILL be here next fall. And that means a BIGGER double digit increase to property taxes next year.

If the school board doesn't mandate * PERMANENT * budget cuts -- and they didn't -- then come this spring, we'll be squarely back at square one. AND...we have the costs of opening the new high school and middle school to boot.

Someone PLEASE explain to the school board that one-year budget cuts don't cut it. We need to get the broom and make some sweeping changes to spending.

...or is the mentality that "they" (school board and district administration) can fill the room with a majority of electors at next year's meeting? Hmm.

That kind of gambling is an illness, folks.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Re-Stating The Obvious

You gotta love the Administration "Impact" commentary added to proposed one-time budget savings proposals for 2009-10.

Proposed One-Time Savings, to Start in 2009-2010

I. Reduction in hours for all Local-60 staff, equivalent to one day. (Savings: $22,655)
301.4 staff; average salary per day : $75 ($9.375/hr)

J. Administrative furlough day, June 18, 2009 (Savings: $ 12,639)
27.5 staff, average salary per day : $460 ($57.50/hr)

K. Administrative support furlough day, June 18, 2009. (Savings: $ 7,848)
28.5125 staff, average salary per day : $275 ($34/hr)


" These reductions impact morale and may impact the future ability of the district to recruit and retain quality _________ [CHOOSE ONE: administrators, administrative support staff, Local 60 staff ]. "

Oh get over yourselves! You're losing ONE freakin' day's pay!

A number of local folks are UNEMPLOYED, as in an EVERY day furlough--without fringe benefits!

A number of other local folks have taken pay cuts of 10-20%,

State workers and many county workers are being furloughed SIXTEEN DAYS over the next 2 years!

Oh...wait! These cuts will impact morale!?? Well...shoot...we can't do that then, can we?
Good Lord...you tell US that 80-85% of the budget is personnel costs and then when you need to make cuts you tell us that we shouldn't do that because it might affect morale.

Newsflash! Arguably, a majority of community members are growing weary of your collective whining. You think you can improve your morale somewhere else? Fine. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Enough of the mollycoddling!

Administration Works to Resolve Property Tax "Bounce-back"...NOT!

Remember that ultimately annoying, but maniacally gleeful cry of "NOT!" shouted out by characters Wayne Campbell or Garth Algar (of SNL's "Wayne's World" fame) immediately following any insincere comment? That's what immediately comes to mind as we read through the district's proposals for "budget reductions".

Oh yes...the proposed "budget cuts" have been released, and will be up for discussion at next Monday's (11-23-09) school board meeting.

You'll recall that ultimate goal was to respond to the school board directive to "find" at least $1.1M in budget cuts for this year (2009-10) in order to limit the amount of fund balance required to balance the budget to about $800K.

"Logic would dictate...", as Spock so frequently began his monologues, that any such "cuts" would have been geared towards those permanent in nature. Permanent cuts are necessary to avoid the "bounce-back" to property taxes next year. Of course, since when does the district administration proceed according to some logical path?

The annual operating budget for 2009-10 is $68,800,000.
The amount of permanent cuts proposed: $21,000.

That's right. We didn't forget any zeros. These proposed "permanent" measures trim this year's spending by 0.023% and future spending by no more than 0.03%. And actually, that percentage will drop lower due to the District's propensity for increasing it's budget at a rate of 5-6% annually.

Guess the school board needed to be more clear in their directive.
Or does administration really see what transpired at October 12's annual meeting as an isolated "glitch", and the community will gladly dig deep into their pockets next year, and all future years, to shell out phenomenal property tax increases?

Of course, if we all received compensation approaching $150,000 per year, we might feel that way, too. NOT!!!!

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Budget Insider - Is Bounce-Back a Real Threat?

Bounce-Back. Rebound. Whiplash.
We all heard the warnings from certain school board members and district administration:

"If you take money out of fund balance to reduce the levy, it's a 1-year solution. Next year you'll be facing bounce-back."

True? In principle, sure.

In practice? That depends.
But, first, what exactly is this bounceback they're talking about?

In a nutshell, what it means is that next year we'll get hit with the property tax increase we avoided by using fund balance this year PLUS the additional hit of property tax increase due to NEXT year's spending.

In an oversimplified world, it's like using your savings account to make a mortgage payment when you're running short in a given month. The next month comes along, and you still have to make that mortgage payment, but now your savings account has taken a sizable hit. So unless you've done something to improve cash flow, you'll be in a pinch again. With the school district, it's more like your next month's mortgage payment actually increases 6%.

But that all presumes that we do nothing to curb the spending.


Tax Levy = (Operating costs - State Aid) + Debt Levy

Of those variables, what exactly can we change?
State Aid is only increased with increased enrollment.
(That was the logic behind using the 4K as a "cash cow" for the district.)
The Debt Levy is something we're stuck with; the only remedy is to refinance some of the debt.
The bottom line is that we need to trim our operating costs.


What are the (current) district operating costs?

District administration budgeted to spend $68,500,000.
Over the last several years, the budget (spending) has increased by about 6% per year.
Salaries and fringe benefits account for 80-85% of operating costs.


How do we avoid/minimize "bounce-back"?

  • We simply need to spend less.

  • We cannot continue adding 6% to the budget operating costs every year.

  • We need to be more efficient with the resources available.

  • When personnel costs represent 80- 85% of the budget, the only logical place to target is the 800 lb gorilla in the room---personnel.
Statewide, inflated salaries in school districts are an on-going issue. Our school board needs to ignore what other districts are not doing, and blaze their own trail for re-adjusting compensation package benchmarks.


The board also will need to make some changes to the salary structure for teaching staff. Folks...a simple reality is that when we have kindergarten teachers retiring with salaries just shy of $80,000, something is wrong. There are medical professionals who save lives every day that don't earn that much. No one will disagree that teachers' jobs are important. And an effective teacher can even ultimately "save" the life of a student. But the relative cost in terms of dollars and cents has become too high. Especially when contracts are for 190 days vs. 260 days for the average worker. Everyone thinks that they deserve a higher salary. We get that. But the education system is rapidly spinning out of control.

What we cannot do
We cannot keep dipping into fund balance. That's a fact, Jack.
The board /district is correct when they warn that doing so represents a temporary (1-year) solution. We WILL continue to need to need short-term borrowing, and any further hits to fund balance WILL affect the interest rate we can obtain. More importantly, fund balance is not a bottomless source of funds.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

YOU Do the Math: One Day Without Pay

Haven't you heard? "Grease" used to be the word. Now, "furlough" is the word!
Google "furlough Wisconsin" and you get over 597,000 hits.

In the 80's we had pet rocks.
In the 90's we got technical and got Tamagotchis.
Early in the "aughts", we just got weird, and had Furbies.
Now? In the middle of a severe economic crisis? We're getting furloughs under the holiday tree!

State employees got 'em (8 days each in fiscal 2010 and fiscal 2011).
County and municipal employees got 'em.
Private sector workers fared even worse.
The lucky ones took pay cuts; the not so lucky took unemployment.

How does business function in a deep recession? When revenues [for any organization] drop, and salaries and fringe benefits account for over 80% of one's operating budget, what, realistically, can one cut to reduce operating costs?

Sometimes the gorilla in the room is personnel costs.

As the Sun Prairie school district mounts its own struggle in the wake of the community voting to slash the tax levy by $2M, the answer, unfortunately, has to lie in real people. The reality is that the district is trying to cut $1,200,000 from the budget adopted on October 26. Sure, there will be proposals suggested to raise the hackles of the community, perhaps to encourage them to re-think this terrible hand they dealt school district administration and the school board. You might hear cries to cut art, or languages, music, or even (gulp!) sports programs.

What you have to do, dear community residents, is not fall for the bait and switch. You may need to find the time to attend school board meetings and state YOUR case. After all, is it really too silly to believe that school board members who were elected by the people, to serve the people, might actually LISTEN to the people?

How Much does ONE Day Cost?
Because you likely will be hearing the word, "furlough", let's look at what it costs for just one day. We apologize in advance for over-simplifying things. You see...all we have is that which is already public record to guide us--the annual report from the annual meeting. Sure, we could lay a lot of detailed open records requests on the district to get the info we need to get numbers that are more refined, but those folks have enough to do right now...and these numbers are close enough for government work.

A Day Without Teachers
So what if administration proposes furloughing teachers. What does that "save" us?
If you add the "Subtotal Instruction", to lines "210 000 Pupil Services", and "220 000 Instructional Staff Services" from the annual meeting booklet, you find that the annual cost of instruction (teaching) is $40,850,000.
Instruction cost (salaries + benefits) per year: $40,850,000
Contract length: 190 days (including 3 convention days, 3 work days, 2 professional development days, and 2 new teacher work days)
Instruction cost per contract day: ~ $215,000
Instruction cost (salary only) per contract day: ~ $150,000

So we trim about $150,000 (12.5% of the target budget cut) by furloughing teachers just one day???!
Hold the phone, Joan! We need to think this through. If we furlough teachers...who actually teaches the kids? Oh...yeah...we'd have to pay substitute teachers. And that cost is about $125 per day per substitute. Let's use 550 as the number of teachers. That sum alone means it would cost about $70,000 to replace the teaching staff, putting a large dent in the cost savings.

A Day Without Administration
Again from the annual meeting data, Administration, Admin Support, Business Admin, and Central Services combined costs the district $14,900,000 per year. Again, let's assume that on average, 30% of total cost is accounted for by fringe benefits.

Admin/Support Services) cost (salaries + benefits) per year: $14,90,000
Admin/Support Contract length: 210 (principals) or 260 days
Admin/Support cost per contract day: ~ $61,000
Admin/Support cost (salary only) per contract day: ~ $42,500

We're just sayin'.....

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Potential Budget Cuts

It's time for a change in how this district does business.
We need to run this budget as if it were our own household and our own wallet. When times are tight, it's time to give up the SeaBass in favor of a nice McDonald's Filet-o-fish.

How about 1 district office newspaper instead of one for upstairs and one for downstairs? Better yet...how about NO subscription. You want a paper to read? Bring one in from home like the rest of us.

A few of us pooled ideas and came up the following 22 suggestions for where to start carving up the 2009-10 budget.

  1. Use the $40,000 unspecified capital project budget
  2. Use the $100,000 District Office Remodel ( move finance downstairs and another department upstairs)...or as much as is unspent. Terry Shimek was right to question it - how much sense does this spending truly make?
  3. Use the remaining $83, 000 Microsoft settlement (2nd half).
  4. Ensure that ALL costs associated with the new High School and UMS are taken
    from referendum dollars. (We've noticed several attempts to use general fund money).
  5. Transfer some of fund balance from other "funds" (e.g.; food service has $500K of fund balance) to the General Fund (be sure it's not impossible to do so, rather than "never been done before") .
  6. Cut the $425/month stipend for the District Administrator.
  7. Unpaid furloughs for school district administration staff only
  8. Negotiate a repeal of administrator and Admin Support increases for 2009-10 (or furlough to make the difference).
  9. Freeze Admin and Admin support staff salaries for 2010-11.
  10. Reduce Administrative/Admin Support positions (e.g., Program Managers).
  11. No vehicle replacements for 2009-11 unless absolutely mission critical.
  12. Put off until 2011-12 any non-critical, non-safety related building [projects (paving, painting, roofing].
  13. $5,000 reduction in capital painting budget. Or...could we skip painting for a year?
  14. Unspecified amount of revenue in field and facilities rental fees. Where does this money go? How much revenue has been generated?
  15. Reduction in the SOAR remodeling project cost
  16. 75% funding for 2nd school liaison officer.
  17. Reduce custodial services in schools.
  18. Review athletic fees relative to area (Big 8?) and statewide fees as well as actual cost per student. Consider raising those fees which tend to be a liability to the general fund.
  19. Re-evaluate some elective classes...if any are significantly un-selected, consider not offering for a year or so.
  20. Allow class sizes to increase at all grade levels. Perhaps set a firm cap at 30 students.
  21. Reduce # of teacher aides where possible.
  22. LAST: cut teaching positions
Future: We need to look at re-evaluation certified staff contracts. We need to raise the floor and put some sort of realistic ceiling in place.

That's our take.

Saturday, October 31, 2009

A Round of Applause...

...to the school board for getting one right this week.

In the 2 weeks since the electors voted to reduce the proposed tax levy by $2M, there were definite signs that the board would make a move to trump the electors and set a levy higher than what the electors voted. Al Slane made several comments, as did Jim McCourt, that were clear indications of an idea to secure legal opinion to produce a resolution declaring that the levy set by the voters was "insufficient to operate and maintain schools".

But, happily, no such motion came forth during Monday's board meeting. In fact, the board voted 7-0 to direct administration to find at least $1.2M in budget cuts, and then 7-0 again to adopt the reduced tax levy set by the voters.

Caren Diedrich spoke that she personally would like to see nothing taken from fund balance. Diedrich indicated that she would vote to take up to $800K (of the $2M levy reduction) from fund balance but not for one penny more. On the downside, Diedrich again referred to the electors' vote on the levy as "advisory". Wrong, Caren!

Jill Camber-Davidson [referring to earlier comments by Diedrich at the Finance committee meeting that the levy reduction mounts to only about $8 per month for each taxpayer] stated that $96 may not seem like a lot, but to many community members, that means a coat and boots for their child.

Al Slane took a moment to qualify remarks he made at last weeks working session, but then answered the bell by stating that, "What's important [from the annual meeting] is the message that came through that the people think we're spending to much and we have to cut back". Slane went on to say that, after looking at statutes, it is clear that preservation of fund balance isn't a rationale to reject the levy set by voters, since the determination on having sufficient funds to operate and maintain schools is based on the current school year. Therefore, asserting that preservation of fund balance because cutting affects future borrowing does not apply.

Phil Frei and Jim McCourt harped again about the fact that some community members were outraged at 5% proposed cuts [$250K] to individual school building budgets, but now they want to cut $1.1M. Both declared that "...there's no way we can cut $1.1M without affecting the kids". McCourt said, "From what I've heard, this is not about us making cuts, but to use the 'rainy day' fund."

McCourt went on further to comment that he is currently working to start up a business, and in his discussions with Standard & Poor ratings, he has found them to be very critical. [Newsflash, Jim...but there's HUGE distinction between reviewing the credit worthiness of some new private business start-up vs. a huge, growing school district.] This was part of a 10 minute McCourt soliloquy that concluded with McCourt's thinly disguised threat that he was , "...still contemplating whether I want to make a motion to raise the levy."

After all that, McCourt motioned (second by Jill Camber-Davidson) to adopt the budget as prepared but we want the impact on fund balance to be not more than $800K.

Al Slane commented that he had a problem with saying, "We should try...". Slane wanted to know within a month whether significant cuts were feasible. He also noted that, " I'm pretty sure that Administration won't propose freezing their own salaries--that's up to us. It's time for us to step up."

Caren Diedrich noted that there was some uncertainly as to whether teaching staff could be furloughed [Annette Mikula was checking into it], but she also noted that, "...we CAN furlough administration and certified staff. At the high school there are 2 principals and 4 assistant principals--surely we can furlough some of them." Diedrich followed that by speaking directly to Culver and Frei and declaring, "I want you to furlough some administration and certified staff and find a couple of hundred thousand dollars."

Terry Shimek, who appears to have seen the light and is starting to act more like the fiscal conservative he proclaimed himself to be during last spring's elections, commented, "Maybe we need to increase class capacities this year and not adding an aide even if a class has 1-2 additional kids. The electors said that they do not want a 12.5% tax increase this year so I'm sure they don't want a 14-18% increase next year. A lot of Sun Prairie people are not making their [mortgage, loan or credit card] payments. We have many more free/reduced lunch kids this year."

John Whalen noted that "Phil and Tim have done a good job over the years with putting extra money into fund balance." [Sheeah....John E! That's because they put some much fluff into the budget! Do you think it was lost on the community that Phil recently (perhaps inadvertently so) announced that he had over-budgeted ($400K) for the costs of the annual short-term borrowing, which really only cost $150K? And where exactly did that $250K disappear to, since your revised budget after the annual meeting only reduced $100K taken from fund balance? Shouldn't that have immediately translated to a $250K reduction...as was pointed out at the annual meeting?]

Phil Frei noted that, "...more than 90% of the budget has already been allocated and will be spent". [We're just wondering here--what do WE know?-- but if the budget is $68M, and only 90% of it has been "spent", doesn't that mean that there is $6-7M available for review? ]

Terry Shimek motioned (second by Jill Camber-Davidson) to adopt the tax levy of $44.25M as voted by the electors. Passed 7-0.

So...all in all, SP-EYE wants to thank the members of the school board for following the wishes of the community. And in particular, we appreciate Mr. Slane, Mr. Shimek, and Ms. Diedrich for making the difficult comments that it's time to make some cuts. We CAN cut some of the fluff out of this budget without affecting the kids. We know it was hard to do, but it gets easier.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

What Are Similar Size Districts Doing Budget-Wise?

The Sun Prairie school board and district administration like to play the role of the lonely victim. Reality is that EVERY school district in the state is facing the same challenges as Sun Prairie. How other school boards rise to the challenge, however, is a distinguishing characteristic.

SP-EYE reviewed the top 5-6 districts both with lower and higher enrollments as ours and took a peek at THEIR budget process. We wonder how come our own board doesn't do this kind of due diligence. These other districts haven't yet removed the words "cut", "reduction", or "freeze" from their vocabularies.

Interesting take on the subject of cuts.

5 districts just larger in size than Sun Prairie
Beloit
Beloit Daily News article 10-7-09

Board gets first look at potential 5.94% levy hike"I’m very concerned about increasing mill rate knowing how many individuals in Beloit are currently struggling," member Shannon Scharmer said.
Initial projections show the tax levy could increase by 5.94 percent, or just under $700,000. The total levy would be $12,484,843.The School District of Beloit board cut nearly $4 million last spring but, like districts across the state, received a whammy when the governor’s budget reduced education funds by 3 percent. "How do you not tax knowing that the way that the state has now rigged the game you can’t continue to reduce to fix this?" he said. "You don’t want to be forced into ‘you have to tax to the limit of your funding position.’"

The board may need to cut another $506,671, but noted he has yet to factor in the federal stimulus money, among other details. He and Thompson also are learning about the district’s staffing needs, which was also brought into focus after the Third Friday Count showed Beloit Memorial High lost 63 students.

Board member John Winkelmann suggested the executive team develop possible reduction items so the board can begin discussions before the budget adoption meeting.Perhaps this is the year the district discusses its priorities with the community and whether it needs to provide everything to everybody, Winkelmann said. For example, he said, does Beloit need to have every Advanced Placement course, or is it OK to let the students take that class elsewhere."We’ve got to think about that question because the ability to pay is not out there right now," Winkelmann said. "Everything is going down." As member John Acomb said, "We’re open to a lot of ideas."

La Crosse
Article on LaCroose budget 7-21-09

The property tax rate for La Crosse public schools would go up by $1.43 under a proposed 2009-10 budget presented to the school board Monday.

The proposed tax rate would be $12.09 per $1,000 of assessed property value, compared with $10.66 in the 2008-09 budget year, according to figures presented by Janet Rosseter, executive director of business services.

District officials expect the $12.09 tax rate to be "the worst-case scenario" for 2009-10 but won't know until factors such as enrollment, state equalization aid and school levy credits are determined. Recent numbers from the state Department of Public Instruction show the tax rate could be closer to $11.70, Rosseter said.

Final figures won't be known until October, when the district's final enrollment figures are in and the state sets its equalized property values. Rosseter used a 2 percent decrease in equalized value.


West Bend
West Bend article

West Bend School District Superintendent Patricia Herdrich blamed talk radio for driving much of the crowd that packed Badger Middle School for Monday's annual meeting, where a recommended 12.1% tax increase was rejected.

West Bend- MKE Journal-Sentinel 10-6-09

The School Board is recommending making $300,000 in changes to its proposed 2009-'10 budget in an attempt to minimize property tax increases. West Bend School District Superintendent Patricia Herdrich said the changes may mean a levy increase of 9% over the 2008-'09 school year, which is still less than previously had been suggested.

Going into its annual meeting last week, district administrators had recommended a property tax increase 12.1% higher than the year before. District electors rejected the recommended levy at the annual meeting, in a vote that is advisory to the school board.
District officials revised its estimated levy increase to 9.9% by the time of Monday's work session for the school board, where they recommended further budget changes.

Half of the recommended reduction in the estimated levy would come from reducing cleaning in buildings. The second largest item recommended by the board would be a salary freeze for district administrators, estimated to save $80,000 in 2009-'10. The board also recommended raising $20,000 in revenue from increasing facility use fees for the community and restricting salaries for custodial and technical staff, for a saving of $50,000.

In an e-mail announcing the recommendations, Herdrich said the changes would mean the district would be levying below state-allowed revenue limits. "This will make the gap larger next year as we plan for next year's reductions," she wrote. "It is highly likely the 2011-12 and 2012-13 budgets will be equally challenging due to loss of stimulus dollars."

Wauwatosa
Wauwatosa NOW 6-17-09

A first look at the Wauwatosa School District's 2009-10 budget proposal reveals many variables, all waiting on firm numbers from state legislators. John Mack, district director of business services, said the current version of next year's proposed $77.2 million budget is one of the most difficult he's ever created because of that ongoing uncertainty.

As of right now, the district's 2009-10 budget calls for a $43.4 million property tax levy, an 8.59 percent increase over the $40 million levy for the current budget. Property tax rates would increase to $8.09 per $1,000 of equalized property value, a hike of 64 cents per $1,000 of value.
Superintendent Phil Ertl said next year's property tax rate ultimately might be lower than proposed, but district officials won't have solid guesses about amounts until the dust settles at the state level. State lawmakers have said they expect a finished budget in July.
Mack said he and district administrators carefully considered each expenditure, including all staffing positions, to make the estimates included in the proposal. At $64.1 million, staff salaries and benefits make up 83 percent of the proposed budget, up from 80.12 percent this year. Mack suggested that School Board members consider reining in staffing costs in the future to help reduce the overall budget.

Neenah
Neenah article

The 2009-10 Neenah school budget calls for a 7 percent increase in property taxes but still shows spending exceeding revenues, a practice that officials had sworn off in recent years. The Board of Education reviewed a draft of the $84.1 million budget Tuesday. It would require the owner of a $150,000 home to pay $1,298 in school taxes. That's $89 more than last year.

The budget has a structural deficit of $600,000. That means if savings cannot be found during the school year, the school district will have to use cash reserves to fund ongoing operations. Neenah had structural deficits from 2003-04 to 2006-07, with the shortfall reaching a high of $3.7 million in 2005-06. The practice was criticized at the time as unsustainable.

"I am not so upset that we might take out $600,000 this year," Lehman said. "We put $3 million into the kitty over the last two years." Neenah's cash reserves rose from $7.9 million in 2007 to $10.9 million this year. The balance was helped by a referendum that empowered the school district to levy an extra $2.6 million in 2007-08, $2.2 million in 2008-09 and $1.2 million in 2009-10 to cover operational expenses.

Neenah's budget accounts for a 1.8 percent decrease in staff (12.65 fewer positions) and a stable enrollment.

5 districts just smaller than Sun Prairie

Oak Creek-Franklin
Franklin NOW article 9-2-09

A Franklin School District resident with a home valued at $200,000 can expect to see a $62 increase in school taxes this fall as residents have approved a 2009-10 budget that includes a tax levy hike of 3.9 percent. About 25 district residents approved the $30.6 million levy at the district's annual meeting last week. Because some factors have not yet been determined, the budget could change between now and when it becomes official later this fall.

The tax rate is expected to increase by 2.9 percent, to $11.35 per $1,000 of assessed property value. The district's total operating budget will be about $49 million, a 2.4 percent increase over last year's $47.8 million budget.

School Board member Dave Szychlinski said it was a tough budget to prepare in light of the recession, especially given many residents' own financial battles. "We know that people are struggling, many people in our community have lost their jobs, and yet we have an obligation to prepare our young people for their futures," he said.

The district was forced to make some tough decisions because of losses in state aid, and officials made about $833,500 in cuts, he said. Next year will likely bring more cuts, Szychlinski added.
Officials also decided not to begin a 4-year-old kindergarten program after the state withdrew funding for start-up programs.

The district picked up about $379,700 in additional revenue by adding 67 seats through the state's Open Enrollment program, which allows non-resident students to attend Franklin schools.

D C Everest Area
DC Everest Annual Meeting booklet

Tax levy increases 0.24%; mill rate unchanged at $9.52.

Wisconsin Rapids
Wisconsin Rapids Tribune 10-20-09

The Wisconsin Rapids School District tax rate will increase for the first time in six years this fall -- the result of falling property values and state aid cuts, administrators said.

District residents will see a mill rate of $8.93 per $1,000 of equalized property value, about 12 percent higher than last year's figure of $7.98. The district's total tax levy in Business Services Director Dan Weigand's proposed budget was about $19 million, about a 9 percent increase from 2008.

Manitowoc

Manitowoc article 10-14-09

At its October 13th meeting, the Board of Education approved a $71.7 million budget for the current school year, a 2.24% increase from last year. The total property tax levy will increase 4.35% to $18.6 million, but the net tax levy rate (homeowners' cost-per-thousand) is expected to be relatively flat due to an increase in area property value overall.

Since budget planning began in February 2009, the Board made $2.3 million worth of reductions to keep the numbers under the state-imposed revenue cap. Cost-control decisions included a reduction of one central office administrator, a 5% across-the-board reduction in supplies and materials, reduction of 5.5 teachers, reduction of 3.5 paraprofessionals, elimination of EXCEL advocates and library aides, and a superintendent salary freeze, among others. Not all union contracts are finalized, but some employee groups have made voluntary concessions in light of the tight budget

Hudson
Hudson website Annual meeting document

Board makes $2.35 M in cuts to avoid a 20.25% mill rate increase. Mill rate of $7.82 represents an 11.06% increase. Tax levy of $28.4M represents an 8.25% increase. Proposal includes reducing

Sunday, October 18, 2009

The Will of the People? Or the Words of the Lawyer?

A hearty "THANK YOU" goes out to the nearly 200 residents who came out to the annual meeting last Monday night to vote on the annual school district tax levy.

But your work MAY NOT be complete.

Tomorrow at 6:30 PM in room 100 of the School District office (501 S, Bird St.), the school board will sit down to finalize the budget and direct administration as to what number to use for the tax levy.

The board/administration was looking for $46.25M.
The people voted to set the levy at $44.25M...or $2M less than what the board/district wanted.

Muddying the waters were the words of the school district attorney, Mike Julka. Responding to an audience question regarding what happens if no levy is voted upon, or if the people vote for a lower (than requested) levy....

According to Mike Julka, attorney present at the meeting for legal consultation, if the electors did not adopt a levy or adopted one that is insufficient to support SPASD operations, the school board will adopt a levy that is sufficient. The board must adopt a budget for the 2009-10 school year no later than Nov. 1.
---The Sun Prairie STAR, 10/13/09


Now, we don't mean to sound the alarm. A reasonable mind would say that the levy voted by the community was not "insufficient", since there is about $8M in fund balance, and in light of last minute information that will increase the amount of state aid and reduce the necessary tax levy.

But...with our school board, past history has shown that we are not always dealing with reasonable minds. Blindly-supportive-of-district-administration bobbleheads, yes....but any voice of reason left the school board table several years ago.

So for that reason, if you can at all attend tomorrow's meeting, you should do so. The school board may still believe that last Monday was all just a bad dream. If residents pack the room to monitor for shenanigans, however, the board just might be reminded that it all happened.




Agenda for10/19/2009 SCHOOL BOARD WORK-STUDY MEETING,
6:30 p.m. at the District Office (Room 100), 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie.
Chair: John Whalen

1. Opening Items
......1.01 Call to Order, Roll Call, Affirmation of Public Notice
2. Discussion
......2.01 Discuss 2009-2010 School Year Budget and Tax Levy to provide direction to the administration for the preparation of documents and materials for the School Board meeting on October 26
3. Adjournment
......3.01 Adjourn the meeting
Note:
Upon reasonable notice, effort will be made to accommodate the needs of disabled individuals through appropriate aids and services. For additional information or to request this service, contact the District Office, 501 S. Bird St., Sun Prairie, WI 53590 (608) 834-6502.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Can You Hear Us Now????

Dear School Board...
We've been trying to communicate to you OUR wishes for some time now. You...who were elected to represent US. But you refused to listen.

And so, on Monday night, the winds of change blew at a gale force. And this time, you can't just ignore the message and rationalize that it comes from just a Couch...or a Fetterly...or a Mealy...or even a stand-up guy, like John Welke, whom you accuse of having ulterior motives. Because it came from almost 200 community members.

This time the community came out in force to attend the annual meeting that you do as little as possible to publicize. And they came out in record numbers. You want to know WHY they came out? Because the WE gave them ALL the information...the WE told them that the tax levy was in the electors' hands---not yours.

We told you that we don't trust you. And we put an exclamation point on it by electing alderman Hariah Hutkowski to chair the meeting, which has historically been the role of the board president.

We told you that it was preposterous for you to be doling out 3.8% (or more) raises to administration and admin support staff when the rest of the world was facing job and wage cuts. But you played Santa with our hard-earned tax dollars anyway. So we voted to cut YOUR salaries by 5% so that you might better understand the pain being experienced by the people that elected you...the people that approved over $130M in school buildings in the past 4 years. The very people that helped you out when you needed it, yet whom you turned your backs on in THEIR time of need.

We told you that the 12.56% mill increase was too much...and to make cuts in the budget. But you refused. But our pleas to use fund balance to lower the mill rate fell on deaf ears. So we voted 124 to 60 to reduce the tax levy by $2M, which should effectively drop your proposed mill rate increase of $1.32 by about 50 cents.

Any questions?
How does it feel to be on the other side of the fence? They say that a picture is worth 1,000 words, and the picture of school board president John Whalen sitting with his back to the community for virtually the entire meeting sure spoke volumes. One resident asked you to explain your rationale for giving huge raises in times of salary reductions and lost jobs. But you all refused to answer her.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

The Numbers You Need to Know

Hopefully many of you can attend Monday's annual elector's meeting to cast your vote regarding the school district budget for 2009-10.

We all want to have the best education possible for our children. But we lso believe that we don't have to break the bank to do so. In tough economic times, we have to be particularly vigilant with regard to spending and impose some fiscal conservatism on our free-spending school board.

We're not anti-education. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. We believe in a strong quality eduication delivered with fiscal restraint and fidelity to funding.

Please keep these numbers in mind Monday:

$46,249,461 - That's the amount of tax the school board proposes to levy. YOURE VOTE decides how much of a levy they can actually set.

$8,000,000 - The amount in "fund balance", some of which COULD be used to offset the tax levy...but your school board voted not to do that.

$5,160,700 - The amount by which district spending exceeds revenues.

$1,454,892 - SPEA(teachers) contract increase

$640,000 - net deficit due to 4K program start-up

$183,060 - The cost of procuring the last installment of high school funds, which should have been taken out of the debt service or special project accounts, but your school board voted to add it to your tax levy.

$161,348 - Total compensation of Dr. Culver

$110,693 - Approximate cost of 3.8% raise for administrators

$110,000 approximate additional state aid from increased enrollment--which has yet to be discussed.

$83,685 - additional Microsoft technology money which COULD have been used to lower the mill rate, but wasn't.

$80,000 - Cost of Admin Support raises (ranged as high as 13%)

12.56% - the increase in tax levy over last year

7.6% - the increase in the Dane county property tax portion

$11.85 - the proposed mill rate for 2009-10 (if you vote to approve the proposed tax levy)

$1.32 the proposed mill rate increase over last year

$0.97 - The portion of the mill rate increase resulting from increases in spending.

$0.36 - The portion of the mill rate increase resulting from high school construction project.

Fund Balance Myths and Legends -
How much $$ is in the Rainy Day fund?

Ahhh Fund Balance. We heard that someone, the other day, asked John Whalen if there was really about $ 730,000 in fund balance. Reportedly, Whalen responded, "I think there's a little more than that." Shame on you, John! As school board president, you KNOW exactly how much was in fund balance as of July 1, and you KNOW the projected fund balance come next June 30.

Shhheeeee...YAH! A 'LITTLE" more than that? Folks, the budget documents in the annual meeting booklet show--very clearly--that as of July 1, 2009, there was a skosh over EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS in fund balance for fund 10, the "General" fund alone! And we say "alone" because--newsflash--the school district budget consists of more than just the "general fund".

District Administration (and the school board) would prefer you stay focused on JUST the general fund, since the property tax levy comes from the general fund and the debt service fund. So..let's take a look at what money is available in all these wonderful funds.


Oh, the board and administration will tell you all kinds of reasons why they can't use fund balance. Let's just stick a few pins into these myths.

Myth #1. We can't use fund balance because it lowers our credit rating!
Reality: Certainly, if one makes a habit of spending down their rainy day fund, it likely would affect the district credit rating. But...newsflash....we are DONE borrowing money, right? We've borrowed all we need to complete the high school and upper middle school. We just finished the 7th elementary school. Oh...they'll tell you (if you ask) that they are THINKING about an eighth elementary school. But that's down the road.

Bottom Line: If we use some of fund balance--no one is suggesting to drain it dry--to lower the mill rate, we will be just fine.

Myth #2. If we use fund balance it will raise the interest rate we have to pay when we need to borrow money.
Reality: For the most part, see Myth #1. Yes, this is potentially true as well. But the board and administration like to use these fear tactics without telling you how big the threat really is. Dropping one "bond rating" classification level might potentially cost us a few hundredths to a few tenths of a percentage point on the interest rate...but that's it. Like as in instead of borrowing at 4.5%, we might have to borrow at 4.55 or 4.6%.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that in 5 years we do need a new school and we have to borrow $20M. Let's say the interest rate is 4.5% for those with an "A" credit rating and we've dropped to a "B" rating. Let's say that a "B" rating earns us a higher interest rate of 4.75%...much higher than actually would be the case. In this scenario, the increased cost (interest paid), over 20 years, would be about $650,000 TOTAL....or about $32,000 per year in additional debt levy.

Bottom Line: Isn't it worth that much to lower the mill rate in tough times for the taxpayers that pay for all this spending?

Myth #3: We might need that money.
Reality: Sure. We might need that money. But just as surely, we might not. We can talk about "maybes" until we are all blue in the face. We have a simple cold hard reality here. This country has been in a deep recession, people are out of work, suffered wage cuts, lost investments, and are struggling to keep their homes. Since these are the fine people that voted to allow us to build these fine schools...isn't it time for the board and the district to help them out?

Bottom Line: We need that money to reduce the mill rate NOW.

Myth#4: We can't use the "fund balance" from other funds.
Reality: All of the other funds are part of the WHOLE school district portfolio. Extra money (positive fund balance) CAN be transferred from one fund to another. In fact, that's one of the powers that a school board has. Of course, they'd rather have you not know that. That way they can shrug their shoulders and say., "I don't think we can do that...those are separate accounts". Many of you folks have separate accounts, too. And you can transfer money from one account into another...right? If they are joint accounts, of course, you may need approval of your significant other account holder.

Bottom Line. Poppycock! The board has the authority to move money from one fund to another . They may need a 2/3 majority to do so. But hey...they always vote in sync anyway. Hell, if synchronized voting were a sport, Vegas odds would have them the favorite to win the gold.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Explaining the Mill Rate Increase


So...by now many of you have become more informed.
You know that the school tax levy mill rate is increasing by about $1.32

But why?

Is it the high school construction? Or something else?
The answers can be found if you pry into the Annual Meeting Booklet"

The total tax levy is proposed to be $46,249,461
The increase in levy over last year is $5,160,700
This is broken down into 2 "portions":
.......The "general budget" levy increase: $ 3,778,246______ $ 0.97
.......The debt service levy: $1,386,766_______ $ 0.36

The high school construction accounts for only $0.36 (28%) of the proposed $1.28 mill rate increase. Clearly, it's not the construction that causing the large increases.
Hmmm...big salary increases coming home to roost?

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

A Not So Beautiful Balloon

The headline of this past weekend's WSJ Sunday Opinion article is, "Up, up and away Dane County tax levy must come down ". Those old enough will surely remember the song our parents listened to (that's right, WE didn't listen to it; that would have been square, man), "Up, Up and Away (in My Beautiful Balloon)", by the 5th Dimension. Well, the property taxes are certainly ballooning, but there's no beauty to it.

What is interesting is that the WSJ Opinion is all up in arms about what amounts to a $38 increase for the average Madison home. If that's got their unmentionables in a bunch...and more importantly, they want US to get our unmentionables in a bunch...how should we feel about a Sun Prairie Area School District tax levy increase of 12.54% that will cost the owner of a $200K home an additional $264.

So now, people, add another $38 onto your property tax.

Thank goodness the Sun Prairie City Council is looking to hold the line on the mill rate.
Wish our elected school board members had similar concerns for the people that elected them.


"This is an increase that I am not comfortable with."
That's what Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk said last week about her proposed 7.9 percent hike in county property taxes.

If Falk is anxious about the biggest jump in county property taxes in more than a decade, just imagine how struggling home and business owners must feel.

And it could get even worse.

County employee unions - especially the Dane County Deputy Sheriff's Association - are balking at 3 percent pay cuts to help the county get through its financial
crisis.

If the deputies get their way - and other unions fight off any pay reductions -
the county property tax levy could jump by 12 percent.

That's nuts.
--Wisconsin State Journal "Sunday Opinion" 10-4-09
Gee...our school board is rising the tax levy 12.54% and we didn't hear a single board member express dismay or shed a tear. At least Falk is acting like she's concerned.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Changing Position on Fund Balance

So...is it OK to use fund balance--often called the "rainy day" account to help lower property taxes for a given year? The following quotes typically have school board members saying "No! Don't use fund balance!". But then, when cornered, it suddenly is acceptable--and even a good idea--to use fund balance to pay for things like the cost of issuing construction bonds.

What's unsettling is how the board and administration argue from both sides, depending on which approach best serves their...dare we say? ... "ulterior motives". When citizens recommend using fund balance reserves, they quickly jump to the defense, threatening dire consequences. But when THEY want to use fund balance, it's suddenly the perfect thing to do and doesn't adversely affect them in any way. It's this inconsistency that's maddening.

Nobody is saying that we should take money out of fund balance EVERY year. We are suggesting that in this unprecedented recession, that if the board is not going to reduce spending, then perhaps the "rainy day" that is always alluded to is already here in the present.



$183,060 from fund balance brought into question
Frei told The Star on Tuesday that the $183,060 taken from the fund balance is to cover the closing costs attached to the bonds.

"Typically those closing costs are included in our debt payment schedule, which is a 20-year cycle," Frei said. "But for the Qualified School Construction Bonds, which is that federal money that we got with no interest or very low interest, they didn't allow us that option. We either had to take it out of the money that we were going to borrow, in this case $22.9 million, or we could take it out of our general fund balance."

The board held a special meeting on Sept. 3 and approved the resolution awarding the sale of $22,965,000 general obligation Qualified School Construction Bonds to J.P. Morgan Securities.

At that meeting, the board voted unanimously to pay issuance costs of $183,060 from fund balance. Board member Jim McCourt was absent from that meeting.

"What the school board decided and I fully support this is this is a one-time payment. We have a fund balance that we've built up over the last few years, it made sense to them to take it out of there versus the other option of taking it out of our construction money," Frei said. "We're not over budget by any stretch, but we are close to the budget and we still have about a year to go on construction for the 8-9 and another six months for the high school, and there are still some unknowns out there."

Frei said it was a good approach to use the fund balance because the money is there, rather than come to the end of the construction and not be able to pay for work on Marshview Road, furniture for the new building, and other construction needs.

Frei added that he is not worried about a negative impact on the district's bond rating.

"Long term, if you continually dip into your fund balance, yes that definitely affects your credit rating. To take a one time payment out of fund balance, I would say has very little or no affect on bond rating," Frei said. "What they look for is the trend, so if you continually dip into it your fund balance, and we have done the opposite-we've continually built our fund balance. I'm not worried about that, and neither is our financial advisor, R.W. Baird."
--Sun Prairie STAR 10/1/09



Stackhouse 9/17/09

"The more money we take out of the fund balance, that affects our credit rating and standing," Stackhouse said.
-- Sun Prairie STAR 9-17-09



Slane 8/20/09

At the end of the 2008-09 school year, the district had a projected surplus of $800,000, which has been placed in the fund balance. The administration is planning to use $200,000 of that surplus to pay a one-time property tax charge-back to the city of Sun Prairie during 2009-10.

School board member Al Slane, present at Thursday's meeting, said that some people in the community have talked about using more of the fund balance for a one-time payment to lower the mill rate.

"I think that's a very bad idea, especially when we have more bonds," Slane said. "I think we should be going the other direction long term. We should be building the balance, not spending it. One of the reasons is because of the bonds. The other reason is because spending that money, it's a one time deal. It's not like if you spend it you're going to reduce the mill rate forever by $2. It's a one-time payment. You don't get it back. I think it's better to save that for a real rainy day."

However, Mealy, who has suggested using portions of the fund balance at past Finance Committee meetings to lower the mill rate, said, "It don't get much rainier than it is now."

-- Sun Prairie STAR 8-20-09



Frei 7/30/09
Frei said the projected end of year surplus for the 2008-09 school year is $800,000, or 1.2 percent of the budget. The surplus will go into the district's fund balance.

"We're still one of the lower fund balances in the state, according to the Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance," Frei said.

-- Sun Prairie STAR 7-30-09



Food Service Fund Balance, Slotten-Bauchamp and Frei 6/25/09

Slotten-Bauchamp said the district anticipates breaking even at the end of the school year, and maintaining the nutrition fund balance of just over $500,000 for the next year.

From that fund, $100,000 will be allocated to purchasing new kitchen equipment in the district and to the remodeling of the current high school, soon to be the 8-9 upper middle school.

"That money is just sitting there," Slotten-Bauchamp said. She added that Royal Oaks Elementary School is in need of new equipment.

"We can augment referendum dollars with district dollars," said Phil Frei, deputy district administrator of business operations.
[SP-EYE note: "augment referendum dollars"? Is that another case of quietly exceeding the $96M referendum limit? ]

At the current time, Slotten-Bauchamp said she is not adding on any more staff.
--Sun Prairie STAR 6-25-09