Decepticons Targeting SPASD?

Those familiar with the Transformers movie series will know that the Decepticons are in forever in search of the AllSpark....the essence of life for Transformers.  Here in Sun Prairie we have the SPARClers, apparently led by Al Guyant, who shall be dubbed the AlSPARC.  Or...maybe, SPARC-Al?

At this past week's meetings of the full school board and the board's Finance Committee, Sun Prairie's liberal..errr...progressive..."SPARC" group (Sun Prairie Action Resource Coalition made its presence known.  Looks like the comments made previously by John Whalen have born fruit.  Someone has engaged SPARC in what appears to be an attempt to outmaneuver the school board regarding the budget.   This is exactly what we get for allowing Jim McCourt to do what he did autonomously at last year's annual meeting.

The SPARC-Al spoke in opposition to having a 2% levy DECREASE to the tax levy. [Wait...cutting property taxes is bad????]   He used some metaphor about the electrical industry and focused on what he called a 5% reduction.  "We wouldn't accept 95% in our electrical system, and we won't accept 95% for our kids", he said.

The problem we're having is that his speechifying is no less full of half-truths or outright embellishments than any other political candidate.  The proposed 2012-13 budget DOES NOT reduce our kids' education to 95% levels.  In fact, the only "cuts" made were to administrative departments (10%).  And even summed up, those "cuts" don't even reside in the same galaxy as even 1% of the overall $73.2M district budget.

But he kept tossing out that "We won't accept 95% for our kids", hoping to catch the ears of uninformed electorate.  Shame! Shame! Shame!

Don't fall for comments that the school board's proposed budget means only "95% for our kids".  There IS no 5% reduction to education.   There is only a 2% REDUCTION to property taxes.  School programs are fully (100%) funded.

Why can't these political groups speak the truth?  Why must they embark on some never-ending quest to distort information to serve their purposes.

Be prepared for the Annual Electors Meeting to be a SPARClefest.
It is clear, people, that the Annul Meeting has degraded into a war of who can bring the most people to force the school board (at least in their minds) to do their bidding.  We anticipate that SPARC will be rallying a large contingent with the express purpose of taking back the $2.4M in state aid which exceeds that necessary to operate and maintain schools.  Instead of a 2% reduction in the tax levy, they appear hell bent to push for a 2-3% tax levy increase.

Perhaps THAT is the 5% alluded to by SPARC-Al. Giving the $2.4M surplus back to the taxpayers (in the form a tax levy relief) amounts to roughly a 5% drop in the tax levy from what was initially proposed by district administration.

Some SAY that they want to put the $2.4M into fund balance..."for a rainy day".  Yeah ...right....like the district would ever keep it there.  This is the same district that used $600K of 2011-12" surplus (which COULD have been placed in fund balance) to purchases books for 2012-13.  We hear reports that some of these texts will not even be used.

Oh well...as Wayne Campbell would shout, "Game On!"

Teachers Declare They Deserve a 3.1% Wage Increase

Listen...we value teachers.  Really, we do.
But it borders on unmitigated gall for them to rally at the meeting at which the school board's Finance Committee was slated to approve the district's proposed budget for 2012-13 and forward it to the full board for final approval and adoption.

Where have you been?

Caren Diedrich actually got it right when she chastised the large group of teachers in the audience.   She asked, accusingly, "Where the hell were you 4...5....6 months ago?  We needed to hear from you long before our backs were up against the wall.  You cannot wait till the 11th hour."
Can you blames them for not coming off the lake to attend a public hearing?
Diedrich's point is well taken; where WERE these folks at the public hearings on the budget?  Oh...wait...those were during the summer.  Our bad...teachers are off all summer.

Forgive us if we offend...but frankly the whole attitude on display was offensive.

At best, seniors will likely get a 1.5% increase in Social Security

What make you more deserving than anyone else?
Do any of these teacher have parents living on social security?  We guess not.  Do you care about those folks?  The current projections for a COLA (Cost of living adjustment) for seniors on social security is a whopping 1.5% increase.  And that's on an income of less than $20K.  Gee...your 2% doesn't look so bad now does it?

State employees, who have had NO raises since 2008, will get NO RAISES for 2013.  Or likely in 2014 either.  Municipal employees are finding similar territory.  What about private sector workers who haven't even made up ground lost since 2008?

Again, forgive us, but this sense of entitlement is really getting old.  In our humble opinion, you are actually turning more people off than developing a rally around yourselves.

Can we stop with the sob stories?
"I'm not getting paid what my friends get paid, yet I'm more educated and work more hours..."
"I took a pay cut to come to Sun Prairie and it's taken me 10 years to get back.."
"[A 3.1% raise] would make us feel valued..."
"With a 2% increase and insurance changes I will earn less"
"I can't afford to take too many more hits [on my paycheck] before I need to choose something else"

Even curriculum leadership was tossed under the bus vs. coaching!
"We [coach] 4-5 hours per day for 5-6 days each week for a small stipend.  Not trying to bash the CLC stipends, but they don't put in the time that [coaches] do."

Again....do you people realize that people are losing their homes!  We watched as an in-home daycare provider --who may have cared for some of your kids-- lost their home to foreclosure.
You seem to forget that you pay less for your insurance benefits --and get better benefits--than state workers do.   The E/R co-pay for state workers has long been $75....which is STILL more than you pay with an increase.  Maybe save the E/R for...um...emergencies?  You folks get dental insurance--at very low expense, while most of the rest of us have to pay those costs out of pocket.  Are you even aware--do you even care--that state workers have to pay $600/year to get $500-$1000 worth of dental coverage?

The sob stories aren't working.  Many people that did NOT flood the meeting are worse off than you.  Seriously, there's a part of us that wants to say, "If you're not happy, then you know where the door is and watch that it doesn't smack your backside on the way out."  But we shouldn't say that...so we won't.  Because if you're not happy, you're probably less effective in your job anyway.  And this district is not going to be held hostage to making you happy.

It's not just 3.1% either; raises could be as high as 8.1%!
But they won't tell you that, will they?  This is the classic magician's game.  Focus on the raise and maybe people will forget about "the other stuff" they get.  Most of the public do not know that the current teachers contract calls for an automatic 2% "step increase" each year they teach.  Now, some teachers have taught so long that they "fall off the grid" and are therefore no longer eligible for the 2% increase

Then there are the "lane" increases.  Gain 6 credits (2 college courses) and you get a 3% increase!  So a younger teacher who was here last year, gets a 2% pay bump automatically.  If they've completed 6 credits, they get another 3% bump.  And now...2% MORE isn't good enough?  You could see a 7% increase yet you want to demand 8.1%? It's called reality and you need to come to grips with it.

And then there are a ton of other opportunities for additional "stipends" on top of salaries.  It has been estimated that as much as $1.8M per year is divvied out to staff for these other opportunities.   If one adds up budget lines 105,106,107, and 110 (Extracurricular, Summer school, Leadership Council and "Other" Salaries) the total for 2012-13 is $1.9M.   That would translate to over $3,000 for every single SPEA member.

And you're not earning enough?
As we said...we value what you do, but you try our patience.  For a group that keeps saying that you don't do it for the money, it seems to be all about the benjamins.

2 People Does Not a School District Electorate Make

So...why are we suddenly talking about putting money into fund balance this year?
That idea came from TWO...that's right...EXACTLY TWO people who attended the August 16th Budget Hearing.

We seem to recall a certain resident being concerned at the July 30th meeting about "proposals" that come out of the woodwork.  We think this fits that bill.

Oh...and it gets better...those two people BOTH have direct ties to the district.  Hmmmm...sensing a plant scenario here.
We don't need to "out" these folks, but one is currently an SPASD teacher and the other happens to be a citizen representative on the Finance Committee whose WIFE happens to be an SPASD teacher.

Gee...does that mean that when two citizens that normally attend Finance and School Board meetings speak out , THEIR wishes should be taken up by the board?

Kudos to board member Mike Krachey, who sits on the Finance Committee, for sniffing out the whole "let's put money into fund balance" and subsequently making a successful motion to postpone any fund balance discussion until December or January.

Shame on Administration...or was it Finance Chair John Whalen's work....for bringing forward a folly supported by exactly two people who both have ties to the district.  Shouldn't we have a little stronger c=omposition of the electorate before suggesting any moves to the budget?

2012-13 Budget released- are you sitting down?

Is there a doctor in the house, people might be feeling faint.
The school district has finally released its draft 2012-13 budget, and the bottom line is...wait for it....a projected 2% tax DECREASE!

Yes, we do mean the Sun Prairie School District.
Yes...we did say a 2% tax DECREASE.

While there is a natural inclination to give a round of applause to the district, and we're certainly all in favor of applause where it is merited,  you should know some things first.

1. Once again we had a pretty substantial surplus from 2011-12.  (Remember Caren Diedrich saying that the 2011-12 budget was so tight it squeaked?  Seems that was something else she heard squeaking 'cause there was plenty of fluff in this budget) Note that we still haven't heard the total of that surplus, but what we have ;learned is that it was at least $650,000, because they used that much of the 2011-12 budget to purchase textbooks and computers for 2012-13.  So  they want you to pat them on the back because that move helped towards having a decrease for 2012-13.  It's kind of a sham decrease though...because they didn't reduce their spending or cut back anything.

2. The biggest reason for the decrease is that DPI estimates that we will receive $3.8 MEEELYUN dollars more in state aid this year (you might recall, we ranked 5th in money received out of 420 something districts).  Even our hired financial advisors predicted only a $1.2M increase.  That $2.4M extra --on its own-- would amount to about a 5% decrease in the tax levy.

3. What will the board do about raises (closed session discussion Monday night) ?  This budget currently includes (as a "placeholder") about $850,000 from staff salary increases.  Take that money away (did YOU get a raise this year???) and the tax levy drops another 2%.  Now we're not advocating that the board do that, but does Tim Culver need a raise?  The ten members of the $100K club?  Teachers that are already making over $75K per year?  We don't think so.

Any money that is allocated for raises should primarily be allotted to those low on the totem pole.  If we now say that they are no longer teachers, but professional educators, then let's pay a better starting wage.

There...and we did it with just one slide. But if you want to see the district's show, click here:

http://schoolboard.spasd.k12.wi.us/Board.nsf/files/8WBLQ8579FF7/$file/Preliminary%202012-13%20Budget%20Presentation.pdf

Gentlemen...start your checkbooks!

The state's July 1 estimates of equalized aid figures were released today.
Good news for Sun Prairie; not so good for most others.

Last year district administration guessed way too high (aid was $730K less than projected).
This year, they guessed way too LOW.
(Do you suppose, like Goldilocks, next year they might hit the target????  At least within a county or so?)


Estimates from our financial advisors back in March suggested a $1.4M increase in aid over 2011-12.
Actually, the aid estimate for 2012-13 is $3.84M more than 2011-12.

THAT, people, HUGE.
Only 12 (of 426) school districts have a larger %increase in equalized aid.
Only FOUR districts will receive a larger DOLLAR increase over last year.

But don't be planning on a reduction in your property taxes....
You know this district...
if they have money, they'll spend it.
Hell...even if they DON'T have it they'll spend it.

What will they do with $3.84M?  Hell..they could give everyone an 8% raise.

It is, after all, other people's money.

http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sfs/pdf/July1_aid_est_summary_pct.pdf

School Board Puts Cart Squarely Before the Horse

"Negotiating" raises before we know how much revenue we have a
and other expenses....um...as in a budget....makes absolutely no sense.
THAT is putting the cart before the horse. 

On Monday June 25, 2012, the School Board will be going into closed session to "develop negotiations parameters" with SPEA and Local 60.   We have a teensy weensy couple of issues with that.

First--and foremost-- why on earth would the Board be discussing raises before the Board has seen even a peek at the budget? (Raises, of course, is what "negotiations parameters" means, since under Act 10, the only thing which CAN be negotiated is wage increases)

In fact, since we won't know how much state aid we'll be receiving until July 1, the board will be discussing raises before they even know what revenues will be!  Of course, we know the board hasn't seen a budget yet, because the public hasn't seen a budget yet, and if the board has seen/discussed a budget without disclosing it to the public that wouldn't be very transparent, now would it?

Also there might be a teensy tiny error in the agenda since it talks about the PLURAL parameterS...and remember, under Act 10, the only thing negotiable is wage increases.

Taking advantage of overwhelmed new(er) school board members
We have two new school board members (one REALLY new and one relatively new), and this is just the kind of thing the administration likes to do with rookies.  Oftentimes, rookies don't know enough to (or know that they CAN) speak up and say, "STOP!".  The district counts on new members being overwhelmed and just calms them by saying, "we do this all the time".  It doesn't make it less wrong.  It just allows them to get away with it.  These two "rookies" represent one-half of a majority needed to take any action.

What is the all-fire rush, school board?  What would be so wrong about spending like 2 minutes in closed session Monday night? Just long enough to say, "Hey....until we see a budget that accounts fully for revenues and expenses, we are not even going to discuss raises.  Move to adjourn."

Just laying it on the taxpayers.
Unlike a small business that depends solely on revenues on which to base its budget, the district has no problem discussing raises now.  Why? Because if it isn't covered within state aids, they can always tack it on to the tax levy...right?

What does 2% raise mean?
Phil Frei has communicated that he used a "placeholder" of  2% for the 2012-13 budget.  What he doesn't tell you is what dollar amount that translates to.  Just teachers, admin, and Local 60 (not counting Special Ed costs) cost over $32 MILLION dollars.  2% of that figure translates to $640,000, which, in budget terms, means a levy increase of about 1.3%.  Hmmm....that makes things rough if you are trying to keep the tax levy increase under 2.5%, now doesn't it?  Looks like we may have just figured out why Culver and Frei initiated the top secret 10% cut for all department budgets.  Can you imagine a little conversation that went something like, "You guys can have either a full budget or a 10% budget cut and a 2% raise...which would you prefer?"

Shame on you, school board, if you do not immediately vote to table this discussion until the community (and YOU) have seen a budget.

Agenda Item Details

June 25, 2012 - REGULAR SCHOOL BOARD MEETING (Revised), 7:30 p.m. at the Municipal Building, 300 E. Main St., Sun Prairie. President: Tom Weber

  Closed Session

Subject: Go into closed session for the purpose of taking action on closed session minutes of April 23, May 2 (2 sets), and May 3 (3 sets), 2012; and developing negotiations parameters with the SPEA and Local 60 [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)].

Type: Action

10. Closed Session

10.01 Go into closed session for the purpose of taking action on closed session minutes of April 23, May 2 (2 sets), and May 3 (3 sets), 2012; and developing negotiations parameters with the SPEA and Local 60 [Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c) & (e)].

At Last...a Glimpse of the Budget to Be

The School Board's Finance Committee will finally offer a glimpse of the 2012-13 budget this Monday (March 26).  Catch it now, because it because the Committee wont discuss the complete budget until July and the first public hearing will not be until July 30th. Don't get all hopped up on goofballs, though, because--as usual--what is NOT discussed is that of greatest interest...and concern.

2012-13Budget Presentation for 3-26-12

Highlights of the budget include...

REVENUE PICTURE  (extra $350K in aid...all going to debt service)

 The  State is increasing the spending amount per pupil by $50/student The State is giving a special one-time aid (“Per Pupil  Adjustment Aid”  2011 WI Act 32) to districts of $50 per student if the district’s under-levy amount isn’t increased . To ensure that we receive this $350,000, the general levy must be at least $37M.

NOTE:  Last year the General fund levy was $36,025,757 and debt service tax levy of $11,070,101, for a total tax levy of $47,095,858.  This means, according to the district, that already the general fund levy must increase by about $1M (2.8%).


 Using RW Baird forecast model and conservative assumptions, current estimate is for a 4.5% ($1.4 M)
increase in aid for SPASD.  Note here that these are revenues, which are offset by expenses.  The tax levy is OVER those expenses covered by revenues.


 Planned increase in athletic fees of approximately $23,000 and will come forward as information to the School Board
Notice how suddenly we actually get a dollar figure?

COSTS
 The 2011-12 budget used $1.1M in one-time Federal money which is no longer available; therefore, the 2012-13 budget needed to absorb these costs.

 Preliminary budget is based on an increase of 141 students, or 2%.  Note that enrollment increases THIS year do not result in increased state aid.  That comes NEXT year.  For now, this typically represents an equivalent increase in EXPENSES.  Enrollment projection models by UW-Applied Population Lab show a range of 189-329 student increase.  Last year, the enrollment increase was 135 students, or 2%.

 The biggie!  Budgeted 2% salary increase for all.  A placeholder in an amount equal to 2% of last year’s salaries has been included in this preliminary budget until actual allocations are determined through negotiations and/or other Board actions after July 1.

Note...what no one is saying (hmmmm...wonder why) is how much this means in dollars and cents.  Allow us to help.  Last year total salaries amounted to  about $42.2M, which means that a 2% increase will cost us about $850,000.

Cost cutting
 Increase health insurance contributions from 9% to 12% for all employees
 To limit health care cost, redesign health insurance and increase emergency room co-pay for all employees
 All employee groups will pay the same contribution amount  (12%) for dental insurance.
 To reduce dental insurance costs, the district bid out dental insurance and the premiums will go down 7%.
 To limit long-term disability costs, the district bid out LTD insurance and the premiums will go down 29%.
 These will be discussed with the HR Committee in May
Don't get us wrong, we are thoroughly impressed with the board for pushing these behind the scenes.  Finally, we achieve health benefit equity across the district!   These are all awesome things...but without knowing the actual DOLLAR amount, we cannot know how significant these are.  For example, if LTD insurance premiums cost us $100K, reducing them 29$ saves us $30K....which is nice...but a drop in the bucket of a $72-$75M expense budget.

No new programs (unless of course we have another annual meeting surprise)
No additional funding for new programs or new budget initiatives

Debt Levy increase 8%
Based on the debt payoff schedule, the debt levy would increase 8%, and this would increase the overall levy by 2%.
Again...all these percentages...why not tell us what it means in dollars and cents?  Here's our math.  We've shown you ours...will the district show you theirs?
Last year debt levy = $11,070,101
8% increase = $11,955,709
Increase = $885,608


Total levy LY = $47,095,858
885608/47095858= 1.88%
Hmmm...did we round up again? 

 In the preliminary budget, the $350,000 one-time l  special state aid is intended to further reduce debt.


Projected Total Levy % Increase 3% or less

Where's that breath mint I had?

If the debt levy will increase the overall levy by 2%, and they project a total levy increase of only 3%, that means only 1% of the increase coming from the General fund.  Hmm...but we already know that the general fund levy would have to increase by 2.8% in order to get the addition $50/kid aid...right.  If the total levy increases by 2% from the debt levy and the general fund HAS to increase by 2.8%, doesn't that mean a whole lit more than 3%????
This math is as fuzzy as a mint covered in pocket lint.
Oh...and will this "3% or less" be  Diedrich line in the sand?  Or subject to waffles?

When will we hear more?
Finance Committee reviews complete budget in July
5. Public Hearings on the budget: July 30 and August 16


What AREN'T we being told?
1. What about the surplus from this year's (2011-12) budget?  It sure looks like it could be upwards of $500K.  Where is that in this equation?
2. How much we will save from retirements?  Even 5 teachers at $77K, if we replace them all with teachers paid even $40K, that's a savings of $37K each, for a total of $185K.
3. How WILL we deal with the $1.1M of costs in the budget that we paid for last year with the EdJobs money?  We don't have that this year.  Can you say ...tax levy?
4. What's the current wisdom on equalized valuation? Notice how not a peep was uttered? 
5. What happens if the sky falls and UW APL's projection is accurate....how much additional costs will we need for additional kids?
6. Any feedback on open enrollment, given the longer timeline and more flexibility?  Will we lose more (expense) or gain more (revenue)?

Surplus with a Purpose?

Since the district isn't uttering a peep regarding the status of the 2011-12 budget or potential ramifications of the FY2012-13 budget, we will.  We were reviewing the current " EXPENDITURE SUMMARY REPORT BY OBJECT ".

(click to enlarge)

 Let's start with the low hanging fruit.  Unless you've spent the last 4-5 months working on your tan in Florida, then it should come as no big news to you that we've had a pretty mild winter.  And with a mild winter comes huge "savings"...or, as some district folks like to phrase it, "cost avoidances".

Little snow (okay except for yesterday) means little need for snow removal costs.
Warmer temperatures means for less need for building heat.
Milder temperatures also mean less electricity use what with the thermostat not going on and off.
Actually, we looked at the heating degree days data for the winter, and learned that going back to October, the Madison area is running 18% LOWER than the average year.  And when you realize that the school district budget based its budget off of last year's budget (where we had a surplus) and then ADDED 5%, then there's room for a pretty heft budget surplus AGAIN this year.

The pants of this budget are so loose,
we haven't seen this much crack
since the refrigerator guy was here

Like Caren Diedrich, we understood that this budget was so tight that it squeaked.  Actually, it's  looking like this budget's so loose, it's pants are gonna drop.  You've seen it...and you know it's not attractive.

More to the point, once again, it appears that we budgeted WAY more than necessary.  Your tax dollars at work.  Any guess as to what little projects the district will be seeking to fund with your unnecessary tax dollars?  Let's look at the projected surplus from just 3 budget lines.

Substitute Teacher Salaries
The budgeted amount was $1.25M for the entire school year.  Given that school is only in session 10 months, that comes to about $125,000 per month.  In January, we spent $86,000.  Having only spent $440,000 year-to-date (~$85,000/mo), that leaves us with a budget balance of $810,000 for the remaining 3.5 months of the school year.  Unless a whole boatload of teachers are planning on attending week-long conferences, we should EASILY have $250,000 to $350,000 leftover--if not more.

Gas for Heating

(click to enlarge)

The budgeted amount was $305K for the entire school year.  Given heating is usually mainly needed in October through April , that comes to about $50,000 per month.  In January, we spent roughly $40,000.

Having only spent $100,000 year-to-date (~$25,000/mo), that leaves us with a budget balance of $205,000 for the remaining 2.5 heating months of the school year.  And those would be warmer months in an already warmer than average year.  Unless the arctic slides south a few thousand miles, we should EASILY have $80,000 to $100,000 leftover----and likely more.

Electricity
The budgeted amount was $1.2M for the entire school year.  That comes to about $100,000 per month--on average---and we know that costs are heavier from September through June.  In January, we spent $93,000.  Having only spent $560,000 year-to-date, that leaves us with a remaining budget balance of $650,000 for the remaining 5 months of the school year.  While we could have a VERY warm spring in store, it seems likely that we will have over-budgeted by $100,000 to $150,000.

Combined Projected Surplus
From just three budget lines, mind, you....we see what appears to be somewhere between $400,000 and $600,000.

Stay tuned as we peer into other parts of the budget.

Purposefully Opaque?

Sun Prairie STAR Editor Chris Mertes appears to have his undies in a bunch about what he perceives as a lack of transparency in the development of options for dealing with pending elementary space needs (Read: Elementary Task Force).

Perhaps Mr. Mertes needs to remove his head from his assertions and consider the real lack of transparency:  the 2012-13 budget.  

The district already moved the budget process way back.  Normally we see a draft of the budget, or at the bare minimum some assumptions at the first Finance Committee meeting in January.  Here we are halfway through February and not a peep.  In fact, the first glimpse of the General Fund budget is not projected to be revealed until March.

Mr. Mertes, who seems so concerned about spending, might also consider that the district has already deviated from the budget calendar it presented on December 19th, 2011.  According to that calendar, the FTT Committee, which meets monthly, was supposed to review the Transportation Budget in January.

Didn't happen.  In fact, tomorrow (2/13/12) is the February meeting of the FTT Committee, and there is no mention of the Transportation Budget on the agenda.  So the earliest we'll see that is...March.

The 2012-13 school year has already been discussed as being a very difficult budget.  Without batting an eye, we need to absorb more than $1 MILLION that was covered by the dried up Ed. Jobs Act Funding in this year's budget.  And that's just the beginning of the not-so-good news.  The district would appear to be pinning their hopes on the additional Equalized Value stemming from the new Woodman's and other construction.  Is that really enough to cover the school district's structural deficit?  Instead of chasing ghosts, we suggest that Mertes focus on real issues.

2012-13 BUDGET PLANNING CALENDAR

January
 Facilities, Technology & Transportation reviews transportation budget.

Tax Increase On the Table for Sun Prairie?

How come Madison school district, far larger than ours, has already provided the public with a look at what the future holds...but Sun Prairie has not?
Historically, at the 2nd meeting in January, the school board's Finance Committee, chaired by (ahem!) Jim McCourt, has always provided a first look at the budget.  But they're not planning to do that this year.  Why not? Especially when this year we DEFINITELY are in the position of having to finance things that we had money for previously.

Madison schools facing $12.4 million deficit for 2012-13

Last we heard, the district doesn't plan on releasing budget information until late spring.  They are hiding behind last fall's annual meeting FUBAR, but that's just a cover story.  The district doesn't have the greatest news and they want to keep that from the public as long as possible.

And this is just plain wrong.
Instead of the tail wagging the dog, our illustrious school board members need to demand that the district produce at least a preliminary budget report....NOW.  Go ahead...wave your hands, tell us the numbers are only preliminary, but you DO have some idea of what the budget picture looks like.  And you owe it to the community to share it.

We already know (at least those that have been paying attention, that we suffer from some of the problems Madison faces:

Of the $12.4 million deficit, about $3.2 million is tied to disappearing federal stimulus funding for certain positions, such as maintenance and technology workers. The district will have to discuss whether to cut the positions or fund them some other way...

While we have less of a stimulus funds gap than Madison, we still have about $1.1M that will not be available this year.  That means we either need to increase the tax levy, or make some hard decisions about cutting things we added due to stimulus dollars.  And therein lies the whole problem with the stimulus packages.  At some point the cord was going to be cut, and how does a district fund it once the funds dry up?

Really, it sure looks like there is no question that we will have a [yet another] tax increase.  The only question is, how large will it be?

And So the 2012-13 Budget Hurt Begins

Most probably didn't notice this report last week about a close neighbor school district just beyond the Dane Co. line:

Our own school district doesn't plan to bring anything forward regarding the 2012-13 budget until late spring.
Hmmm....why wouldn't they at least show the projected expenditure obligations?

Lodi School District Considers Cuts
District Faces $1.6 Million Budget Hole

That figure represents 12.5% of the entire tax levy for 2011-12!

Slipping One Past the Goalies?

"The district said it won't bring forth a new referendum in April, but it won't rule out a possible referendum in August."

Gee.... let's see...this spring could see a very LARGE electoral turnout....so why wouldn't they do a referendum then...rather than in August, when nobody other than the people that would want to push it through would be around and paying attention?  Kinda makes one wonder...eh?  Be they shenanigans afoot?

Ummm...What About Next Year (2012-13)?

Nobody wants to discuss it.  Well...no one in the district anyway.
Board member Tom Weber has asked the question.  Several community members have asked the question (or touched on it) at a public hearing on the budget.  What's the answer?  Well, first, what's the question?

What does NEXT year's district budget look like?
The state has a biennial budget.  Savvy businesses have business plans and projected budgets for future years.  Why can't we do that?  Oh...sure...district office folks will wave their hands and say that they lack the information.  Or that the state only provides them hard numbers in October.  Or that the dog ate their homework.  Or that they just don't handle provocative questioning all that well. :)

Horse pucky!!!


Because the state has a biennial budget we DO have a pretty darn good idea of what state aids we will receive next year.  Also, since salaries and fringes comprise 80% of the district budget, and the DISTRICT/SCHOOL BOARD control that, then we have a pretty darn good idea of what we might face there...right?  So why can't we at least make some very rough projections?  Hey...here's an idea...why don't we have a section on the district homepage that is a running estimate of the current and next fiscal years' budget picture???

We ARE concerned about the 2012-13 budget be cause we DO have a pretty good idea of what aid we'll receive.  We may get a bit more next year due to steadily increasing enrollment, but otherwise, the biennial budget does not change.  There is also a HUGE spike in the debt levy (you know..paying for those mega schools) due next year.  This year our tax levy increased $675K just for the debt service portion of the levy.  Next year it increases $1.25M.  That alone will means a 2.5% increase in the tax levy next year...without spending one more dime in the general budget.

Since the district won't do it...we took a stab at it.  As always...we welcome the district to point out our errors by showing us FACTS that dispute them.