At a special Board of Education meeting tonight, the tax levy was approved, based on the budget approved by the voters in May.
The process was complicated by the difficult economic and political climate, particularly due to the uncertainly regarding federal and state aid.
Based on the Superintendent's estimates that State aid will be higher than anticipated in May, the Board was able to reduce the increase in the tax levy. The original budget called for a 2.54% increase in the tax levy. The actual increase (subject to a computation of the exact amount) will be closer to 2% or 2.1%, with some additional amount going into the district's reserves.
There was much discussion regarding how to apportion the extra money and a compromise was reached to reduce the tax levy increase and to increase the district's reserves as well.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Final Budget Approved
At Tuesday's meeting, the Board of Education approved the budget that we will vote for on May 18. The budget amount totals $26,614,687, a .72% decrease from last year. Due to decreased state aid (the amount of which is still in flux), the tax levy will increase 2.54%. If state aid comes in better than estimated, the tax levy could possibly decrease, but if state aid is less than expected, the tax levy might increase and/or additional budget cuts would have to be made. Regardless of the breakdown between state aid and tax levy, the total spending cannot be more than is approved by the voters in May, assuming the budget is passed then. The Superintendent is confident that the budget projections are conservative and are based on estimates of state aid at the lower end of likely possibilities.
Included as part of the budget are funds to replace school buses which are being used more heavily than previously due to the one-bell system. In the past, school buses have been voted upon separately and the expense would have been in addition to the budget. If they were separate this year as in the past, the budget would actually be less than indicated above.
Additionally, the budget has been prepared without using any federal stimulus money, which will no longer be available. A number of school districts have used their stimulus funds to pay normal operating expenses, and when this money ends, they will have a big budget gap to fill. Chatham's stimulus money has been used for capital projects and has not been included in the operating budget, so when it ends, it will have no impact on our budget.
I support the budget proposal and recommend voting to approve it on May 18.
The budget calendar is available at http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budget/Budget%20Calendar%202010-11.pdf.
Included as part of the budget are funds to replace school buses which are being used more heavily than previously due to the one-bell system. In the past, school buses have been voted upon separately and the expense would have been in addition to the budget. If they were separate this year as in the past, the budget would actually be less than indicated above.
Additionally, the budget has been prepared without using any federal stimulus money, which will no longer be available. A number of school districts have used their stimulus funds to pay normal operating expenses, and when this money ends, they will have a big budget gap to fill. Chatham's stimulus money has been used for capital projects and has not been included in the operating budget, so when it ends, it will have no impact on our budget.
I support the budget proposal and recommend voting to approve it on May 18.
The budget calendar is available at http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/budget/Budget%20Calendar%202010-11.pdf.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Chatham Central Schools budget for 2010-2011
At yesterday's Board of Education meeting the Superintendent presented the proposed budget for the next school year.
The Superintendent and the business office have been working very hard to keep costs down in light of declining enrollments and expected significant and ongoing reductions in state education aid. They have come up with a number of savings and efficiencies in various areas but have also found it necessary to reduce staff, partially through resignations and retirements but also though layoffs. By reconfiguring schedules and leveling class sizes, the district's core educational values will not be negatively impacted.
Overall, as a result, the total budget proposed represents a decrease from the current year of approximately .6%, but due to reductions in state aid (and the amount of the reductions has not yet been fully determined by the state), the tax levy will have to make up the difference.
As the budget proposal now stands, the tax levy would increase by 2.75%.
Some people have expressed concern that this is too high, since inflation this past year was negligible in many parts of the economy (although this may be misleading since part of the low inflation was due to falling housing prices). Should the Board need to reduce the tax levy increase, it would mean further cuts, most likely in staff, since this is the largest component of the budget.
Please take a moment to express your opinion (which is anonymous) by taking the survey on the left. I will forward the results to the Superintendent and the Board for their guidance. You can, of course, post your thoughts to this blog as well (also anonymously if you choose).
The Superintendent and the business office have been working very hard to keep costs down in light of declining enrollments and expected significant and ongoing reductions in state education aid. They have come up with a number of savings and efficiencies in various areas but have also found it necessary to reduce staff, partially through resignations and retirements but also though layoffs. By reconfiguring schedules and leveling class sizes, the district's core educational values will not be negatively impacted.
Overall, as a result, the total budget proposed represents a decrease from the current year of approximately .6%, but due to reductions in state aid (and the amount of the reductions has not yet been fully determined by the state), the tax levy will have to make up the difference.
As the budget proposal now stands, the tax levy would increase by 2.75%.
Some people have expressed concern that this is too high, since inflation this past year was negligible in many parts of the economy (although this may be misleading since part of the low inflation was due to falling housing prices). Should the Board need to reduce the tax levy increase, it would mean further cuts, most likely in staff, since this is the largest component of the budget.
Please take a moment to express your opinion (which is anonymous) by taking the survey on the left. I will forward the results to the Superintendent and the Board for their guidance. You can, of course, post your thoughts to this blog as well (also anonymously if you choose).
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Proposed Capital Project Vote Jan. 12, 2010
The Board of Education held a town hall meeting today presenting the capital projects (details are at http://www.chathamcentralschools.com/district/cap_project.asp).
There are two propositions.
The first is for approximately $5.087 million and consists of a number of projects relating to energy efficiency, safety, Americans With Disabilites Act, infrastructure, and various program needs. This will be financed with no increase in taxes by using funds left over from the previous capital project, federal stimulus money, state aid, and funds from the district's capital reserve. As I've said before, not everyone would agree with each of the individual projects within this proposal, but as a whole, it makes sense.
There are two points I want to make regarding the financing of this proposal. First, the federal stimulus money (approx. $547,000) is a one-time opportunity to be used now. If the funds are not spent by June, they will no longer be available. Secondly, while there has been a lot of press about New York's budget crisis and possible cuts to school budgets, the cuts that have been discussed have been only to operating, rather than building budgets, so the state aid portion (approx. 50%, or $2.5 million) should not be affected.
The second proposition (which can only pass if the first passes) is for $320,000 and consists only of replacing lights on the high school athletic field. It is included in the total $5.087 million. This proposition would be financed $160,000 from the district capital reserve, and $160,000 state aid. If this proposition does not pass, but the first does, then the total amount would be reduced by $320,000, and the amount from the capital reserve and state aid portions would be reduced by $160,000 each.
I am in favor of the first proposition, but think the second is on shaky ground. We already have lights, albeit not what we would like. Twenty events were held under the lights during the fall. Obviously they are doing the job. At this point in our economic cycle, I do not think this is the way our money should be spent.
I recommend voting YES for Proposition One, and NO for Proposition Two.
The vote is this Tuesday, January 12, from 9AM to 9PM in the MED gymnasium.
As usual, in our relatively small district with a relatively small number of voters, every vote will count. While the original $35 million proposal was defeated by a margin of more than 5 to 1 (approx. 800 vote margin), the revised $6 million proposal passed by passed by only 10 (ten!) votes out of more than 800 cast. Please vote!
There are two propositions.
The first is for approximately $5.087 million and consists of a number of projects relating to energy efficiency, safety, Americans With Disabilites Act, infrastructure, and various program needs. This will be financed with no increase in taxes by using funds left over from the previous capital project, federal stimulus money, state aid, and funds from the district's capital reserve. As I've said before, not everyone would agree with each of the individual projects within this proposal, but as a whole, it makes sense.
There are two points I want to make regarding the financing of this proposal. First, the federal stimulus money (approx. $547,000) is a one-time opportunity to be used now. If the funds are not spent by June, they will no longer be available. Secondly, while there has been a lot of press about New York's budget crisis and possible cuts to school budgets, the cuts that have been discussed have been only to operating, rather than building budgets, so the state aid portion (approx. 50%, or $2.5 million) should not be affected.
The second proposition (which can only pass if the first passes) is for $320,000 and consists only of replacing lights on the high school athletic field. It is included in the total $5.087 million. This proposition would be financed $160,000 from the district capital reserve, and $160,000 state aid. If this proposition does not pass, but the first does, then the total amount would be reduced by $320,000, and the amount from the capital reserve and state aid portions would be reduced by $160,000 each.
I am in favor of the first proposition, but think the second is on shaky ground. We already have lights, albeit not what we would like. Twenty events were held under the lights during the fall. Obviously they are doing the job. At this point in our economic cycle, I do not think this is the way our money should be spent.
I recommend voting YES for Proposition One, and NO for Proposition Two.
The vote is this Tuesday, January 12, from 9AM to 9PM in the MED gymnasium.
As usual, in our relatively small district with a relatively small number of voters, every vote will count. While the original $35 million proposal was defeated by a margin of more than 5 to 1 (approx. 800 vote margin), the revised $6 million proposal passed by passed by only 10 (ten!) votes out of more than 800 cast. Please vote!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)