|
Post by frawg88 on Oct 15, 2005 12:15:35 GMT -5
“Justfacts”
It is YOU who is misinformed and did not pay close enough attention to the discussion, or the paperwork handed out at the meetings. The $78,761 that was included in the school budget for a Librarian and aid was to pay for additional library staff for the High School, to serve ONLY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS before and after school hours and during the other HS librarian’s prep or lunch periods. It had NOTHING TO DO WITH use of school libraries by community residents.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Oct 15, 2005 16:28:27 GMT -5
frawg88 and others; Reply to your above post:
Of course frawg88, you COULD be right about the discussions and paperwork handed out at the meetings. But the minutes of the meetings, especially the Budget meetings, do not reflect that information. Perhaps if you have copies of the paperwork available (as Go Plainedge! did) you could share them with the rest of us to put that topic to rest for once and all.
I for one, would greatly appreciate copies of such authentic paperwork and recounts of the discussions - I'd forward them to Dr. Richman who has apparently forgotten about the cost increase being due to an aid being added.
By the way, an Aid position is not a line item in either proposed budget - for the cost was only added after both budgets were rejected by the community ("Don't spend that much" was their edict when they said no to the Budget) If I remember correctly - the dominant request was "spend something less - anything less!".
The increased cost just for the "Librarian" without mention of and "Aid position" being included, only appeared in the CUTS consideration for the Contingency Budget. Post-Facto, so to speak.
Why would Dr. Richman be interested in this information? Why, he must have been unable to attend, or "otherwise preoccupied" during that meeting! For in his Sworn affidavit in response to Joe Chaloupka's Appeal he responded that this increased cost and need to include benefits was discovered afterwards, during the Contingency Budget CUTs activities, not during budget hearing meetings!!!
As the Attorney for the District has put it in his Memorandum of Law filed in that action:
"The figure originally used for the librarian position was an estimate used by the district for any teaching position. Typically the district is unable to specify the exact cost for a new position in advance. In developing reductions for the contingency budget, the district included the fringe benefit and salary related to this position."
No mention of an "Aid position" was included anywhere in the Attorney's or Dr. Richman's explanation of the cost increase of $13,761 for that Budget item. Both you and elphaba65 should enlighten Dr. Richman as to the true cause of the increase - it might sound better to the Commissioner!
Secondary Discussion: Now I am sure that several members of the community have budgetary experience in commercial endeavors. They, like myself, would have several questions about the formal explanation of the cost increase that was made to the Commissioner.
1) Isn't the $13,761 cost increase partially (or fully) attributable to benefits a little low as a percentage of the Base salary given of $65,000? That's a paltry 21% - far less than the nominal 35% to 50% usually found - and below the ratio for "any teaching position" at Plainedge. Are you sure it is the right number this time? And since this was a "new position" how come it was bounced off the "any teaching position" standard? Are all "new positions" - even for counselors, administrators, etc., to be based on the cost of "any teaching position"? Just a question - what is (or are) the standards?
2) The estimate was stated as based on "any teaching position". Are the teacher's salaries and benefits so constrained? (NOT picking on teachers nor their salaries, just wanting to know what the least, most and nominal values are!) Taxpayers might be interested in these numbers so that one doesn't fight with another who has just heard of one end of the Salary range. After all, the salary data given out by the school last year for the six teaching positions to be eliminated if the budget failed, showed and average salary for just that group of six to be in the high range of $80 to $90 thousand.
3) Why couldn't the District develop a more dependable budget cost for this item by advertising the position during, or before, initial budget planning - instead of waiting until after two proposed budgets had failed? And where did the new number come from that could be stated down the the last dollar in cost? That implies a pretty accurate figure - which is usual only if an offer has been made. The two digit $65,000 number does seem more like and estimate - while the $78,761 number sounds more like a contracted amount!
4) In industry, there is another concept used - "This is what the position is worth to me - no more!" That is what's advertised as the salary range for a new hire. And the department's budget for that new hire always includes the cost of all benefits. Where I last worked the benefit and other overhead costs equaled the salary cost! We dared not base department costs on just salary figures alone!
5) There would be no need, nor any rational basis, for using a different figure from the budgeted amount when planning the cuts; unless commitments had been made or promised to an actual person who was intended to fill that position. Otherwise an "Apples to Banana split" cost comparison is being made!
6) Since no such person was hired, and the position was eliminated (according to the responses to Mr. Chaloupka's Appeal) then only the $65,000 number should be used in the CUTS analysis - as it was the only value used in both proposed budgets and it is the only value that one can make cuts from!
That's a few minor points about just a $13,761 change in the budget - but one heck of a lot of car washes!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Mar 16, 2006 8:19:56 GMT -5
Budget Meeting Update
For the "other" one of the three Budgets that affect Plainedge. The town tax has held the line on increases for the last few years and has been of lowered concern.
But for the Library Budget hearing last night we had scheduled it at the beginning of the meeting because of several "complaining" calls that the callers would be attending the Budget hearing to check up on what was going on.
However, as the meeting began, we found no attendees - so we kept moving the hearing back on the schedule waiting for persons to show up. When none did we finally got around to discussing this year's budget and adopting it.
Despite a lot of adjustments and negotiation, the budget did take an increase this year. Where we could, we adjusted deals with contractors and vendors to retain the same quality of service but shifted arrangements to keep some costs in line, reduce others and accept increases in a few. All the while during these negotiations, the task was to offer the public services that are current with their needs and of the the same quality. Cost reduction options were exercised where available and alternatives explored.
But there were some new costs, such as an $800 payment to the Nassau County Department of Health which never existed before for having a legal in-ground oil storage tank. We wrote to Suozzi the see why these new charges came into effect for taxpayers - "he'll will look into it". And we also started an initiative with the county wide Nassau Library System to have all Libraries investigate these new charges. They may eventually disappear. But for now we have to add them to the bill.
The bottom line is this: To keep the same quality of services this year the Expense portion of the Library budget went up $73,600 or plus 3.35%. And, because there is a $2,500 lesser amount expected this year in special grant money, the Property tax portion of the Revenues will take an added hit. The cost will go up that $2,500 over the Expense increase to make the Property tax raise 3.50%.
For a perspective on this 3.35% Library Expense increase - the State approved level of Contingency Budget increase this year is 4.08% - 0.73% more. (1.2 times the CPI of 3.4%)[/i]
One saving grace behind much of these unavoidable higher costs however, is the ongoing refurbishment plans for all the 40 year old service desks and other furniture. The Reference Desk, the Children's Room desks, the Young Adult section, Replacement Shelving and etc. have all been replaced at no cost to the taxpayers.
All these replacements have been done with outside grant money. This includes the brand new Front Desk! If you have not had the chance stop by the Library and take a look at the new front desk! It too was replaced and updated by grant money without cost to the taxpayers.[/b]
So if you missed it last night, the Library Budget was approved at a 3.35% increase, a tad under the CPI level. The new Budget will be published in detail and mailed to each home in short order. There is a May 8 public hearing on this budget, so come on down for that meeting.
One would hope that all Budget increases could be constrained to the CPI level or less![/i]
|
|