|
Post by justfacts on Jan 12, 2006 4:10:59 GMT -5
From the plaintalkonline.com site review of the January 10th BOE meeting.
A summary of some BOE discussions;
"One Vote Discussion: Board Vice-President, Loretta Giardina is not willing to support the change to one vote until is becomes a law. Board Members, Douglas Pascarella, Ralph Raymond and Ms. Flanagan agreed not to support the change. Dr. Richman supports the change. Ms. Flanagan brought up the issue of credibility coming off of the failed budget vote of last year. board Member Patricia Zinke was concerned not to have the option if the first vote goes down. Board President, Richard Mallow believes the Board needs to move forward. Holding off on a decision was discussed but the board feels that the decision weighs in putting together the new budget. Dr. Richman stated that $ 20,000. would have to be budgeted for a second election although that number is not exact."
Let's see - that makes Ms. Guardina, Ms. Flanagan, Ms. Zinke, Mr. Pascarella and Mr. Raymond directly expressing a desire to stick with the current Education Department voting laws and regulations which limit Budget votes to a maximum of two. Mr. Mallow and Mr. Presuto seem to not have expressed an opinion. That is at least five members of seven in favor of a second vote - with two members possibly going either way on their vote. Just what is the issue? Five members make the "will of the majority".
It is only Dr Richman, a non-voting Administrator in the School District system that is supposed to follow the directions and guidelines of the BOE, that is trying to mandate a one chance only Budget vote for this community. "Vote YES on what I put forth or else Austerity" - is basically his challenge this year. GOD! we have yet to see his Budget and already he's trying to influence our vote! That tactic comes close to skirting , or it even now violates, the precepts of the Advocacy Law concerning School Budget voting! Again, his quoted price this year for the cost of the second election is $20,000, used in this context almost as a financial threat. (As if , he has suddenly become a cost-conscious person despite not accounting for $10,000 in expense vouchers as reported by Hevesie's audit) But his published price for the second election in the prior year (mailed to each household) was $8,000. As usual, Dr. Richman, as a source of cost information, is quite unreliable and seems to toss out unsupported figures in a way that suits his personal needs of the moment.
The results of this discussion will clearly indicate whether Dr. Richman is running the Board, or the Board is running Dr. Richman. I guess we will soon see.[/b]
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jan 12, 2006 9:29:40 GMT -5
Let me add a few things, also from the review that Plaintalkonline posted
Resignation of the Internal Auditor:
The Internal Auditor firm decided to resign to focus on a different practice of accounting. Dr. Rufo is currently interviewing a new firm.
Perhaps I'm just a bit paranoid, but this throws up a red flag for me.
Community question and answer session:
This newly added feature to the working meeting got off to an explosive start as community members voiced opinions of the lack of involvement that the Board offers the community. The comments were heated and sentiments of “this is not working” (the question and answering session) were heard. At times both Dr. Richman and Mr. Mallow tried to end the session. At one point the Board’s integrity was questioned with Ms. Giardina taking a heartfelt opposition.
This is an old story. This board has been told this for a few years now and they still deny it and get insulted when its mentioned. I guess the truth hurts sometimes. Ive said this before......Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I remember; involve me and I'll understand
As far as Ms. Giardina's "heartfelt opposition" is concerned, as I mentioned in a previous post....if there were rumors like that surrounding me, I would directly address those rumors and quickly dispel them. She has yet to do that. Therefore, I believe the rumors will continue until such action is taken.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jan 12, 2006 11:48:32 GMT -5
Again, observed from the School Board Meeting of January 10th, a quote from Dr. Richman:
"Dr. Richman explained that the funds should stay in reserve for accounts that become under-funded because "you don’t know what the revenue stream would be." He mentioned that only once has the budget passed on the first vote and that is not healthy to do two votes. "
In the Korean war we noted that a man that spoke like that, a 1st Lieutenant "Desk Jockey", was called a man that spoke with a paper a@@-hole" That's because he would create and issue tons of paper "regulations" such as "All uniforms must be clean and pressed at all times" to front line troops. Persons like that were responsible for so many of my friends in service not being around today - that's why I personally can't stand that type of talk from the officious illiterates who mouth it.
For the record - so maybe even Richman may think through the meaning behind the words he has often mouthed - The "Revenue Stream" he refers to is the Annual flow from the pockets of the taxpayers into the School District costs. That has been a School District mandated increase each and every year. This stream has been never stopped, never been cut off, never been reduced, never been diminished, nor has it ever been delayed beyond its projected time of arrival into the books of the District! It has always, I repeat, ALWAYS been increasing. It may have not increased as much as the appetite of some piglets would desire - but it always has increased! This year, we had an increase that is often not as low as it was. But it still was for 20% over the Consumer Price Index for a net 3.96% over the year before! [/b]
How many of you out there would like to be guaranteed at least a 20% over the CPI increase in your wages each year? That amount was about 4% last year and will be about 5.25% this year. Forget about the ugly words Austerity and Contingency. Focus on the fact that it is an increase that the rest of us do not enjoy and are not guaranteed!
As to voting being unhealthy - just who's health has been harmed by voting? The reason for such poor acceptance of the budget that he notices on the first vote is due to something the public has been often telling him and the BOE, both in and out of meetings. - Your Budgets are less than desirable! Enough IS enough!
Saaay! Since Budget increases are always 20% more than the CPI, why don't we all do something much more sensible! Never have a budget vote again!
That would satisfy Dr. Richman many times over for minimizing voting costs - and would always give an operating cost increase to the District of 20% more than the CPI - just like you or I getting a 20% over the CPI raise each year! Wouldn't a 4% raise last year been grand? And what about the prospect of a 5.25% raise this year? Now, that would truly be "BUDGETING" on the part of the School District! Setting up a Budget that meets realistic restraints in income!
Why!, I'd even generously say let there be an automatic 50% over the CPI cap! That comes to any where from a 5.0% to 6.5 % Budget increase each year, depending on the CPI value! Now! , That's Budgeting to a goal.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jan 12, 2006 15:45:37 GMT -5
Going to the Board for the Truth
Mr. Presuto indicated that he wanted a freeze on the $1.7 million in the fund balance. If the fund balance should have a max of 2% of the budget, shouldn't the remaining money be returned to the community to lower taxes?
Because we can't seem to get an accurate answer on the correct amount of the fund balance, could Mr. Presuto's statement then be considered factual? He's a board member, right?
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jan 14, 2006 12:57:16 GMT -5
That Fund Balance Again! Some straight forward facts about ours!
I see that Dr. Richman got his two cents in about the Fund Balance during the last District meeting. He stated that it "needs to be above 2% upward towards 5% of the Budget." That may be opinion but the New York law (Real Property Tax Law, Article 13, Section 1318) clearly states there is a 2% limit on the amount. Like it, lump it or leave it. While it's the "law of this land" - obey it! If only the rest of the State really audited schools and made them keep to the limit! By the way - should anyone want details of what's given here - I'll e-mail them a file of excerpts from reports and articles I obtained from WEB sites. Just ask!
Good Fund Balance management leaves very few surprises in what the Fund Balance will be at the end of the year. So the end of the year need for meeting a "wild-assed-guess" made at the beginning of the year does not exist! Fund Balance is a very controllable item in the School District Budget - if done properly.* That's why I have so little empathy for Dr. Richman's statement of "without dollars in reserve, you can't run a business that way." As you'll see later, in Plainedge there's quite a few dollars in reserve. Dr. Richman has not proven his case with me.
However, did you know there was legislation to change it to 4%? In June of 2002 a bill was passed by the Legislature and Senate (S6520-a./A11024-a) to have the limit go to 3% the first year then 4% the second year. It never got approved! Maybe the experiences in 1989, 1990 and 1991 with an actual 5% limit had something to do with restoring and keeping the 2% limit.
The Fund Balance in many States is yet an open issue. Some States, Michigan for example, have School Board Officials that advocate balances as high as 15% to 20% of the budget. They do this to try to avoid borrowing for a two month period in August and October where State Aid funds are not forthcoming. In New York, we use Tax Anticipation Notes to borrow for the twice as long four month offset between State Aid payments and the Town Tax disbursements in December. This keeps the need for a twice as large Fund Balance down. The last few years the School District has authorized TANs for up to $15,000,000 to cover this longer gap between funds coming in. Therefore, need for extra unencumbered funds is reduced in New York State.
Why do some States feel the need to keep the Fund Balance low? Often, Teachers and other Staff Unions consider a large Fund Balance as a "surplus" at the end of the year which is indicative of how much they can demand in the way of wage increases!
It is no wonder those inside the unbounded system want to see the Fund Balance as large as possible! MORE MONEY FOR MORE RAISES!
As stated by more prudent economists: a fact finding report (November 1991) stated, "A school board should not be penalized for efficiency in operation and the development of a strong financial position by being required to grant wage increases in excess of other districts that are not as fortunate. Taxpayer money does not have to be spent just because it is available."
The situation is further complicated by the fact that all Fund Balances consist of two parts - The Encumbered (committed to a purpose) and the Unencumbered (not specifically committed) portions. It is only the unencumbered amount that is limited. Loose lips on the malportrayers of information often purposely do not distinguish between the two! - And, because few ask for clarification, they use this lack of clarity to their personal advantage. Beware of these half statements used to support an argument.
New York State specifically talks about the 2% limit applying to just the Unencumbered balance. The total balance - often used in setting the demands for a greater percentage - is higher in New York State. In fact, it actually does not have a limit because one item in the Encumbered Fund Balance list of items shows no limit! So technically, but not practically, speaking - the New York limit on "Fund Balances" is unbounded!
Does having a 2% limit on the Unencumbered Fund Balance put anyone "at risk of financial instability" as Dr. Richman stated? Think of this a minute. Doesn't the risk of "Financial instability" in your household come from that job layoff, or sudden illness of the breadwinner? Or from that Tax Bill that you expected to be $5,000 turning out to be $6,500? I know that in my house it doesn't come from having 2% or 5%, or 10% extra cash in my wallet at the end of the year. HEY CHARLIE! Get it straight - financial instability doesn't come from how much I saved - it comes from spending on bills that are much more I planned for them to be! [/i]
Besides, the truth behind the matter is that the dollars in reserve that Dr. Richman mentions is already pretty high for Plainedge. The Operating Surplus and the Unreserved Fund Balance is reported to NY State on an annual basis. For the last few years they have been at a pretty good level - surprisingly enough! So, in reality, Dr. Richman, you've got all you need in the Fund balance - even in excess of what the Law permits! You are holding on to an average 4.62% in Unreserved Fund Balance for the last 5 years according to the information you filed with New York State! And, don't forget, 4.62% of a $57.6 Million Budget is a whopping $2.66 Million! What sort of KeySpan fine do you expect this time?[/i]
From a NY State Report on all School Districts: PLAINEDGE OPERATING SURPLUS 1998-99 1.2% 1999-00 1.9% 2000-01 1.1% 2001-02 -2.0% 2002-03 3.3% UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE 1998-99 3.8% 1999-00 5.4% 2000-01 5.5% 2001-02 3.7% 2002-03 4.7% ======================================================================================================
* Here's the State requirements for use of the Fund Balance by the BOE from the Budget Handbook:
FUND BALANCE One good aspect of budget administration is an accurate prediction of the year-end surplus, the amount of the unreserved fund balance. Year-end surpluses are the result of revenues in excess of expenditures. Information concerning fund balance is particularly valuable to the board of education and the administration when making final decisions about the upcoming budget, since the amount of surplus available has a direct impact on the amount of tax levy needed in the next fiscal year.
A fund balance projection should be stated in February of each year. A revised fund balance projection should then be calculated each month until the next year's budget is adopted. Such information is critical as the board considers a budget for the upcoming year, since the total amount of the fund balance, with the exception of up to two percent of the new year's budget, is used to reduce the tax levy in the next fiscal year.
Fund Balance Management An unpredicted fund balance can have an undesirable effect upon the district's tax rate. it may fluctuate dramatically from year to year, or can be excessively high from year to year. District tax payers are likely to take a dim view of this type of fiscal management. The school administration should start a fund balance projection during the month of January and carry it through the remainder of the fiscal year. The business administrator should submit the monthly projection of fund balance to the board of education for its information during this period.
This entails projecting estimated expenditures for the remainder of the fiscal year against appropriated balances and the review of expected revenues against those estimated when the budget was developed, to determine if there will be an excess revenues or a deficiency. This process should be repeated in February, March, April, May and June, with each succeeding month depicting a more accurate prediction of the final fund balance. ==================================================== P.S. Be sure to check the plaintalkonline.com site for some more on this topic - especially why Stony Brook has a $.0.00 (0.0%) limit of its Fund Balance!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jan 19, 2006 0:49:24 GMT -5
Fund Balance Comments.
There should be a gradual build up of funds for operating a Library or a School from year to year. Why? Not just to have cash on hand for emergencies - but to have cash available for replacement of some long term items that are used daily and will eventually need to be replaced. Computers are a good example; If you just added one, we know it's good for about 3 to 5 years, depending on how you use it and what is your tolerance for some repairs. So, if you just bought a computer you should add money to a fund each year to buy its replacement in 3 to 5 years, or about 20% to 33.3% of the cost of the computer is set aside each year to buy a new one in at the end of that 3 to 5 year period. That is know as "Life Cycle" replacement costs.
That isn't the only way to handle replacing an item. Instead of setting aside the 20% to 33.3% each year and earning interest on the money in a bank account, one could also wait until the unit fails and take out a Bond Issue (loan) to pay for its replacement. Besides causing a higher cost by doing it that way, there is a timing issue. Bond notes have to be put up for a vote. That means it might also take some major part of a year before the replacement item can be bought and brought into service.
Choosing what should be funded by a Bond Issue and what should be funded by a life Cycle replacement fund is an art more than a science. The criterion will vary from organization to organization.
Those that choose to set aside Life Cycle replacement Funds will set up special Capital equipment accounts from excess monies in their General Fund balance. They will commit, or Encumber them, for a specific purpose to be used in a specific time period. When expended for that purpose, or at the end of the time period, any remaining funds accrued from interest or lowered prices on the bought items, are put back into the General Fund Balance to be used for operating or other expenses. The excess now becomes part of the Unencumbered Fund Balance.
The amount of Encumbered Funds will vary from time to time and need to need. About $990,000 was set aside into a Packard Building Repair fund at one time in this District. As the need for this money disappeared with the abandoning of Packard for daily operation, $600,000 of that money was transferred into a Capital Fund to buy a new air conditioner that had not been previously planned for. Later, the remaining $390,000 was rejected by voters for transfer into a New Building Reserve Repair Fund. Therefore it went as Unencumbered Funds into the General Operating Fund. Unless Encumbered, it should be used to reduce the Property Tax Levy next year.
The goal of proper Budgeting is to have no dollars in Unencumbered funds at year's end, and only carefully considered and prudent amounts of funds in reserve for one of nine specific purposes in the Encumbered funds.
The total new funds raised to operate to an approved Budget should be divided up and assigned to their specific budget line item costs (Encumbered) at the very first meeting of the Board. So many dollars set aside for the Teacher's salaries, so many for Annual Staff Salaries, and again some set aside for the Annual Administration salaries. Each and every line item of expense given in the approved Budget should likewise have a monetary amount encumbered for that expense until the total remaining unencumbered new dollars become zero (on paper of course)
As each month goes by, this General Fund should be reviewed line by line. If a particular line item should become overdrawn due to unexpected increases, then other line items yet to be spent should be revised in quantity or purpose to provide the needed dollars to bring the overspent item costs into alignment with the approved Budget "bottom line". Projections should be made as to the longer term impact of these monthly adjustments of individual line items that keep the total budget bottom line at its approved level.
That means there will be twelve opportunities to adjust spending on individual line items against the Budget limit. Since the bulk (about 70%) of the budget is for known fixed price items, negotiated annual salaries, benefits, etc. the variances from expected costs will only occur on a small part of the total budget, say $18 Million out of a $60 Million Budget is subject to change, the other $42 Million has been negotiated as a fixed cost. That simplifies keeping the budget in line. A drastic 5% change in all costs can't be on $60 Million (a $3 Million change) but only on the $18 Million part of the Budget. That's "just" a $0.9 Million "juggling" impact - quite smaller than juggling $3 Million around.
But not all items are affected, and some are down in cost as well as up. And with the chance to monitor, control and correct these changes twelve times in a year many professionally run organizations have the fiscal skills to make sure that the primary objective of Budgeting is meet - the Budget bottom line comes out to exactly what was approved! No more, no less, nothing is unassigned or "Unencumbered".
That is what the major educational facilities - like Harvard, Yale, SUNY Stony Brook, Columbia, etc. do and that is even what the Town of Babylon does with its multi-Billion dollar budget. They have a $0.00 Unencumbered Fund Balance at year's end!
So anyone that tells you they need a 5% Unencumbered Fund Balance at year's end ($3 Million on a $60 Million Budget) is telling you how fiscally incompetent they are. They admit to not being able to control to better than $3 Million on a budget that only has about $18 Million in variable expenses - despite twelve shots at correcting to meet the target! That 17% inaccuracy produced by such a "Fiscal (mis)Manager" is a sure sign of why you'll go broke under their leadership!
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jan 26, 2006 17:29:37 GMT -5
NOTE:
I noticed that Dr. Richman is holding a Coffee Hour focused on "Budgeting 101" on March 13th at the Middle School at 7pm. I urge all to attend that can do so. It should reveal a lot.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Meanwhile, in words from that famous show - "Riddle me this Batman":
How can you have a Budget approved for exactly so many dollars, levy a tax for just that many dollars, spend just that many dollars during the year - report to me at the end of the year in a new Budget the you spent just exactly that many dollars - - - and then have $1.7 Million in "Unencumbered Funds" left over at the end of the Year???
Or even claim to expect a "Fund Balance" of 2%, 4% or 5% left over at the end of the year?
Riddle me this - Where does the money come from? You spent to the limit - or so your paper work says, from whence comes all this extra gelt?
Ah!, The sweet mystery of Budgeting!
A perspective from personal experience: The more Budgets I make, the better I become at the "Game".
From Budgeting 202, Proper Budget Preparation: All, I repeat, all Budgets are prepared by the Department heads with sufficient "reserves" so that, when the big Boss conventionally trimmed your increases by half, you still had extra left over for all your real needs - and any unforeseeable "Contingencies". What the heck does he really know anyhow about your true costs? - He can't even keep track of his own accounts! In industry, and in many arms of the Government, there's a year ending process known as "Spend it or lose it!" That's when the "slush fund", built into and buried in every budget, gets highlighted. If your Department's hidden "fat" (Oh!, Pardon me - money officially known as "Contingency Reserves") is not spent by the end of the last fiscal month - you don't get to keep it in a "Unencumbered Fund Balance" - you lose It. It'll go to another Department that knew well enough how to overspend just the right amount!
From Budgeting 303, Practical Applications: While running a local electronics company in Syosset, I use to tour the Navy Department in Washington D.C. at the beginning of their last fiscal month and get a bunch of last minute contracts from each Department head up to the limit of their spending authorization. When I had enough money from those extra "fat" funds, I'd quit and come back at the end of the month with a bundle of Special Contracts. Those special contracts totaled up to enough to pay for all of next year's overhead costs! All other "Competitive Bidding" during the following year was done with our overhead costs completely covered! Boy!, Were we competitive when we needed to be!
Ed
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jan 26, 2006 23:20:33 GMT -5
Quite honestly, this is what bothers me about the letter writing campaign.
I don't mean this as an insult to those that have volunteered and are working hard on this campaign. I always think its great for those that have the time to spare, use it to do a great service to the community.
BUT, has it ever occurred to anyone to ask the question about the $1.7 mill ( well over the 2% limit)? This campaign needs to start HERE in our own district so that we can get some real answers in stead of smoke and mirrors. Am I off on this? Please, someone feel free to tell me that I am wrong and explain why I'm wrong. I would hate to think that we (as a community) are getting duped into thinking that the government is ALL at fault here and then suddenly extra money is "discovered". Would we look like the fools.
Once we settle our own business, THEN we can pursue alternate means of funding.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jan 27, 2006 2:10:50 GMT -5
Go Plainedge!
You are rightfully concerned. Smoke and Mirrors are taught in Upper Management Course 101.
One keeps one's management position by using several well known principles;
A) Divert attention from your personal goal actions by keeping the troops busy with a "rally round the Flag cause". Apple pie and motherhood help to sell keep-busy campaigns. Hold frequent meetings about "Windmill" topics to keep everyone diverted and ensure that you are in control of all the information. Meetings are your source of power and control!
B) Always, always, be the source of information - even if it is false! You can always blame someone else if caught or defer sticky public confrontations with the claim "You just don't understand the complexities of this topic" But primarilly, be the only source of information! So what if it changes from day-to-day! Most people don't remember that well anyhow! (Or it was their mis-understanding!)
C) Divide to conquer! Creat or use other entities and "boogymen" to blame for any and all problems. Encourage groups and fractions to go after these entities. Tell lies to each group about the other. Pit one subordinate against the other so that they are so busy fighting each other that they never join forces to look at your job and take it over!
D) Encourage campaigns against anything! Make sure that the campaigns sound good - but choose those that are proven not to yield results! Have the troops travel a known and well-worn path so it is easy to monitor them and provide "nudges" at the proper times to keep them in place. And wherever possible - keep changing campaigns before even limited results can be obtained. E) Never trust anyone that knows what they are doing. Guard against them! They will see just how inept you are. If they work in your organization assign them tasks at locations far removed from the center of the real action. Keep them busy with trivia and/or fruitless tasks. If they belong to "outside sources" start smear rumors about them and get a minimum of two of your subordinates to spread the rumors (Never associate yourself directly with these actions)
|
|
|
Post by delilah on Jan 27, 2006 10:33:23 GMT -5
Go Plainedge wrote: BUT, has it ever occurred to anyone to ask the question about the $1.7 mill ( well over the 2% limit)? This campaign needs to start HERE in our own district so that we can get some real answers in stead of smoke and mirrors. Am I off on this? Please, someone feel free to tell me that I am wrong and explain why I'm wrong. I would hate to think that we (as a community) are getting duped into thinking that the government is ALL at fault here and then suddenly extra money is "discovered". Would we look like the fools.
I agree with the above statment wholeheartedly. I have written my letters to Albany and want things to change. However, I was always taught change first begins at home and "we" are so broken and mislead right here in Plainedge. We should really work at uncovering and fixing our problems. Notwithstanding, replacing Richman. I really think the man has no respect for the community. The First step at home, has to be a full account of "Fund Balances".
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jan 29, 2006 17:57:20 GMT -5
Budget Increases vs Tax Bill Increases.
A while back in June of 2005, someone sent me an e-mail wanting to know how the BOE could say that the Budget only went up 8.3%, when her Tax Bill actually went up 10%. She wanted to know who was taking the difference, or lying to her, the BOE or the Town.
As it turns out - NO ONE WAS! This is the problem often encountered when people just pay attention to the Percent increase and don't deal with Actual Dollars involved.
Let's use a simple example from the past budgets - way back when they were almost nice round numbers like just $50 Million. That was almost the case in 2002-03. I'll "fudge" the budget numbers for that year and the next to use simpler rounded numbers so that we can more clearly see what's going on with the different percentages.
Let's say the bottom line of the Expenses for the Budget was a nice even $50,000,000. Now to make that amount up in Income, the BOE fills in State Forms in January to find out the expected State Aid. Let's say that comes to $10,000,000. Fine, now that leaves $40,000,000 to go. Since no Fund Balance money was available to reduce the "Tax Rate" (in 2002-3) the amount of money needed to be raised by a Property tax levy is $40,000,000.
Now, lets skip ahead to the next year, 2003-04. The BOE sees that Budget expenses will increase by $4 Million to $54 Million. That's an 8% increase. When they calculate the State Aid however, they come up with the same amount: $10 Million. That means that the Property tax levy has to make up the difference. It now goes to $4 Million more than it was in the past year. That makes the Property tax levy $44 Million - 10% more than it was the year before!
Anyone looking at their tax bill expecting to find just an 8% increase would find their Tax Bill had actually increased 10% - with no "hanky-panky" on anyone's part.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Let's use some percentage numbers to "fool around with" just to show how this "%" tomfoolery works some more - using today's and tomorrow's Budgets.
Remember, with the Property tax levy being just 80% of the Total Budget, any change in the Total Budget - say 8%, has to be multiplied by 125% (1/0.8) to find out how much the Property Tax levy will be changed! That comes to a 10% change in the levied Property Tax.
With the present Budget to Property Tax ratio of 74.24% the percent increase in the Budget gets multiplied by 135% (1/0.7424) , not 125%, to find out how much the Property tax change will be. So the net effect of an 8% Budget increase - causes the Property tax levy to go up by 10.8%! That's a bit more that 10%, but not too much more.
However, if as rumored, the Administration decides to go with a 12% Budget increase this year, and the State Aid is the same, the Property Tax levied would increase by 16.16%.
Are you prepared? Ed
|
|
|
Post by rinx on Jan 29, 2006 19:51:12 GMT -5
Are you prepared? Ed -------------------------------------------------------------
If the BOE thinks they can get that kind of thing through they're way, way, way off base. Do any of them talk to people in the community outside of their group of friends? sheeeeeeeeeesh! I hope for our kids sake that that number is just a rumor because it will surely go down to defeat.
|
|
|
Post by Go Plainedge! on Jan 30, 2006 9:41:10 GMT -5
Rinx,
In defense of the BOE, I don't think they even are the type to think of the math in that detail. ;D
As far as the 12 ++% increase, Dr. Richman stated in a previous BOE meeting that he realizes that a 12% increase would never pass in this community, based on the current situation we are in. Hem mentioned this when he first proposed that the board consider a single budget vote - all or nothing. I believe this was in September.
Let's see if he is a man of his word and the BOE agrees with him or disagrees with him.
This will be an interesting time for the BOE, whether they realize it or not. Coming off a contingency budget year, they are in a tough position and MUST be confident that the budget presented is as perfect as can be. If mistakes are found or too much of an increase is proposed, it will place them in a very precarious position.
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Jan 31, 2006 10:56:45 GMT -5
What the District has filed with the State for 2006-7[/u] You may hear tales told that State Aid is decreasing for the coming year. This "fact" may have already been told to you by the Administration at one of the recent coffee hours or Board meetings.Here's what the District, using State supplied formulas, calculated that they expect to receive from the State for this coming year. It is "on file" in Albany.State Aid for 2006 -7:_____ $14,551,161Change from last year:_______ $426,410Percent Change:_______________ 3.02%CPI for 2006-7:________________ 2.70%The SITE to go to to see these figures for yourself: www.nysed.gov/stateaid/dist/gov06/280518.htmlThese figures may be revised again in March (typical time) so keep tuned to the site and watch what they put on the Budget to us. [ In 2004-5 the number they used to figure the property tax and that they gave us, $12.5 Million did not match what they told the State $14+ Million. That $1.5+ Million difference made up most of the excess of Income over Expenses for last year - and lead to an Unencumbered Fund Balance excess of $1.7 Million. ]
|
|
|
Post by justfacts on Feb 13, 2006 13:24:43 GMT -5
Be careful of the Statistics.
They don't always tell you what you want to know.
There are dozens of stats you can tap into on the internet, especially on school and school tax information. But watch out – some stats given aren't what they seem to be at first! As an example, take a look at these numbers from the State about the money behind each pupil in various School Districts in Nassau;
District _____________Income/Pupil_____________Property/Pupil
Herricks ____________$ 239,910 ______________$ 535,097 Plainedge___________$ 125,782 ______________$ 355,147 Farmingdale_________$ 128,445 ______________$ 388,548 Massapequa ________$ 169,087______________$ 452,660 Bethpage___________$ 143,325______________$ 517,967
Mineola____________$ 176,553 _____________$ 748,305 Plainview___________$ 161,688______________$ 460,051 Oyster Bay _________$ 487,708______________$1,147,291 Jericho ____________$ 379,428______________$ 879,117 Hicksville___________$ 144,369______________$ 633,223
Syosset____________$ 250,619______________$ 671,830 Locus Valley________$ 459,101______________$ 926,976 Carle Place_________$ 129,438______________$ 692,427 North Shore ________$ 267,643______________$ 954,376
From the above stats can anyone say that the family income from one District is higher that that in another District? Think about this for a moment.
Take a look at Carle Place – its “Income” figure – Do people in Carle Place earn more income than Farmingdale or Plainedge? You can't say!
A clue exists in the “Property” figure. It's almost twice what Farmingdale and Plainedge is and almost the same as Hicksville, which has a slightly higher “Income” figure than Carle Place.
Could the differences be attributed to the higher amount of Rental properties in Carle Place? The multi-family figures for pupils in one house might mean that more students go to school in a particular District than those that go in another District. That would change the Income/Pupil ratio considerably! If a particular District had far less children per house than any other, its “Income/Pupil” rate might be quite high! That same goes for the “Property/Pupil” rate.
Fewer children per household – reflecting a difference in lifestyles between Districts - could make two Districts of the same Income per household level – have widely differing Income per Pupil ratings.
So be very careful when you look at, and talk about, the stats about School performance and the stats and comparisons between School Districts!
The community wealth in back of each student is not a true yardstick to use to equalize the amount of State Aid for schools as the Board of Regents does; and it certainly is not a reliable measure of the quality of education between Districts.[/b]
|
|