2006-2007 Budget - preliminary draft

[Go Plainedge!]

Click on the link to see the preliminary budget. This is a first draft and is was stated that this size of an increase will NEVER get approved this year.

It doesn't seem to work just yet. Check back, and I will have it available.

You will need Adobe acrobat to view this document

You will also need to copy and paste the link into your browser.

[Go Plainedge!]

ok....here is the preliminary budget that was distributed at last nights meeting. As you will see, the initial increase is set at 13.6 %. However, Mr. Richman stated that there is no way this percentage will get passed. The goal is for under 10%.

[rinx]

Thanks for sharing the info GoPlainedge.
Special Ed is 12% of the budget...WTF?
The Office 1240 Business Admin and Office 1310...What?
Is the 1310 Rent? Huh? ...
I need some help understanding this...Ed you out there?
What's with code 2020? Principles? How many principles are in this district?
Shoot...Eastplain, Schwarting, West, PMS, PHS. Dang that's 5 schools.
2,189,185 divided by 5 schools = 437,837 per school for pricipals? C'mon man, Are there 4 principles in each school? WTF!
Whoa boy! This is going to get good.

[momma3]

I am a little confused. I missed the PTA meeting at West this afternoon. I was told Dr.Richman was at the meeting to discuss the budget. He said , in order to bring back all of the programs cut from last year the budget would have to be around 14% and he knew this would never pass. Again, I was not at the meeting and this info was passed on so please do not quote me as starting rumors. My question, if this is what he said, why is this figure even higher than the budget info posted earlier on this sight. Was anyone else at this PTA meeting? Thanks.

[justfacts]

Rinx and others concerned about this "Draft Budget Information"

There is nothing creditable about the information supplied in this document.

Even in its introduction, as noted by Go Plainedge! - this Draft Budget is introduced as something that will not pass - it's introduced with the caveat that the "REAL" Budget will be under 10%.

Let me be clearer on this - The paper was given out a a "KITED" Budget, one so high that when the "REAL" budget (which will also be too high) is given out it will look like a reduction was achieved. This "Draft" is a deception - a sham - a hoodwink - a waste of everyone's time. Is that clear?

There are numbers in it that are entirely false. It isn't even a "reasonable estimate" of what the operating costs will be, nor does it contain accurate costs of what actual operating costs were. The figures presented in various accounts do not reflect reality. Don't waste your time on this document.

As shown, it would result in a School Property Tax increase of 20% - from $5,949 for the "average" home to $7,137 - or up by $1,188. Those numbers are based on the State Aid being increased by $426,410 as filed with Albany in January, and "OTHER" fund balance transfers remaining at the quoted $1,090,000 level of last year.

It is a perfect example of just how Dr. Richman thinks as he runs this District - and of how little respect he has for the intelligence of this community. I am begining to believe this man is no longer rational in his dealings with the Plainedge public.

Ed.

P.S. Previous documents supplied by the District, to the State, to us, and by other means, clearly reveal and refute the numbers provided in the Draft (or is it DAFT?) Budget. I have copies of those documents upon which I base this statement.

[plainedge13]

I could not agree more! This "preliminary" budget has been presented with an outrageous increase in order to make an 8% increase palatable! If you review some of the line items, the increases are absurd.

[Go Plainedge!]

Let me add a few things that were mentioned at Tuesday's meeting:

NY State demanded an increase in the Retirement section

There were some line items that were miscategorized in the past years. Thus, they will show up on this budget as an increase.


Tonight's meeting should be attended by all that want to express their opinions. Although we had few minutes to speak on Tuesday, the meeting ran MUCH too late.

Now....to add one more thing:

The district concluded that in 2007/2008 Eastplain will be out of room. Three solutions were offered:

1. Redistrict the residents and send the kids to different schools than they would normally attend.
2. Consider using Packard or Pickens (sp) - pending sale/trade with TOB - but that would require money to upgrade the building.

And last but not least.......are you ready for this one.........


3. Add on to Eastplain with the existing money left from the bond. This would have to be put up for a vote as it was never put on the original bond proposal.

The cost for the addition is estimated at $1.2 million. This includes Architects and engineering. However, Ralph Raymond mentioned a valid point. What if the community votes it down. Where does the money come from to pay for the Architects and engineers? The answer - the reserve fund.

My question - If Packard wasn't fixable for the students then, why would it be fixable for them now??

Now about the "leftover" money from the bond: I've been PERSONALLY hearing (directly from Mr. Richman) fluctuating reports about how much is actually left over. A year ago, I was told it's 41 million, Tuesday I heard $2 million. I've been hearing about $800K earmarked for soffit repairs, but have yet to see the repairs.

Can anyone shed some light on these numbers? What is the real amount? Is this Bond money eligible for an audit?

[justfacts]

Rinx - to your specific questions about the account codes.

The State form that really should be used by the District in showing the line items of the Budget is a beautiful document compared to the garbage put out as a "DRAFT BUDGET" by the district. The Form is in an EXCEL spread sheet format - and is extremely understandable. It is called SBM-1 and is available to all off the State Education Department web site;

www.emsc.nysed.gov/mgtserv/budgeting.shtml

Click on the line for the SMB-1 2005-06 form there and feel free to explore the other State information on Budgeting also available there.


Now to the accounts you asked about:

Account 1240: The amounts shown in that category are for the "CHIEF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR" expenses.
1240.15 Instructional Salaries
1240.16 Noninstructional Salaries
1240.2 Equipment
1240.4 Contractual Expenditures
1245.(4)5 Materials and Supplies
1240.0 Total Chief School Administrator.

These all go into the account 1299 for "TOTAL CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION"

Account 1310: The amounts shown in that category are for the "BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION" expenses.
1310.15 Instructional Salaries
1310.16 Noninstructional Salaries
1310.2 Equipment
1310.4 Contractual Expenses
1310.(4)5 Material Supplies
1310.49 BOCES Services
1310.0 Total Business Administration

These all go into the account 1399 "TOTAL FINANCE"

Account 2020: The amounts shown in that category are for the "SUPERVISON REGULAR SCHOOLS" expenses.
2020.15 Instructional Salaries
2020.16 Noninstructional Salaries
2020.2 Equipment
2020.4 Contractual expenses
2020.(4)5 Materials and supplies
2020.49 BOCES Services
2020.0 Total Supervison - Regular School

These all go into the account 2099 "TOTAL ADMINISTRATION AND IMPROVEMENT"

Now that's one great load of accounting BS to absorb! But it does make some things clearer.

The Budget codes are broken down into operating costs for slightly differing Departments. Each department has its own Salaries and other operating expenses mixed together - so salaries alone do not make up the department costs - they are "buried" with other costs!


However, there are no rentals involved in any of this; nor are there any central services - lights, heat, insurance, airconditioning, maintenance, included as charges to the Departments.

"Rental" is a code category. However it is just for Rental Income from property the School District rents to other entities - like BOCES.

Account 2400: The amounts shown in that category are for "USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY" income.
2410 Interest and Earnings
2410 Rental of Real Property, Individuals
2412 Rental of Real Property, Other Governments
2413 Rental of Real Property, BOCES
2414 Rental of Equipmant, Individuals
2416 Rental of Equipment, Other Governments
2440 Rental, Other, Specify
2450 Commissions

These all go into the account 2499 "TOTAL USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY"


Now - wouldn't you, just for once, wish you had that level of detail for income supplied by the BOE to you?[/i]

The information given in the Draft Budgets of the present and past years is often not given in the required detail to properly judge and evaluate budgets. Especially from year to year. This is because the BOE (Richman) account codes are blended, mixed and summarized in ever changing order - permitting no reasonable comparisons.

And, as you have already noticed, this latest Budget paper isn't even worhty of being used for toilet paper - it is such an outlandishly obvious decoy for the next budget.

And to top it off! - Richman does not abide by the limits of the voter approved Budget - he does whatever he wants, even if it violates Budget practices advocated in the State supplied Budget Handbook. None of his reports and their numbers, such as included in this present "Draft Budget", are trustworthy.

Ed. [e-mail]

[Go Plainedge!]

momma3 said:

I am a little confused. I missed the PTA meeting at West this afternoon. I was told Dr.Richman was at the meeting to discuss the budget. He said , in order to bring back all of the programs cut from last year the budget would have to be around 14% and he knew this would never pass. Again, I was not at the meeting and this info was passed on so please do not quote me as starting rumors. My question, if this is what he said, why is this figure even higher than the budget info posted earlier on this sight. Was anyone else at this PTA meeting? Thanks.

Momma:

Maybe I can help.

At Tuesday's BOE meeting, he (Mr. Richman) stated that he knows a 13.6% increase will NEVER get approved. This preliminary budget is just that - preliminary.

The other percentages that you may have seen posted were speculative based on information that Dr. Richman (himself) offered at previous BOE meetings.

As Justfacts stated, why distribute a "preliminary budget" like this? Is this a "test the waters" kind of budget so that when the final budget is released at 10% or less (as Richman also stated) it will get approved? If you recall, this was something we predicted a few months back based on the information we had gathered.

There is no other explanation for releasing a draft document like this. With ANY budget presented, you will have to look deep into it and not just the final percentage to determine if it is a sound budget and if you are ailling to vote for or against it.

[delilah]

Wow this is all great information. Thanks Go Plainedge for all of your help, I work some week nights and find very hard to attend meetings.

It looks like they have $495,000 in Tan's cost an increase of $211,000 what the blazes is that all about? They can only borrow a certain percent each year to get by untill the State pays up. That is an astronomical increase from 04-05 amount of 132,386 (actual) What are they funding? Who are they funding? I am not being nasty, I really would like to understand. A number like that should and would change according to interest rates but nothing warrants that kind of increase. If anyone understands this line HELP!

[justfacts]

delila - with regard to the TAN Budget.

Since I'm the guy that was bought lunch by the guy that bought two of the Plainedge TANs last year, I guess I can fill you in with some info about the TAN costs.

I have documents which show the total of four TANs sold by the School District last year, the amounts of each, and their interest charges. The cost came to a total of $235,985 - that is if you believe Certified Documents as opposed to DrAFT Budgets. From that one can add the cost of a Bond Counsel fee of $615 and then subtract $26,598 which the District has been withholding from the Plainedge Library's operating Funds.

That comes to a total cost for School District TANS of $210,002! - - - a far cry from the DrAFT Budget's claim of $283,700. The claimed cost is $73,698 more than the Certified cost.

That makes the DrAFT Budget increase even larger - to be specific it is $285,000 larger than the certified actuals of last year - Hey! By God! that is more than double the amount of the $211,002 actual cost!

Now interest rates are going up - but not that much. And the needed amount of the TANs obtained last year was $9.05 Million - an amount that should be sufficient for this year. So how does one explain Richman asking for a 235% increase in this category?

One could easily say that he is using the OINK! - OINK! principle. But that is not so. He's using the PAD! - PAD!, OVERSTATE! - OVERSTATE! principle. That's so when he gets around to putting stuffed numbers in the place of these - it will look like he made a great deal of "CUTS" to the few people in this District that still blindly follow his lead - many of them (not all), are on the BOE![/b]

Even for last year's Certified expense of $210,002 for TANs he does not mention that taxes raised for this expense were to the tune of $300,000.

Where did the $90,000 overage go? Why isn't it showing up in this category as a reserve against what he wants to stuff into this pocket during the upcoming year?

Or, doesn't he want to talk about such things? He must be pretty sure that most of us don't know enough about this complex subject to ask these tougher questions. It seems that he does think the average IQ of Plainedge residents matches that of a Grape-Nut! - in fact, wasn't it he who called us the "Jerry Springer" crowd?

So, delilah, if you really want to do something for all of us about this piece of garbage called a "DRAFT BUDGET" you should go out and - cut some hair!

Ed

[Go Plainedge!]

The propoganda compaign continues .....From the plainedge School website:

In our efforts to improve, we continue to make changes in the budget process based on reactions from the community in previous years. This year’s discussions will be led by Dr. Tricia Rufo, Assistant Superintendent for Business and Ms Christine Miller, CPA, District Treasurer.

As of this writing (and it still continues to change), the first draft of the budget totals a 13.64% budget to budget increase.


To help understand this significant increase, we have divided the 13.64% into 3 distinct categories:


1. 6.25% of the increase is due to factors outside of our control. They include:


Utility increase $1,104,281
Liability insurance increase 66,455
Teacher Retirement System increase 908,883
Health insurance increase 677,274
TAN interest increase 211,300
Auditing expense increase 86,450
Special education 537,225


Total: $3,591,868


2. 3.60% of the increase is to add back MOST of the programs and services ($2,066,854) that were removed last year when we had to meet our contingency caps.


3. And, 3.80% of the increase is the remainder of the 13.64%. This includes such items as contracts, equipment, supplies, personnel, etc.


Please understand that these numbers are preliminary and, as such, are subject to change. Each of these categories will be discussed at up coming meetings of the Board of Education and at selected coffee hours and budget workshops.

The Theory: Start them off high so they will like it when we sudenly can reduce it to under 10%

[justfacts]

Go plainedge!

You missed a point in your theory - Create categories that are false!

Since there was an increase in the total Budget last year - just not as much as demanded, why is there now a category to "put back"? What now has been claimed to have been "removed" was never in the final Budget!

Is this something like going to the grocery store with $20 in your pocket and stuffing your basket with $50 worth of goods - then having to "put back" $30 worth of goods?

The next shopping spree starts out the same way, but with $50 - stuffing your basket with $90 worth of goods and having to "put back" $40 worth of goods this time!

MORE is MORE and that's what was given last year - but it seems that MORE is never enough!

When the public, by its vote, decides how much of a budget it approves, that is THE Amount of the Budget.

The amounts asked for in a "wish list" are no longer relevant! They disappear! The Administration must work to what the public approves - not to what it wishes it had! Nor can the Administration keep trying to add it in next year because it failed to get in this year!

A Budget based on what one didn't get, is not a Budget at all.

Some of this Budgetary "logic" falls into the same class of false reasoning about SAVING money by buying an item marked at $100 for $50! There is no $50 saved - since it can't be banked. The raw truth is that the item bought is an item that sold for $50 - never mind what was initially asked for it!

[justfacts]

Budgeting 201

Background Information:
The State required all School budgets be presented as a sum of three components: - Administration, Program and Capital - starting in 1998-99, as defined in Section 170.8 of the Commissioner of Education Regulations. A Uniform System of Accounts was set up to divide the costs among the three components. The goal was to uniformly format the budget information provided to the voters to show changes in the data from the past year. Budget requirements state "The budget must be presented in plain language which best promotes public comprehension and readability." (emphasis added - that's MUST BE, not MAY or SHOULD)


Working with the Budget data given:
That being said let's take a look at trying to compare the present draft budget with the last budget given to us that was in the proper format - the Draft Budget dated June 3, 2005 - signed by Dr. Richman.

Attempting to find if the proper reduction was made in the Administration part of the budget due to the Contingency budget, I looked for the totals of the Administrative portion to be of the Contingency budget to be $5,680,798. Lo and behold! the number on the latest draft budget is $6,350,356 for Administration and Operations!.

What's in the Administration part that doesn't belong there? Oh!, now I see - this latest one threw three Account Codes into the Administration part that belong in the Capital part! Account Codes 1620, 1621 and 1670!
(Why? - you should find that out during the budgeting 101 Coffee Hour)

But say hey! Taking out the total for these three mis-placed items ($3,300,003) lowers the Administration to about half! That can't be right! What else is wrong?

Look below into the "Total Instructional-Related Programs" (? Program ?) part of the new draft budget. There are three items there; Account codes 2010, 2020 and 2070; that were listed in the Administration part of Richman's draft the year before. Putting the total of these items back into the Administration part of this years draft budget to make comparison gives back $2,341,453 more to Administration - for a total of $5,391,806! That's close to $5.68 Million, but it wins no cigar with me.

Imagine paying all your other bills by the "that's close enough" rule? But maybe, when you're in the higher income brackets, that rule does come into play. This seems like a good question for the Budget 101 hour - How close is close enough, either when doing budgets, or paying for groceries at the supermarket?[/i]

So what else is wrong besides this obvious "3 peas shifting between the two walnuts" Shell Game we've just become victim to? The BENEFITS part of the Administration Component is now lumped with the benefits of the Program and Capital parts of the budget in the latest draft budget.

There is no way for the voter to split these in the parts needed to make the new budget comprehensible and readable - as required. Each budget is a separate adventure in trying to guess if cost requirements are being met. Numbers presented are hardly ever the same and categories continue on a "mix & don't match" basis.

Conclusion:
That State went through a lot of trouble to support clear and concise budgeting. Besides setting up objectives and requirements, that set up a Uniform System of Accounts and the guidelines for use of each Account Code in each of the three components of the budget. They've even "automated" the process by freely giving out a down loadable Excel Spreadsheet, called Form SBM-1, which minimizes the work needed to prepare comparable budgets year-to-year. They are very uniform and easy to read. There's no switching of account codes between categories and each part of the budget consistently has the right account codes in it.

Summarizing of accounts is done by the program after the elements are listed. Calculation errors are eliminated. I've downloaded copies for several people who've said "Why don't we use this form?" That also is a question for Budgeting 101. It's use by schools was required to start with the 2006 school budget, why are we not using it?

There has been more cost, confusion and effort each year caused by the BOE making up totally different budget formats and having mixed and non-standard account codes.[/i]

P.S. Has anyone noticed that the "Meals and Refreshments cost of meetings, a $25,900 expense almost everyone said kind of high on a per-meeting basis (over $500 per meeting for 50 meetings per year) now has moved up to $35,400? (That's about $700 per meeting)

Seems whatever the public suggests could go down - actually goes up! That's another suggestion for the budget 101 Coffee Hour - couldn't we make it "bring your own bottled water"? That's more than 7,000 car washes saved!

[patriot2415]

Dear Resident,

At the request of community members the Plainedge Tax Relief Association has drafted a letter for your use in our letter writing campaign. Please use this letter to send to All the Government Officials listed. One letter should be sent to each official. We are hoping that you can dedicate a small amount of time to do this ASAP. The tax situation in Plainedge affects everyone. Your letters will go a long way in helping our representatives deliver our message to Albany. Only as a unified voice will we be heard....Thank you the members of the PTRA


Winter 2006

Dear Plainedge Resident:


Our school taxes are too high and we must demand more state aid for Plainedge!!

We believe we can obtain more state aid for Plainedge if every voter in Plainedge sends the attached letter to each one of the legislators listed.

All you have to do is sign each letter, write your name and address, address and stamp 7 envelopes and send a copy to each of the legislators we have listed for you.

You should receive a response from the legislators you write to within a few weeks. When you receive a response, we suggest you write back again. If you do not get a response, we ask that you resend your letter indicating that you have not heard back.

For more information, or to download a copy of the form letter, you can go to www.plaintalkonline.com or the Plainedge Schools website at www.plainedgeschools.org.

Thank you in advance for your support.

Plainedge Tax Relief Association

The Plainedge Tax Relief Association (PTRA) has been formed by concerned residents of Plainedge to advocate for additional school funding and school tax relief for the Plainedge School District.

Below is a copy of the form letter:

February/March 2006

To:

Governor George Pataki

Executive Chamber

The State Capitol

Albany, NY 12224



Senator Joseph Bruno

Senate Majority Leader

Room 909

Legislative Office Building

Albany, NY 12247



Assemblyman Sheldon Silver

Speaker of the Assembly

Room 932

Legislative Office Building

Albany, NY 12248



Assemblyman Dean Skelos

Deputy Majority Leader

55 Front Street

Rockville Centre, NY 11570



Senator Kemp Hannon

224 Seventh Street

2nd Floor

Garden City, NY 11530



Joseph S. Saladino

200 Boundary Avenue

Massapequa, NY 11758



Senator Carl Marcellino

Room 812

Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247


Dear Sir:

I am writing to express my concern over the state education funding formulas and to request that Plainedge School District receive an increase in state aid.

I am requesting your action on Bill A.7702 which would allow for a regional cost of living adjustment to be applied to the education aid formula. Nassau County school districts only receive 17% of their school funding from the state, while other areas of New York State receive an average of 37%.

Plainedge has no commercial property so the residents have to pay 85% of the school taxes. The state aid to Plainedge for operating costs has decreased every year in the past 6 years – from 25.9% to 18.24% of our school budget. This means the taxpayers have had to pay more, despite the fact that Plainedge has the lowest per pupil expenditure in Nassau County (K-12). Plainedge’s school budget failed in 2005 and the district is now on austerity.

This issue is uniting our community, from Senior Citizens to young adults. We all believe the state must make education funding equitable for all New Yorkers. We also are demanding that the state provide for a special appropriation for high residential districts that have little or no commercial property to alleviate the tax burden in communities such as ours.

Thank you for your help in this endeavor. I look forward to hearing from you soon to tell me what you are doing on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Print Name: ________________________________

Address: __________________________________

Signature of Plainedge Resident: __________________________________________