Fayette school revenues could drop $16-18 million next year

Fayette County School System Comptroller Laura Brock

The Fayette County Board of Education may well be looking at $16.6-18.6 million decrease revenues over the budget they initially approved for the FY 2010 budget that ends June 30.

That was the news presented at the board’s April 20 meeting.

School board members heard a brief report by Comptroller Laura Brock outlining “best case” and “worst case” revenue scenarios that must be dealt with in the coming weeks prior to the adoption of the FY 2011 budget at the end of June.

As has been customary since the recession began, Brock noted that the figures she provided are estimates only based on the information currently available. That information could easily change, she said.

The school system began the year July 1 with a $185.5 million budget that showed state revenues totaling $93.9 million and local property tax revenue at $91.6 million. But falling state revenues and a 6.25 percent decrease in the tax digest changed all that.

Brock said total revenues under the “best case” scenario were projected at $170.686 million, including $83.478 million in state revenues and $79.738 million in property tax revenues.

As for the “worst case,” Brock projected revenues of $82.111 million from the state and $79.1 million from local property taxes, for a total of $168.681 million.

Other revenue variables such as auto taxes at $6.445 million and transfer, intangible and other local taxes totaling just over $1 million are expected to remain the same in either case.

But that is not the end of the story, noted Superintendent John DeCotis. Local school systems will also be responsible for anteing up $$1.208 million for state-mandated step raises for certified positions such as teachers and another $606,300 in required contributions to the teacher retirement system.

All totaled, the FY 2011 budget will potentially fall somewhere between $16.6-18.6 million below the one adopted 10 moths ago.

Meantime, the school system is projecting a fund balance of $14.92 million as of June 30. Those savings came by way of salary reductions, furlough days and a host of other cost-cutting measures enacted over the past two years.

grassroots
grassroots's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/17/2009
CROCK

New Jersey votes down 58% of school budget.

Voters disgusted with the teachers unions and their annual crying about needing more money and that pink slips are coming this year, defeated the majority of the BOE's budget proposals on the ballot. This hasn't happened in New Jersey since 1976. Governor Chris Christie has somehow managed to overcome the "what about the children" mantra that the teachers unions spiel out on the sympathetic tax payers across the country every spring. In the fall no pinks slips ever happen because they duped the voter once again.
Yes, the voting taxpayers are mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. The teachers unions have broke the bank across the country. Los Angeles is $25K per student actual!
Don't buy their tears in Fayette County either. We (Grassroots) challenge the Fayette County BOE to prove the cost per student is $8940. Let's do an actual independent reality audit. The figure would be closer to $15,000!
Our accounting firm is willing to do it for $1 per student. This is an open challenge.
SPLOSTPOLL.COM

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
CROCK? Grassroots

Why the talk about teacher's unions in a local newspaper like
The Citizen? When I first saw this type of talk in this paper, I asked just what are the unions that Fayette County teachers are involved with? Several responded that they don't have that type of representation. The teachers that I have had the privilege of meeting are hard working, sincere, educated individuals who care about the success of their students. AND FAYETTE COUNTY STUDENTS DO SUCCEED.

Now about this $25K per student in Los Angeles, and $15,000 per student in Fayette County. Click here

Most school budgets include the following in calculating per-pupil cost:
Transportation, Pupil Services, Other Classified Services; Maintenance and Operations (School site); Instructional Related Services; General Administration; Equipment; Classified instructions services; Books and Supplies; Other School Site expenses; All retirement & benefits; M & O by non-school locations; Remaining non-school costs. For the majority of Los Angeles schools, the major funds went into certificated teacher salaries. (After all, they deliver the service) The cost per-pupil is between $12,000(small schools) and $8,000 per pupil. This district has over 700,000 students. I am aware of the teacher salaries here in Fayette County. Please share with us how you or someone is figuring that Fayette County education is costing $15,000 per pupil. Since you represent an accounting firm, I hope you share your cost analysis with the taxpayers.

jevank
jevank's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
Open Challenge?

I will do it for .95 cents per student.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Open

I'll hire it done for $.94 providing I can get someone to do it for $.90!

I plan to have them estimate by using polls. (polls--not Poles!)

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
Interesting editorial judgment here

A downbeat story about the lack of funding for Fayette schools, posted with a picture of comptroller Laura Brock smiling ear-to-ear.

Rather incongruous juxtaposition, wouldn't you say?

allegedteacher
allegedteacher's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/21/2009
Chris P.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. At first, I thought the picture was from a different story and had been inadvertently misplaced.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Alleged

I don't believe it is a picture of the accountant for the budget. It was not identified and no one would be that happy about a fouled up budget!

Maybe this is the Susan somebody involved in the judge stuff?

Is there really someone named "Crook" involved in a divorce by her? That is as bad as being named "Robber Baron Smithski!"

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
Could someone please explain why always confusing?

I quote the following from above:

at 16.6 to 18.6 million decrease revenues over the budget that ends June 30 for fiscal 2010 (Soon).

Does that mean they will be short 16.6 to 18.6 million?
Also DeCotis said we had to ante up 1.814 million more for raises. Why is that not budgeted?

Yet the following quote:

School is projecting a balance in the fund of $14.92 million as of June 30, 2010?

Are they short 16-18 million or only the difference in the shortage and the balance June 30?
If we aren't supposed to understand the details, why publish them?

Plus, what are they going to do about a new budget to be set in June for next year? You know property tax, sales tax, and state contributions are going to be even lower!

I think they know what they have to do and are simply afraid to say but a teeny little at a time. Don't you?
What does the Comptroller say? I fear she isn't allowed to say her opinion.

fc1989
fc1989's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
You have to read carefully

The $16 to $18 million is what the projected shortage is for FY2011 (next year) compared to this year's original budget (FY2010) for budgeted revenues and budgeted expenditures. The $1.814 million in raises are state required step increases for teacher salaries based on years of service. This is an increase the local district does not have control over. In addition, the state retirement system will charge the district more as employer contributions. The $14.92 is what they are projecting the fund balance to be at the end of FY2010 for actual revenues less actual expenditures plus the balance from FY2009. The question is how much of the fund balance should the board use to balance next year's (FY2011). Will the cuts be in programs, personnel, benefits, transportation (reroute buses), athletics, furloughs, shorter school year, shorter teacher contracts, reduce support staff,??????? The super will have his/her hands full. You have to study the docs on the FCBOE eboard reallllllllllllllllly intensely.

Bonkers
Bonkers's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/01/2010
fc1989: Read Carefully?

I did!
First sentence says: that we will be 16-18 million short of 2010 budget!
(doesn't say for 2011 budget in that sentence!)

And what is this stuff about the teacher's raises that they aren't responsible for? If they have to pay it by law, then they are responsible!

Best foot forward appears to me.

fc1989
fc1989's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
Ben should clarify.

Even though it does not say it the $16 to $18 million hole is in the discussion about the FY2011 budget compared to the current year budget. The state legislature is still working on the budget for FY2011. Look at the board agenda https://eboard.eboardsolutions.com/Meetings/ViewMeetingOrder.aspx?S=4067...

Ben should have been more clear.