Superintendent of Schools Michael Frechette proposed his Fiscal Year 2011-2012 budget to the Budget Subcommittee of the Board of Education this afternoon. He proposed a "level services" budget for next year, with no increase in supplies and materials and no increase in the number of personnel.
Frechettte's budget of $73.2M is 5.3% higher than this year's with most of that extra cost coming from contractual obligations in existing contracts with the teachers (total teacher salaries would rise from $26.4M to $29.6M), and an increase in the cost of health insurance and other benefits(total benefits would rise from $11.7M to $13.5M).
Frechette highlighted two other areas in the budget which showed large increases. First, the cost to provide professional services (medical, sign language, etc) to students is increasing from $311,000 to $568,000. Second, in this year, no money was budgeted for fuel, as all the fuel was paid for with money held over from the previous year. In the coming year, Frechette estimated that diesel fuel costs would be $537,000.
Potential 9% Increase in City School Costs
The actual impact on the city's budget could be far higher than the 5.3% increase in the cost of funding level services, however. This is because last year's budget included $2.4M in Federal stimulus money which was passed to the City from the State, in lieu of State funding.
If this one-time Federal Stimulus money is taken out of the budget of the current year, the increase in the budget from this fiscal year to next fiscal year is 8.99%.
Carl Erlacher, City Finance Director, was present at the meeting. He did not seem too surprised by the numbers, but was glum about the prospect of such a large increase in City funding, "It's going to be hard."
The next step in the budgetary process is for Frechette to present this budget to the full Board of Education at their meeting Tuesday at 6PM in the Schools administration building on Hunting Hill Avenue. Board members will have until the first week in January to formulate questions to the Superintendent about the budget. He will answer those questions at the Board meeting on January 11 (Council Chambers, 7PM).
The budget approved by the Board of Ed then is presented to the City, which by State law can set the total level of funding, but cannot direct the Board of Education how to spend it.
The Superintendent's budget is available HERE.
The Superintendent's budget is a projection of FY 2011's expenses - there is no projection of where the revenues are coming from. To try to downplay an increase of 9% in expenditures by throwing a possible lost revenue number at the end of the report is misleading at best.
ReplyDeleteLast year, a Federal stimulus grant of $2.375MM was allowed to pass through the State's ECS grant which was reduced from $16.652MM to $14.277MM. Even if the state makes up the pass-thru and keeps the ECS steady at $16.652MM, the Middletown taxpayer will have to make up the $6.04MM increase. An increase of $6.04MM to the FY 2010 contribution of $50.52 that the Middletown taxpayers made, is an increase of 11.96% by my calculation.
Do you think that the State Legislature, with a 20% revenue shortfall, will increase our ECS? Do you even think it will remain the same? If the State reduces our Education Cost Sharing (ECS) grant, then the taxpayer in Middletown will get even more than a 12% increase for Middletown School District operations.
If anyone can correct my assumptions, please respond, because I don't like my analysis of what's coming next year.
Thank you fishmuscle for posting this article. I wonder about the comment that this year's fuel costs were paid with money left over from last year. Wasn't that the reason for all the controversy at the Board of Ed? Aren't they supposed to return funds that they don't use at the end of the year? Are they allowed to hold surpluses and then spend them as they want?
ReplyDeleteThe controversy was simply propaganda by the City. They like to make a lot of noise...wonder what they're trying to distract everyone from on their side? hmmm. As for BOEs, they can spend their appropriation in full anyway they want. Read CT General Statute 10-222 (the law).
ReplyDeleteThen obviously our democratic council and the Mayor must CUT the BOE budget to reflect the monies left over so that the taxpayer is not over taxed. I find it funny how the BOE always asks for astronomical increases, using the guise of "it's for the students" as their mantra. Clearly if they have monies left over it should go to reducing the tax burden on the citizens each year. No extra bonuses, no extra mileage, no re-doing the offices, and no paying the diesel for the next year. I would love to know whats left once again, but Im a realist, I know they wont release that info.
ReplyDeleteDon't try and blame the City Fathers for calling you out. It's an agenda ALL taxpayers should embrace. Reduce frivilous spending, open your books, and streamline government now!