The superintendent released his budget changes to balance the 2007-2008 budget. They will be presented to the entire school board on Monday, March 12th. The full document can be found here.
Filed under AMPS, Budget, Local News, School Finance
Why doesn’t the total of the reductions equal $10+ million, which everyone kept citing as the deficit?
The answer to your question is in the first paragraph.
“Dear Board of Education,
The attached is my recommendation for the service reductions required to balance the budget for 2007-2008. They are provided to you for review in advance of my Recommended Balanced Budget for 2007-2008 which will be available on April 12, 2007. You requested that the service reductions be presented to you in advance to provide sufficient time for your study and analysis.”
This is the first step, it is not the “Recommended Balanced Budget,” but a way to get discussion items before the board and the community in a timely fashion. I would think you might applaud that.
As anyone who has followed this stuff should know, A) Doyle’s budget likely reduces the “cost to continue” cuts needed to not $10 million, but to the range of about $7 or $8 million (the $718,790 appears a little optimistic to me, but an ok place to begin); B) The exact figures are never known till after the state budget and the third Friday counts.
Of course recognizing these common knowledge realities would deny you a chance to say something bad about MMSD, so you ignore them and try to induce others to ignorance.
FYI, at the last meeting of the Finance and Operations Committee meeting, Lawrie Kobza, who chairs the committee, asked the administration to present information about the governor’s proposed budget and how what he proposed might affect MMSD.
At that meeting, the Superintendent identified a number of areas in the governor’s budget that might be positive for the district’s budget, thereby reducing the adminstration’s original estimate of the revenue gap. Since the governor’s budget is not final, and the School Board is only beginning to have their budget discussions, at this point in their discussions, I see this as a starting point, and my guess is the Supt. decided to go with the larger number. I’m not sure, but I think the “structural deficit” is in there, and the School Board will need to discuss how much of this to address in next year’s budget as well.
Follow-up – not clear from the Superintendent’s letter to the Board what assumptions were used to get to the $7 million. The morning Cap Times paper mentioned higher-than-anticipated interest earnings, lower projected costs for services, increased from from the state on SAGE, etc. I would like to see the assumptions become clearer over time, beginning with the Board’s deliberations on Monday. I’m expecting, based upon how Lawrie Kobza runs her committee meetings, this will occur.
Whoa! TJ, don’t go ballistic. I just asked a question.
I’m pleased that the reduction doesn’t have to total $10 million.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 285 other followers
Sign me up!