Yes I will be going to the budget hearing tomorrow. Here is a list of questions I sent to the school district about three weeks ago and will be asking some. Some have been answered because several SC members asked them too. I am posting them here although it is perhaps not that helpful without the original budget packet handed out.
TMS = "Management Solutions" who essentially runs the GMRSD business office and created these materials.
Analysis and Questions re the proposed FY 14 budget (TMS version)
This packet contains 1) An intro with budget assumptions (1) 2) TMS Preliminary line item budget (pp. 2-19) 3.) Another budget that appears to be full funds (20-26) 4.) Salary and operating increases? (p. 27) 5.) Assessment sheet (28) 6.) Grants list (29?) 7.) Revolving accounts (30). There is also a FY 2013 Budget report of current status.
General comments and questions:
1. The TMS line item preliminary budget does not appear to be an “all funds budget”. It totals $17, 257,629.18. The budget on the assessment sheet is an “all funds budget” and totals $19,155,043. Grants, school choice and circuit breaker are then pulled out under “less other revenues” We have not had these revenues outside the budget in the past and just wonder about the rationale. Not criticizing but raises questions about some of the the line items (for example school choice) and how they work etc. Also raises questions about sustainibility but this format in some ways is more transparent in this area.
2. The long term fiscal plan (Table B) does not appear to have been consulted. This may not be true but it certainly appears that way. The budget increase and and town assessments appear to be significantly higher than in the latest version of Table B. For example Table B assumed a budget increase of 2 ½% and a total assessment increase of less than 2% while the TMS budget assumes a budget increase of and an assessment increase of . It seems to me if you are going to start out the process this way there should perhaps be an explanation a bit of evidence that the long term plan was consulted.
3. Not clear how this budget was developed “without administrative input.” Not a criticism, just not clear how it could have been done.
Other comments and questions.
Budget assumptions (page 1)
This seems to contain most of the key revenue and expenditure assumptions. It would be good to have the actual numbers as you do in some cases with totals so one can see if revenues and expenditures meet.
*Minimum local contribution – Municipal growth factor seems logical as initial adjustment. Governor’s budget scuttlebutt clams to be fully implementing the reforms of 2007 (aggregate wealth model) so the minimum contribution may be a bit lower. Unclear however whether this requires proposed state tax increase. IMHO this does not really impact overall town assessment/funding which are far above minimum contribution. Does impact the ratio between Gill and Montague.
* 4% increase in health insurance – basis for this estimate? GIC?
*Salary increase of estimated $781, 005 or 11%. Obviously this is one of the big budget drivers. What is the basis for this.. staff increases or decreases? Steps? Colas? Role of grants?
*School choice funds at $750,000. Is this net in and out? Probably not. I really feel school committee should understand this and how it relates to line items because this method is different than before TMS. Line item in budget was net and there was no school choice revenue on assessment sheet as here.
*Grant funds $700,000. Same issue to some degree. Not clear how this relates to line item estimates in prelim budget, sustainability. Seems like a huge cut compared with your grant list at the end but perhaps not.
*Circuit Breaker $586,334. Same issue Not clear how circuit breaker revolving account works and how use of this revenue source has increased or decreased over time. Obviously this could have an impact on future budgets if GMRSD is reducing assessments with increased amounts that are not sustainable. Not saying this is so but should be considered See revolving accounts. p. 30.
*$300,000 E and D use. This is more than Table B calls for, which is $200,000. Given the already bit gap between assessments in this budget and Table B this obviously needs discussion. When we created Table B DESE raised questions about whether the lower $200,000 was sustainable.
Line item budget..
I have a number of questions but will wait for the budget hearing for most of them and try to send them out in advance. Again, the final amount of $17.257,629.18 is obviously much lower than the “all funds” budget on assessment sheet. Thus it probably includes the use of grants etc to reduce line items whereas on the assessment sheet these are subtracted from the all funds budget. (27). This may be the right way to go but it raises questions about how the line items are calculated and whether these various uses of grants, school choice funds, circuit breaker etc are sustainable. The good news is that the new TMS process allows us to see this better than the old process.
A few picky points… The line item budget is labelled T1T2 but is not the traditional T1T2 as it used to be presented. That was a shorter budget summary sheet. The line item budget is rather hard to follow due to the smaller type face and the way the broader “functions” at the end of lists of line items appear. Maybe just some changes in type face would make it easier to follow. We have had this in the past.
Material on pp 20-26. Not clear to me what this is.
Salary and operating increases. (p. 27)
This provides more detail to support budget assumptions on page one. A total increase of $689,989.66. Again I would want a bit more of a breakdown in terms of how this number is calculated. Especially re salary increases. The comments say “no individual contract increases” so does this not include steps and colas? If not the the projected increase would no doubt be much larger.
Assessment Sheet (28)
TMS seems to have returned to the traditional format. Not my favorite but I think this is good for historical consistency and it is the basis for Table B.
Again, the method is a bit different since the FY 14 budget is an all funds budget. then School Choice, Circuit Breaker and Grants are subtracted. These did not used to be on the assessment sheet but this may work out better. Again raises questions in my mind about relationship between these revenue sources and the line items that appear in the previous budget. Also sustainability issues.
Enrollment seems very low. 783 for Montague and 124 for Gill for a total of 907??? Is this what I am seeing. I thought the foundation enrollment was just under 1,100??
Obviously the assessments and increases are significantly higher than in Table B, the long term plan.
Grants (p. 29)
Very helpful chart on historical use of grants. Does not include FY 14. Why, since they are part of the all funds analysis? Creates the impression that there has been a huge decline in FY 14 which is hopefully not true. Again, need to review for sustainablity.
Revolving accounts
Again, extremely helpful. Need to understand how these work and how they work their way into the budget. For example I assume the $445,613 reported for Circuit Breaker for 7-1-12 is used to fund the $586,334 use assumed on page 1 and on assessment sheet? Maybe, maybe not but if so how does this work and what are the long term implications?
Ditto school choice. I was under the impression we lost money via school choice (more out than in) so how do we get a balance that seems to be used to fund shortfalls in other line items etc. More favorable balance than what was originally assumed?
