Voters' Budget Summary FY ' 07

votersofmsad46
BUDGET SUMMARY
FY’07 (2006-2007)

The general budget for FY’07 (2006-2007) is $9,546,753.00 as compared to the FY’06 (2005-2006) budget of $9,038,956.00 which amounts to an overall increase of $507,797.00 , or 5.64% in proposed expenditures.

The State Allocation for Essential Programs and Services (EPS) for FY’07 (2006-2007) is $5,793,897.00, an increase of $477,196.00, or 8.975% over FY’06 (2005-2006) in revenues from statewide taxes.

The Local EPS Allocation for FY’07 (2006-2007), which is the minimal amount the district must raise and assess in local taxes in order to receive the full amount of state dollars is $1,871,500.00 which is a decrease of $1042.00 over FY’06 (2005-2006)

Budget Notes and Highlights

It should be noted that there are no references in the Budget Report or yellow Budget Summary to anything specifically related to a new school project. At the May 24, 2006 Informational Meeting and Public Hearing on the proposed FY’07 (2006-2007) Budget, in a presentation by Superintendent Kevin Jordan, a new school project was not even referred to.

A review of line 69, Board of Directors Expenses prompted the question from the audience as to the reason for the $5378.00 increase in the Purchased Professional/Technical Services, to which the Superintendent explained was for the hiring of a publicist for services related to preparations for a new school referendum. If the community wants a new school, why do we need a publicist to promote it?

It should also be noted that on page 11, Capital Outlay line 1233, in FY’ 06 $200,000.00 was budgeted for Purchased Professional/Technical Services, and there is no request for this purpose in FY’07. How was the $200,000.00 spent?

When asked by the audience for an explanation of line 1234, Purchased Repair/ Maintenance Services $161,925.00 which represents an increase of $151,925.00 over last year the Superintendent stated that some of the request was for repairs to the north academic wing roof at DRHS ($100,000 est.) with the “balance hopefully available for architect’s services to date of referendum” Why isn’t this noted in the Summary?

Approximately $160,000.00 of Revolving Loan Renovation Funds was finally reimbursed to the district. Upon questioning at the May 24th public hearing the Superintendent stated that the monies were not included as revenue. Why was the receipt of the $160,000.00 not reported to the citizens? Why not share this information with the public?

Take note that on lines 1706-1713, Instructional Leadership, there is an additional salary and benefits proposal totaling $66,527.00 to assume the costs related to the Reading Recovery Teacher Leader. In the past this position was funded with Federal funds. Why is this significant change not highlighted in the yellow Summary?

On line 1718, Academic Student Assessment, Purchased Professional Services, $12,300.00. Again, this was not noted in the yellow Budget Summary. Why not?