We received the pivot tables on Monday and spent the next two days reviewing them. Lori made the decision to plug our data into her own model after spotting some problems with the OSPI data. The results are as follows:
Budget Deficit
Governor $2,350,000
Senate $3,822,890
House $3,700,000
Governor $2,350,000
Senate $3,822,890
House $3,700,000
Since the Governor’s budget was built on a projected shortfall of $6 billion that is now $9 billion, we believe that the final version will be closer to the Senate and House version. Though the totals are close the details that result in these numbers are very different. For example, the Senate budget cuts I-728 by $2,980,000 while in the House version it is $1,915,000. They also use stimulus revenue in very different ways to offset the cuts. With these differences and the other budget differences we believe that it will take until late April before the final version will be published.
Though there are still unanswered questions, this information is critical as we begin to make final target decisions and the Board begins the review process. On Monday, the Board made the decision to use a projected increase in fund balance to partially offset the projected deficit. This means that they can keep the original target at $3.35 million and back fill what is needed to balance the budget when the final numbers are known. The good news, because of the increase in fund balance, is that the target number could decrease. Unless things change in the final budget for the worse it should not have to be increased.
The not so good news is that using federal stimulus money for the next biennium may simply put off future adjustments that will be necessary when the stimulus revenue is not available. This problem is further exacerbated by again using fund balance to make up the difference between revenue and expenditures. Oh well, one step at a time and the one we are taking is truly a GIANT step.
We share the budget committee’s report tomorrow and Friday with the small community committee with representatives from the following organizations. The same information will be made public on our web page sometime on Monday the 13th.
· TEA
· PSE
· PTA
· City of Maple Valley
· Greater Maple Valley Area Council
· Maple Valley Black Diamond Chamber of Commerce
· Maple Valley Rotary
· Maple Valley Community Center
These individuals will review the committee’s report and on Tuesday the 14th will share their response to the recommended adjustments with the Board. The Board will use this feedback to review their rating system prior to three straight evenings of work that will result in identifying the adjustments necessary to meet the $3.35 million target. This information will then be shared with the community in three public meetings the week of April 20th for their feedback.
Though a long time in coming, things are beginning to happen rapidly. There is now some light at the end of the tunnel.
2 comments:
I'm just curious why these community groups have anything to do with the school budget. Why are we getting their input and observations? Isn't the budget an internal entity that just the district and state have any say in?
The Board represents the community and wants to hear from them. In many districts, public meetings are held prior to the Board making decisions so that the public can have input into the decision making process. This usually results in special interest groups turning out to support their specific need. Our Board has decided that they want to make decisions prior to being lobbied by special interest groups because they do know more than most staff and community members about the budget. After identifying proposed adjustments, however, the Board has established three dates for feedback meetings. This feedback will be used in follow-up meetings to determine if changes need to be considered as a result of what they learn.
The role of the community group is to provide input before the Board begins scoring the recommended adjustments. They want to hear from this representative group, as opposed to special interest groups, to provide the context for scoring. These individual members of the committee are speaking for their constituencies so the Board will have their questions, concerns, and recommendations to consider as they start the process.
Thanks for asking.
Mike
Post a Comment