Administrators in Mt. Lebanon School District and others are tackling the budget process a little differently this year, attempting to project financial needs five years out and plan for large forecasted expenditures.
With mounting state economic woes and rising unemployment, Mt. Lebanon and school districts across the state are feeling the pinch. The five-year planning process drafted by Finance Director Jan Klein gave Mt. Lebanon board members a picture of upcoming attractions they'd rather not see. By far the largest forecasted jump in expenses is due to the Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) shortfall, and the costs associated with the high school renovation.
Link: www.thealmanac.net/ALM/Story/04-01-ML-5-year-plan-B
Pages
▼
Thursday, April 02, 2009
6 comments:
PLEASE NOTE: On Blog-Lebo, we do not publish anonymous comments. You must put your name to your words. Include your full name in the text of your comment (usually at the end), and you’ll be fine. Or post from a Blogger account having a public profile that includes your full name. Either way will work. But if you don’t include your name, or if we have reason to believe the name on your comment isn’t authentic, we will not be able to publish your comment.
Why must I use my full name?
When you post a comment on Blog-Lebo, you are making a public statement. Therefore, we require that you accept responsibility for your words. Just like at a public meeting of the school board or municipal government, when you stand to speak on Blog-Lebo, you must state your full name. That way, everyone will know who is speaking, and you will know that you’re responsible for what you say.
The District has a new BUDGET web page:
ReplyDeletewww.mtlsd.org/district/budget/default.asp
The available forecasts on the site are for the coming year (2009-2010) +5, or a total of 6 years, through 2012-2013.
The forecasts for net millage increases for the 6 budget years range from 21.2% to 55.9%.
Forecast #1 (21.2% increase) assumptions include: no funding from the general fund for retiree healthcare, the pension fund or an updated high school.
Forecast #2 (40.5% increase) assumptions include: no funding from the general fund for retiree healthcare or the pension fund and $117 in new debt for an updated high school.
Forecast #3 (55.9% increase), assumptions include: no funding from the general fund for retiree healthcare, a projected mandatory increase in pension funding and $117 in new debt for an updated high school.
It is outstanding that we are estimating our revenue and expenses forward.
The article didn't mention Jan Klein's 2014-2015 estimated millage rates of 33.46 without PSERS and 37.13 with PSERS.
ReplyDeleteFor reference, we now pay 23.81 mills.
If the school renovation doesn't drive out the low-income folks,the PSERS increase will.
The unintended consequences are, some higher income folks might be forced out as well.
Great and long overdue!
ReplyDeleteOur governing bodies do themselves and their constituents a disservice when they lurch from budget year to budget year without a reasoned guess at what the longer term financial picture will look like. The PSERS deficit has been a visibly developing disaster and we're a little late in shining a light on it, but better late than never?
We've grown very short-sighted over the past few decades (that's a very inclusive we - industry, govt and individuals), to our detriment.
Mary Beth Sklar
Does anyone else see, none of the forecasts include funding from the general fund for retiree healthcare?
ReplyDeletePerhaps it should be shown on forecast #4.
Mary Beth,
ReplyDeleteDo you think the board wanted to wait until the high school renovation option was selected before coming up with the 5 year forecast?
The board couldn't allow a pension increase to get in the way of construction progress.
Of course, now we'll have to throw another $10,000+ & moving expenses bone in order to attract a talented superintendent who will fly the coop in another two years.
CORRECTION
ReplyDeleteIt was brought to my attention that the "last" forecasted year on the District's spreadsheet is actually 2014-2015, not 2012-2013 as shown on the report. An adminstrative error on the District's part and a dumb one on mine.