The Board is having a multi-topic Work Session today with an update on the Families and Education levy, more Board policies and a presentation to the Board on the 2025-2016 Budget.
know if it's because I don't read many budgets but I am finding this
presentation documentation hard to understand.
It appears - on page 10 -
that the district is trying to pay for "strategic initiatives/grant
backfill" to about $5M. Seems like a lot given that's money that is NOT
going to the classroom.
What is also troubling on
that same page - if I am reading it correctly - is that the district
says the "materials, supplies, operating costs" are at $20.3M. And yet,
they will get $16.5M from the Operations levy. Obviously the two
numbers are not equal but the problem for me is that the district gets
money from the state for operations. If there is state money plus local
levy money, how are they not able to corral the $20M?
They say they have a budget gap of almost $11M.
look at page 16? Guess who is in a little "cloud" as a resource?
PTA. Yes, folks, the district is counting PTA funding as a resource
(and apparently, a continuing one). THIS IS WRONG. That kind of
thinking is magical thinking because there is no guarantee any given PTA
can continue its funding and/or might not change their minds about it.
17, there's a chart showing WSS budgeting from 2011-2012 to next school
year. What is not explained is whether the growth in spending - with
the two largest areas of Basic Ed and Sped - is based on growing numbers
of students OR more spending per student or both. Again, am I reading
this chart wrong?
Page 19, "completed pre-mitigation adjustments for unique program needs - 33 teachers" - which schools and what needs?
Also on page 19, "25 FTE for K-1 CSR." Anybody?
Page 22, under FY 2015-2016 Capital Revenue, there's this:
Pending Legislative Ask for Magnolia ($23M), EC Hugh ($5M), MS ($5M)
we are reopening Magnolia, EC Hughes and something else if the
Legislature gives the district the money? This is roughly $32M.
Page 23, they are taking $3M out of BEX IV for "major preventative maintenance transfer."
I'll have to go back and look but I don't recall this being in BEX IV.
Again, preventative maintenance should come out of the General Fund.
(I looked, this isn't in BEX IV.)
see a nearly $3M Muir green project. I looked at the BEX IV list - this
is not there. I'm all for green projects but not when there is so much
deferred maintenance to be done.
There are also supporting documents like the Summary of 2013-2014 General Fund Expenditures by State Activity that makes for interesting reading.
Guess who spends a lot less on professional development? Seattle.
centered in a lot of white space on its own page is this one -
Executive Management. Yes, it has grown both for "all management FTE"
and "executive management FTE." Overall, it's gone from 16.7% to 23.1%
as a "percent of total management."