Explanation of Budget Forecast Charts
In May of 1997, the published budget for the 1997-1998 school year (adopted without change in June 1997) provided the audited fund balance for the 1995-1996 school year at $863,305. While we do not possess the budget published in May 1996 for 96-97, we know from the audit for 30 June 1997 that the fund balance was budgeted to be $ 0. Nonetheless, this was close to the final audited fund balance of $479,419 compared to most future budgets. We noted also that the predicted fund balance for 96-97 in May 1997, $427,934, was naturally used as the starting balance for the 97-98 forecast in that same budget document. Additionally, that document predicted a fund balance for 30 June 1998 of ($139,323). ** Parentheses and red font used by us to indicate and emphasize a negative number. So, we have a low-ball figure for the 30 June 1997 fund balance in the May 1996 budget document ($ 0), a closer approximation and significantly higher prediction in May 1997 ($ 427,934) and a final audited figure that is moderately higher and made available in the fall of 1997 ($ 479,419). Since that time, the audits have become available increasingly later in the year, until it is now not ready for the public until December (as was the case in 2005 and 2006). This is the pattern illustrated in each of the charts covering 1997-1998 through 2005-2006, years for which we possess the budgets and the audits to readily verify all figures that are presented in the charts. The charts also show the tax increases enacted for that school yearÕs budget and the predicted income from those increases. Those increases were to be generated by increases in the real estate millage or in the percentage of occupation assessment Ð or both. (One mill is 1/10 of one percent.) The real estate tax increased from 28.46 mills for the year 1996-1997 to 34.00 mills for school year 2005-2006, and the occupation assessment increased from 71% to 100% in the same period. Also included in each chart is the variance (in parentheses) between the actual audited figures for beginning balance, gain or decrease in fund balance and ending fund balance for each school year compared to the original predicted numbers in the budget approved the previous year. Thus, a history of performance is well documented and certainly known and available to those making budget decisions in the administration and on the Board for each successive yearÕs estimate. Still, taxes increased without necessity over the nine year period represented in these charts and illustrated by the summary below. No matter how big the fund balance grew, the BoardÕs appetite for tax increases continued.
1997-1998 Fund Balance Originally Predicted in May 1997...............($ 139,323) Actual Audited Fund Balance for 30 June 1997.................$ 546,989 Tax Revenue Predicted by Budget in May 1997..................$ 139,323 ** Without this tax increase, there would have been a surplus of $407,666.
1998-1999 Fund Balance Originally Predicted in May 1998...............($ 83,895) Actual Audited Fund Balance for 30 June 1999.................$ 683,740 Tax Revenue Predicted by Budget in May 1998..................$ 152,110 ** Without this tax increase, there would have been a surplus of $531,628.
1999-2000 Fund Balance Originally Predicted in May 1999..............$ 538,127 Actual Audited Fund Balance for 30 June 2000...............$ 2,237,209 Tax Revenue Predicted by Budget in May 1999................$ 146,000 ** Without this tax increase, there would have been a surplus of $2,091,209
2000-2001 Fund Balance Originally Predicted in May 2000..............$ 1,809,189 Actual Audited Fund Balance for 30 June 2001...............$ 2,966,903 Tax Revenue Predicted by Budget in May 2000................$ 0 ** In spite of no tax increase, the surplus increased by $729,694 and the fund balance was in excess of $1.1 million dollars greater than predicted (already a sum that required a referendum for tax increases to take place Ð by state law Ð which condition has prevailed in all of the years that tax increases were made, if numbers had been realistic and not pulled out of someoneÕsÉ. É..hat)
2001-2002 Fund Balance Originally Predicted in May 2001..............$ 2,161,925 Actual Audited Fund Balance for 30 June 2002...............$ 3,386,209 Tax Revenue Predicted by Budget in May 2001................$ 0 ** In spite of no tax increase, the surplus increased by $419,306. Surely, their previous excesses must have embarrassed Board members and the administration, especially with increasing expenditures each year which went from a budget of $14,634,861 in 1997-1998 to $17,006,218 in 2001-2002 (an increase of $2,371,357).
2002-2003 Fund Balance Originally Predicted in May 2002.............$ 2,674,032 Actual Audited Fund Balance for 30 June 2003..............$ 3,444,652 Tax Revenue Predicted by Budget in May 2002...............$ 342,089 ** Without this tax increase, there would have been a surplus of $3,102,563. The tax revenue was generated by an increase in the occupation assessment from 75% to 100% for this year. It was the last opportunity for the Board to raise that tax, by law, so they took it to maximum, despite the fact that the fund balance was obviously not in danger and far too high, by law, to warrant a tax increase without a referendum. DonÕt depend on the State Auditor of Pennsylvania to protect you from such abuse or to later seek restitution to the taxpayer. Citizens get what they deserve when they continue to reelect such representatives and then donÕt even pay attention to what they are doing.
2003-2004 Fund Balance Originally Predicted in May 2003.............$ 2,607,421 Actual Audited Fund Balance for 30 June 2004..............$ 3,740,062 Tax Revenue Predicted by Budget in May 2003..............($ 77,715) ** This allegedly generous tax decrease on real estate still allowed an increase in the surplus of $295,410. All of the previous tax increases Ð every dime of them Ð could have been returned to the taxpayer and still left a fund balance of $2,960,538, more than $350,000 greater than predicted in this budget. Since 2001-2002, budgeted expenditures had increased an additional $2,748,532.
2004-2005 Fund Balance Originally Predicted in May 2004.............$ 2,798,883 Actual Audited Fund Balance for 30 June 2005..............$ 3,339,331 Tax Revenue Predicted by Budget in May 2004...............$ 365,264 ** Without this tax increase, there would have been a surplus of $2,974,067 - almost $200,000 more than budgeted. The Board never seems to have enough and wants to fight the teachers and the taxpayer to keep what they have and take even more. Budgeted expenditures increased another $1,477,289 since the previous year, yet the fund balance is extremely healthy and above the state limit for tax increases without a referendum (8% of budgeted expenditures for a school district of LASDÕs class).
2005-2006 Fund Balance Originally Predicted in May 2005.............$ 1,607,451 Actual Audited Fund Balance for 30 June 2006..............$ 2,267,440 Tax Revenue Predicted by Budget in May 2006...............$ 561,215 ** Without this tax increase, there would have been a surplus of $1,706,233 Ð just shy of $100,000 more than budgeted. Budgeted expenditures increased by $2,007,360 over 2004-2005. There is obviously a lot of revenue being generated without the use of tax increases to maintain such parity and still exceed the 8% limit (audited fund balance was 10.1% of audited expenditures).. But who cares what an audit says? The numbers invented for the budget are much more useful. By December of this year, the 2006-2007 will be available from the audit. We will surely demonstrate that nothing has changed, except for maybe the $600,000 supposedly put into capital reserve that doesnÕt appear in any of the fund statements requested from the District by Paul Sharpless Ð all of which are subject to the PA Right-to-Know Law and should be provided, if they exist. The books need to be inspected by someone other than the very same auditor, Greenawalt and Company, and exactly same gentleman, James Lyons, that has been producing the audits since at least 1978, in spite of the recommendation by the State Auditor that a new local auditor be chosen every five years. |
||
 |
|
|