Archive: News

Around 15 taxpayers joined Lansing's Board of Education and school administrators Tuesday for an explanation of the $21,366,871 budget that will come up for a vote Tuesday (June 20).  This budget shaves $186,809 from the one that failed in the May 16 vote.  Nobody seemed happy with the proposal, but many expressed the fear that if it does not pass the State mandated contingency budget would cause too much disruption to programs people care about.


The so-called 'June 20 Budget' is $1,359,209 higher than this year's budget, or 6.79%.  The failed May 16 Budget would have been $1,546,018, or 7.7% higher.  If the June 20 budget fails, a contingency budget will automatically kick in.  The State limits it to 120% of the Consumer Price Index, which comes to about 3.1%.  The total would be $21,009,819.  The State adds other restrictions on how the District can spend its money if the contingency budget goes into effect.  The schools would be prevented from buying new equipment or capital expenditures, and making any but emergency repairs.  The administrative budget would be capped at this year's level and public usage of the buildings would be restricted and subject to fees.

Speakers expressed frustration that the budget was too reactive to the failed budget and doesn't address core concerns about programs and district priorities.  Even with the additional cuts many speakers said that the budget is too high and that the District has not been creative enough in finding creative ways to save money.  "We can't turn down the thermostat more than we have already," said School Board Member Glenn Swanson, "because of State laws."

Tom LaVigne proposed establishing bus stops to save the time and fuel it takes when stopping at every driveway to pick up kids.  "They can stop on the corner.  All the kids can walk and maybe get a little physically fit, and we can save, I think, $50,000 in salary, gas, and maintenance costs."  He noted that a solution like this could be implemented easily.  "You can do that today," he said, and many subsequent speakers endorsed his idea and urged the Board to look for similar ones.


More questions arose about administrative costs.  School officials affirmed that there have been no administrative salary rises for contracts not covered by collective bargaining agreements.  The actual cost of the new Director of Curriculum was brought up and clarified again.  Board of Education Vice President Anne Drake noted that a number of taxpayers have approached her because they are confused about items that seem to show the Superintendent getting a $16,843 raise while his secretary Jodie Rusaw gets a $4,147 pay cut.  Business Administrator Larry Driscoll explained that neither is true. 

Budget Facts in a Nutshell 2005-2006 Budget $20,007,660 Modified Budget $21,366,209  Net Dollar Increase    $1,.59,209 Net Percent Increase 6.79%  Tax Levy Increase 3.82%  2005-2006 Tax Rate 18.38  2006-2007 Tax Rate 19.04 Increase 0.66 per  $1000 Assessed Percent Increase 3.61%

"The person that was in Jodie's spot had more seniority and was making more money," Driscoll explained.  "Jodie is new and started out at a lower salary, and therefore the difference."  He went on to explain that Superintendent Mark Lewis, who is also new to the district and started in January, half way through the school year.  The $16,843 added to next year's budget represents the difference in cost between a half-year of a permanent superintendent and the interim one that served until he joined the district.  "That increase in the superintendent's salary is zero," Lewis said, clarifying that his own salary is not rising. 


While the cuts are clear for the proposed budget the Board of Education has not planned the specific cuts they will make if the contingency budget becomes necessary.  "Invariably what happens is that different groups within the community that have different priorities will all converge and there'll be the debate and argument about 'you can't touch this particular program unless you cut this particular program,'" Lewis explained.  "It becomes quite a significant trauma for the community that is trying to wrestle with the magnitude of the budget reductions it has just levied upon itself.  The specific disaster won't be determined until the Board of Education determines what's the high priority and what's the low priority.  Everything gets put on the table."  But some speakers wanted a more pro-active approach to help them decide on how to vote.

Tom Pasto was among speakers who noted that while our low class sizes are ideal, that taxpayers can't afford to maintain them at that level.  "I think we need to look at the hard decisions," he said.  "The taxpayers have been asked repeatedly to sacrifice for the school system.  And they are basically saying, 'We've had enough.'"

"We're stuck," said John Comisi.  "We have a budget before us that if we don't pass, we really have a community torn apart.  We have to get this budget through this year, and then from day one next year make sure that we cut where we can so that we don't have this problem again." 


Swanson noted that the lack of permanent leadership has really hurt this year's budget process.  "Mark came in January and Larry came in October," he noted, saying that normally the budget process would have started much sooner and been more consistent.  Lewis agreed that the process should start sooner with more community input.  "It's important that the community understand the various components of the budget and what goes into its development," said Lewis.

By meeting's end the one thing that was clear is that is is not clear whether the budget will pass on May 20.  Some said the budget is too high and what is contained is unsatisfactory.  But others felt they have to vote for it even though they don't like it.  "If we don't fund the schools this year," Comisi said, "we don't have an effective program next year."  The vote is next Tuesday, May 20 at the Middle School auditorium lobby from noon to 9:00pm.

----
v2i23