Archive: News

Do you want the good news or the bad news?  The good news is that the Lansing school 2007-2008 budget will come in at not more than 3.84%  The bad news is that if it is that much school taxes will go up by close to 10%, in part because of a $400,000 mistake that was made in last year's budget.  "We have to make up $765,852 of tax levy because of the way we budgeted last year," said District Business Administrator Larry Lawrence.  " We used our savings last year.  We don't have any savings to use this year."

Lawrence, who began working in the district last August after last year's budget had been passed, explained that 'excess cost aid' from the State is based on actual cost.  He said that while it is common to overestimate this figure, the discrepancy between projected costs and actual expenditure has been quite small in past years, but was much larger last year.  "The budget for last year included an excess cost aid figure of $1.3 million," Lawrence explained.  "Our actual cost for 2005-2006, which we reported in October, generated only $851,377 in excess cost aid.  So we have a structural revenue problem in that area of around $400,000."

"Some of the projections for our excess cost aid were problematic," he continued.  "The budget for last year included an excess cost aid figure of $1.3 million.  Our actual cost for 2005-2006, which we reported in October, generated only $851,377 in excess cost aid.  So we have a structural revenue problem in that area of around $400,000.  What happened last year in the Spring of 2006 was that original projection was not tested.  The Governor's budget included the original estimate for expenses.  It was something that was missed at budget time.  It should have been caught, because it is big numbers."

Until last week the figures were not available from various sources including the State to calculate the revenues side of the budget, but because of recent resistance to new taxes in Lansing Lawrence had cut the recommended spending side of the budget to match the capped contingency budget level of 3.84% for next year.  A contingency budget is enforced by the State on school districts that do not pass their budget resolutions.

Lawrence said that a 3.84% budget was the lowest he could recommend, because it keeps current programs intact.  "With what is in the budget there are no reductions in program," he said.  "The contingent items are covered, we have additional instructional and support staff as indicated in past discussions.  Every budget line has been closely reviewed to ensure that the budget is accurate, that there is no excess.  I went to great lengths to review past years expenses as well as future expenses especially the salary and benefits lines."

Responding to accusations that Lansing's administration is top heavy, Lawrence presented a comparison of Lansing, Dryden, Groton, and Trumansburg.  Lansing has eight administrators which includes the three building principals as well as Lawrence and Superintendent Mark Lewis.  That is the same number as Groton maintains.  Trumansburg has 7, and Dryden 11.  Our staffing is similar to those schools," Lawrence said.  "So there are no staff reductions included in this budget proposal."

"If you don't pay me now, you pay me later." -- Larry Lawrence

Lawrence said that the Board Of Education's past use of reserve funds is a bad strategy, because the reserves will run out, leaving the district with a large tax rise to maintain the status quo.  "The total budgetary models that we have for those kinds of reserves is a quarter of a million dollars," Lawrence explained.  "When those reserves are not available the tax levy has to go up to offset those expenses.  If you don't pay me now, you pay me later."

Lawrence said that because the district anticipated using $310,000 of fund balance next year the shortfall means that the district would have to make up $765,852.  "At this moment in time I'm not recommending that we use any other reserves," Lawrence said.  "It's bad practice to run down your reserves, especially if there is not a future where we can see those reserves being rebuilt."

If the budget remains as is the tax levy will go up by $1.3 million, or 9.96%.  "The tax levy factors include the reduced available fund balance, the program cost increases, and State aid shortfall," Lawrence warned.  "So we have a total tax levy increase factor of almost two million dollars.  In order to reduce that tax levy to 5% we'd have to reduce it by another $652,000.  To put it in perspective that would be like reducing an entire grade level -- teaching, staff, materials and supplies, and benefits."

School Board members had long faces, even when Lawrence said there is some good news, with smaller BOCES costs and possible new revenue.  But he also said that neither was enough to absorb the huge shortfall.  "There's no way to absorb that kind of reduction and maintain programs in this district."

Some board members asked for more information about the impact of further cuts in the budget.  "It's really hard to respond when I don't know what it means in terms of what are we cutting, what are we keeping?  What are we going to be looking at? Who is going to be involved in the discussion?" said Christine Iacobucci.

"I think we need to know the consequences of cutting this budget down," Lewis said.  "What would a 7% tax increase that's almost $400,000 in cuts -- what does that mean for program.  What are the consequences of a 5% increase?  It's up to the Board to decide whether cuts are acceptable.  The cuts would be devastating."

Several board members said that this might be the year of reckoning, when past budgetary practices come home to roost.  If the community pays the 10% increase this year it was not anticipated that it would be as high in future years.  But others were clearly uncomfortable with that level of increase.  Glenn Swanson asked for an analysis of the impacts lower taxes would have to school programs.  "To not do that -- we may not decide that's the right thing to do," he said.  "I would like to be able to say to the district that we really looked at the alternatives."

School board members agreed that more meetings are needed to address the problem, but had a difficult time agreeing on meeting times.  This was exacerbated by their job requirements and the coming school break, and the April time limit for setting the budget to be presented for taxpayer vote.

A smaller budget that doesn't pass would bring the levy right back to 10%, because the State would enforce the 3.84 budget cap that the budget currently represents.  It would also bring crippling restrictions on how the money could be spent.  The upshot is that the Board of Education members find themselves in the unenviable position that will force them to make hard decisions in a tax climate in which no possible solution is likely to be palatable to voters.

----
v3i13