| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 09:13:26 AM
|
Since the hearing on the School Department budget is scheduled for this evening, I thought it might be a good time to look at some of the areas of concern associated with that budget. A lot of the issues that I found in the School Department budget are also found in the city budget; so it's a pretty good place to start.
1. In the summary budget, only two amounts are plugged in for the School Department, special education transportation and the rest of the budget. It only took me a few minutes to figure out that there is a one for one correspondence between each line item in the school department's detail budget and the categories in the summary budget. Somebody was just being lazy here.
2. Why does the Salaries - Special Education line item (Account number #01-300-10-330-5111) appear in the budget twice? By being there twice, the FY08 revised budget and FY08 year-to-date totals for the department, and by extension the entire city, are inflated.
3. Why are there expenses posted to line items that have no associated budget amount? This happens 9 times in Department 300. By not having expenses posted to the appropriate line items, it makes it impossible to do accurate comparisons. Also, in some cases, these amounts are rather large as well. For example, the line item for Other Charges and Expenses (Account number 22-300-11-300-5700) has FY08 expenses of $1,438,717.44 with no FY08 budget. The same is true in Department 330, which also appears to belong to the school department. The only line item listed for that department, Special Education Expenditures (account number 21-330-11-330-5700) has FY08 expenses of $890,313.43 with no FY08 budget.
4. Is it acceptable to overspend individual line items as long as there are enough funds within the department to cover all of its expenses? The School Department only has one line item, Oil (Account number 01-300-11-350-5212) which has already exceeded its budget; the line item has been overspent by $13,000+. This is certainly understandable given the somewhat unexpected increase in the price of oil. The only questions are is a transfer is required to clean it up and if so, is there money available for it?
5. Is there a methodology used in determining how the budget for certain line items are increased. For an example in the School Department, let's look at the Water line item (Account number 01-300-11-350-5230). Assuming that the FY08 expenses are fairly up to date and that the expenses are posted to the appropriate line item (which we know may not be true from item 3 above), only 30% of FY2008 budget for water has been expended and school department's budget for water will be increased by 20% in FY09. Wouldn't seem to make sense but, then again, we may not know all the details.
6. Is the School Department still planning on turning the old High School back to the the city as of July 1? If so, has the maintenance budget been adjusted accordingly? The non-salary portion of the School Department's maintenance budget is slated to increase by almost $1 million. That seems a little high with one less building but who knows.
The minimum or foundation budget for the School Department is set by the state. The increase in the foundation budget this year is approximately $6.3 million, with the state picking up roughly $5.9 million of the funding in increased Chapter 70 aid. The city could chose to fund the School Department at less than the foundation budget amount but since the state eventually requires the city to make up any underfunding, this is probably not a wise practice in most situations. This year, I believe that the city is only providing the School Department with $36 more than the minimum required by the foundation budget and that was done only to round off some numbers. I believe that is O.K. to question how the School Department spends their money but it probably isn't prudent to cut their budget; the city would only pay for it in the long run.
The following is a list of the School Department budget line items with the dollar and percentage increases for FY09:
$ Change % Change
Central Administration
Salaries 37,697 2.42%
Student Handbooks 0 0.00%
Miscellaneous Expenses 87,287 14.31%
Instructional
Salaries 2,627,254 10.50%
Special Expenditures 356,250 76.69%
Education Expenses 172,730 18.09%
Special Education
Salaries 818,889 16.17%
Tuition 500,000 11.63%
Education Expenses 300,000 62.05%
Vision/Hearing Screening 0 0.00%
Transportation 400,000 18.18%
School Athletics
Miscellaneous Expenses 47,856 10.58%
Maintenance
Salaries 90,693 6.16%
General Expenditures 240,000 21.95%
Water & Sewer 20,000 20.00%
Oil 35,000 53.85%
Electricity 300,000 27.27%
Gas 260,000 37.14%
Total 6,293,656 13.78%
In addition to the School Department budget, the city also is budgeting money to pay for the building of the new schools and improvements to existing schools. These amounts can be found in the retirement of long-term debt and long-term debt interest sections of the budget. Below is a summary of all of the long term debt items in the FY09 budget that can be clearly attributed to the schools.
Line Item Principal Interest Total
New Lafayette School-Ref 9/15/04 875,000 182,062 1,057,062
Maddie English School-Ref 9/15/04 875,000 182,062 1,057,062
School Construction 2-8-07 1,655,000 805,532 2,460,532
Keverian School 730,000 590,010 1,320,010
School Improvements - 2004 135,000 65,562 200,562
MSBA High School 2% 449,415 229,319 678,734
Total 4,719,415 2,054,547 6,773,962
In addition, there is one other long term item which may or may not be related to the schools. This item, Refunding Bond 9/15/04, is budgeted at $1,221,725 (Principal $100,000, Interest $1,121,725) for FY09.
I hope that you find this information of some use when watching the budget hearings. |
Edited by - tetris on 05/29/2008 09:15:30 AM |
 |
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 09:46:42 AM
|
Tetris,
Thanks for the breakdown, this is great. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 10:28:49 AM
|
No problem and it really didn't take that long. I can't believe that this type of information isn't included in the budget document. Instead it is left up to every individual that wants to evaluate the budget to come up with it on their own. This isn't a criticism aimed solely at the current administration; it's probably the way its always been.
After last year's budget debacle, I thought that serious consideration should have been given to the methodology used for the entire budget process. Alderman DiPerri's budget amendment was only a part of what was needed and we all know what happened to that. So I guess it is business as usual all around.
I've tried very hard to insure that my numbers are accurate but the possibility of data entry errors and spreadsheet formula issues can't be ruled out. I'll apologize in advance if any errors creep into my numbers. |
|
|
|
Fedup
Member
86 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 8:20:16 PM
|
| I wonder where the Budget Director was for his initial budget hearing? I thought it was mandatory that he attend the meetings. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 8:52:46 PM
|
A request was made when the city council accepted the budget for the budget director, the city auditor and the mayor to be present for all of the budget hearings. The only one that I know was there for sure was the auditor. The mayor could have been there; I just didn't happen to see him. The chief of staff/city solicitor was there though.
The budget document that they went over tonight wasn't the one that is on the city website; it was a more detailed budget document prepared by the school department. It seems that the budget director needed to plug the numbers from that document into the city budget document. The first three issues on my list from morning all have to do with errors that appear to have been made in that process. There is a fourth similar issue that I had found previously but forgot about this morning that falls into the same category. The amount listed for the FY08 Salaries - Instructional Budgeted Amount in this year's budget is $219,000 more than the corresponding amount in last year's budget. There are issues like this throughout the budget. I don't think that this is going to go over well, especially with the budget director's no show tonight.
Why are the members of the city council that don't make it to these hearings so predictable? Happy Birthday Wayne! |
Edited by - tetris on 05/29/2008 8:53:37 PM |
|
|
|
card
Senior Member
117 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 9:09:53 PM
|
| hey thanks for the apology it was not necessary, I thought I was right on some of the appointments from the BOA, I fogot the meeting was on tonite, heard that simonelli was hot and bother |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2008 : 9:24:13 PM
|
No, it was the right thing to do. Also, it was a chance to educate myself and pass it along to everyone else.
Simonelli wasn't that bad but don't ever question the need for school custodians around him. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 7:11:12 PM
|
| Reminder, Budget Hearings resume Saturday morning at 7:45 AM. I hope the Budget Director will make this hearing. He was noticeably absent form the previous budget hearing. |
Edited by - massdee on 05/30/2008 7:23:55 PM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 7:47:21 PM
|
| I think some city councilors were absent too. This is important and once a year. I think I would find the time to be there. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 8:34:45 PM
|
| I believe Wayne Matewsky was also absent from the budget hearing last night. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 9:12:37 PM
|
The following is a list of the dollar and percentage increases for FY09 Summary Budget for the City Departments and Fixed Costs (Sorry, didn't have the time to do the detailed budget):
$ Change % Change
City Council
Personal Services 0 0.00%
General Expenditures 0 0.00%
Celebrations (8,000) -100.00%
Mayor
Personal Services 33,184 12.60%
General Expenditures 32,100 56.91%
Reserve Account 261,983 689.12%
Stabilization Trust Fund (1,499,000) -99.93%
City Auditor
Personal Services (8,973) -3.90%
General Expenditures (2,325) -2.60%
Budget
Personal Services 133,394 227.40%
General Expenditures 5,300 196.30%
Purchasing
Personal Services (120,150) -100.00%
General Expenditures (1,850) -8.85%
Assessors
Personal Services (69,794) -20.95%
General Expenditures (2,250) -22.84%
Professional Services (100,000) -36.36%
Treasurer/Collector
Personal Services 4,598 1.15%
General Expenditures (6,000) -4.05%
Postage (All City Departments) 0 0.00%
City Solicitor
Personal Services (49,793) -17.32%
General Expenditures (9,300) -13.98%
Personnel
Personal Services (66,009) -35.81%
General Expenditures 12,850 30.60%
Management Information Services
Personal Services 0 0.00%
General Expenditures (7,000) -4.59%
Capital Outlay (75,000) -100.00%
City Clerk
Personal Services (31,755) -9.39%
General Expenditures (4,950) -14.98%
Election Expenditures (61,993) -45.50%
Capital Outlay (3,000) -100.00%
Licensing
Personal Services 0 0.00%
General Expenditures (96) -13.79%
Conservation Commission
Personal Services 0 0.00%
General Expenditures (250) -28.09%
Planning Board
Personal Services 0 0.00%
General Expenditures 0 0.00%
Appeals Board
Personal Services 0 0.00%
General Expenditures 0 0.00%
Facilities Maintenance
Personal Services (26,557) -6.92%
General Expenditures (36,350) -3.54%
Police
Personal Services 361,414 4.15%
General Expenditures (4,600) -1.86%
Auxiliary Police 100 12.50%
Capital Outlay (50,000) -100.00%
Fire
Personal Services 199,965 2.56%
General Expenditures (9,175) -4.03%
Building Inspector
Personal Services 1,534 0.47%
General Expenditures 1,250 21.01%
Parking Clerk
Personal Services 20,565 6.34%
General Expenditures (38,744) -19.07%
Emergency Communications Center
Personal Services 11,319 1.54%
General Expenditures 5,500 21.74%
City Services Facility
Personal Services (64,414) -2.22%
General Expenditures (11 accts) 53,750 6.09%
General Expenditures (17 accts) 63,500 8.87%
Snow & Ice Expenditures 0 0.00%
Solid Waste Expenditures (626,165) -18.89%
Health Inspection Services
Personal Services 5,993 0.71%
General Expenditures 1,500 14.02%
Inspection of School Children 500 5.92%
Code Enforcement
Personal Services 7,903 3.11%
General Expenditures (4,110) -36.37%
Council on Aging
General Expenditures 200 0.65%
Veterans' Services
Personal Services 353 0.40%
General Expenditures 2,000 14.55%
Benefits (69,818) -17.55%
Veterans' Day Expenses 0 0.00%
Commission on Disability
Personal Services 0 0.00%
General Expenditures 0 0.00%
Mayor's Office of Human Services
Personal Services 14,569 7.38%
General Expenditures 3,300 4.68%
Library - Parlin and Shute
Personal Services 21,799 3.30%
General Expenditures 2,318 1.52%
Capital Outlay 0 0.00%
Recreation
Personal Services (54,553) -23.21%
General Expenditures 150 1.96%
Subtotal: City Departments (1,849,083) -5.07%
Fixed Costs
Retirement of Long Term Debt 371,138 7.23%
Long Term Debt Interest (2,407) -0.07%
Short Term Debt Interest (270,000) -91.53%
Safe Drinking Water Act Assessment (857) -5.53%
Mass Water Resources Authority 107,979 1.04%
Retirement Board
Pension Fund Contribution 880,550 10.63%
Non-Contributory Pen/Ann (16,500) -11.00%
Unemployment Compensation (30,000) -6.98%
Employee Insurance 1,436,614 10.34%
FICA 25,000 3.45%
Employee Injuries (79,500) -16.22%
Property/Liability Insurance (20,000) -2.03%
Subtotal: Fixed Costs 2,402,017 5.44%
I'll post some additional infomation/observations if time allows before tommorrow morning's meeting. |
Edited by - tetris on 05/30/2008 9:13:23 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 9:49:53 PM
|
Part of the justification for combining the cheif of staff and city solicitor positions was that it was a cost savings measure. Now that we have the numbers, let's take a look at the actual cost savings. To do this, we'll have to take a look at the salary line items for both mayor's office and city solicitor's office:
FY08 FY09
Mayor 262,837 296,021
Solicitor 287,569 237,776
Total 550,406 533,797 Net Change (16,609)
Even though it wasn't presented as a cost savings measure, the combining of the budget and purchasing office must be evaluated in the same way:
FY08 FY09
Budget 58,600 192,054
Purchasing 119,572 0
Total 178,172 192,054 Net Change 13,882
So combining these functions is saving the city a total of $2,727. Sure, every penny counts but are these moves really worth it? |
Edited by - tetris on 05/30/2008 10:35:12 PM |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 10:48:16 PM
|
What's up with the elimination of the internal auditor? I thought that the creation of that position was a recommendation of the IG's office in the last city wide audit.
Why are veteran's benefits being cut?
Better hurry up and get the other four pickup days on the new recycling program if the cut to solid waste expenditures is going to be realized.
I still have a problem that the amount being budgeted for a deputy city solicitor is more than what is allowed, by ordinance, for the city solicitor position. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 10:51:13 PM
|
| Oh I'll be watching in the morning. These are very, very good questions. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2008 : 10:59:25 PM
|
| I hope our city council picked up on what Tetris has. I will be watching too. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Budget FY 09
