4.2 Five Year Forecast
Sycamore plans to spend more than its income. …
Spending beyond their means. ….
Can not live within its means.
Deficit spending is their plan.
Drawing down their bank account
Withdrawing from their bank account
A new Five Year Forecast was submitted May, 2011
| FY | Total Expenditures | Total Revenue |
Spending more than Income | |
| 2007 | $70 million | |||
| 2008 | $71.6 million | $76.5 million | ||
| 2009 | $71.8 million | $74.1 million | ||
| 2010 | $75.2 million | $76.7 million | ||
| 2011 | $75.8 million | $73.8 million | -$2 million | |
| 2012 | $76.3 million | $71.5 million | -$4.8 million | |
| 2013 | $76.4 million | $70.7 million | -$5.7 million | |
| 2014 | $76.8 million | $71.4 million | -$5.4 million | |
| 2015 | $77.8 million | $71.7 million | -$6.1 million |
The bank account (cash balance) is:
2010 $40 million
2011 $38 million
2012 $33 million
2013 $27 million
2014 $22 million
2015 $16 million
The following excerpts of the Board resolution is located on page 8 of the Sycamore Five Year Forecast Assumptions May, 2011:
The Sycamore Community School General Operating Fund budget Targets will be no more than an average of 2.5% growth of the budget for Fiscal Years FY06 through FY12. Annual deviation from the % growth may occur but in all cases the General Operating Fund Budget (Total Expenditures not including Other Financing Uses – Line 4.50) will be capped at $76.5 million for FY12 with a minimum ending cash balance for FY12 of $16.5 million. Deviation from these parameters as a result of legislative changes must be approved by Board action.
The following operating expenditures will controlled within these parameters:
Personnel Costs:
Personal Services – Salaries/Wages (line3.010):
Salaries and wages reflect the impact of the collective bargaining agreement with SEA through FY12 and with OAPSE through FY13. Any costs associated with these or future settlements of these collective bargaining agreements will be included in the expenditure trend parameters set by the Board. The district has also reduced 24 full time equivalent positions for 2011-2012.
======================================================================
A new Five Year Forecast was submitted October, 2010.
| Total | Expenditure | Total | |||
| FY | Expenditures | Increase | Revenue | ||
| 2007 | $69.7 million | ||||
| 2008 | $71.5 million | $1.8 million | |||
| 2009 | $71.8 million | $0.3 million | |||
| 2010 | $75.1 million | $3.3 million | $77 million | ||
| 2011 | $76.5 million | $1.4 million | $74 million | ||
| 2012 | $78.4 million | $1.9 million | $75 million | ||
| 2013 | $79.4 million | $1.0 million | $75 million | ||
| 2014 | $81.1 million | $1.7 million | $69 million | ||
| 2015 | $82.9 million | $1.8 million | $67 million |
More of the same: Our elected BOE cannot resist increasing expenditures even as forecasted revenues decline. Deficit spending is their plan.
====================================
A new Five Year Forecast was submitted 5/20/2010.
| Total | Expenditure | Total | |||
| FY | Expenditures | Increase | Revenue | ||
| 2007 | $69.7 million | ||||
| 2008 | $71.5 million | $1.8 million | |||
| 2009 | $71.8 million | $0.3 million | |||
| 2010 | $75.8 million | $4.0 million | $77 million | ||
| 2011 | $76.5 million | $ .8 million | $75 million | ||
| 2012 | $78.4 million | $1.9 million | $76 million | ||
| 2013 | $79.5 million | $1.1 million | $76 million | ||
| 2014 | $81.4 million | $1.8 million | $70 million |
============================================
Our Board of Education submitted a new Five Year Forecast
October 26, 2009.
| Total | Expenditure | Total | |||
| FY | Expenditures | Increase | Revenue | ||
| 2007 | $69.7 million | ||||
| 2008 | $71.5 million | $1.8 million | |||
| 2009 | $71.8 million | $0.3 million | |||
| 2010 | $76.3 million | $4.5 million | $77 million | ||
| 2011 | $77.4 million | $1.1 million | $75,million | ||
| 2012 | $79.3 million | $1.9 million | $76 million | ||
| 2013 | $80.5 million | $1.2 million | $77 million | ||
| 2014 | $82.5 million | $1.9 million | $70 million | ||
| Actual fy2007-2009 | |||||
| Forecast fy2010-2014 | |||||
| Note 2010 total exp. $76,103,600 tax budget 1/6/10 | |||||
. The Board of Education does not have to approve a five year forecast.
. The Superintendent and Treasurer uses the five year forecast to prepare the community for future levies.
. Because they (district) got it (money), they spend it.
Source: Out of district school board member comments during meeting.
Most studies I have seen show there is no relationship between money spent per student and achievement scores. For example, the state of New York spends in excess of $17,000 per student per year, one of the top 5 in the country. Yet, achievement scores rank them in the middle around 25. Same thing is true for the Washington D.C. school district, high cost, below average student achievement scores. The question is whether Sycamore schools are delivering the quality education we believe we are paying for? I wonder.
Dave, the Sycamore Schools currently spend more money per student that over 96% of school districts in Ohio. That means we are more than paying our fair share to ensure a quality education. We are taxed enough already. The school district needs to learn how to manage a budget. Given that they have more money than virtually every other school district, they are certainly not lacking for funds.
I am so tired of people whining about taxes I’m about to vomit. You enjoy one of the lowest tax rates in the civilized world. Our tax rate as a percentage of the GDP is about 28%. Europe and Canada are in the upper 30s and lower 40s. People from those countries move here, in part, to get away from high taxes.
When it comes to schools, there is probably no better place to put your tax dollars. My family moved to Blue Ash primarily because Sycamore was, and still is, a great school and has a history of tax levy approval.
Running a large school system is expensive and complicated. You cannot compare a school budget to your little household budget. As for teacher salaries, which is the lions’ share of any school budget, I want our teachers to be the highest paid in the county. You get what you pay for.
I just read the handouts claiming that increasing property taxes adds to stress. Boo hoo. If you wake up and go to sleep worrying about taxes, move to Adams County. Your tax bill will be next to nothing. Of course, you will not have a job, a good school system or any city services; but if that makes you sleep better, go for it.
I just received and read the brochure from Princeton School District asking voters to approve a ballot issue in May for a bond issue and permanent improvement levy to a building project and to fund basic operations. Voters defeated a request (narrowly) in 2008 and the Board subsequently came back with a “scaled back” plan and reduction in overall costs to the tune of $20million (way to go Princeton!). They got the message and did their duty to the taxpayers. They also trimmed off nearly $16million in total project costs to prove their committment to “VALUE” which they define as “the ability to recognize need versus wants and having the vision to reach common goals for the benefit of the entire community” (not just the students). Their brochure very well articulated their committment to VALUE as they defined it. The last time they asked for and received operating levy funds was way back in 1999. Good job, Princeton, for listening to the residents and taxpayers and not being arrogant and insensitive to us.
Precisely what education funding fixes has Strickland signed into law, and what does that have to do about Sycamore’s wild spending habits?
OhioDem, how does the school funding issue relate to Sycamore’s extremely high expenditure level?
Ted Strickland has fixed school funding and made it Constitutional while the Republicans did nothing for the 12 years after the DeRolph decision. 4 times the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional, and 4 times the GOP flipped the Supreme Court the bird, and also robbed a generation of an adequate and equitable education.
It appears the board has no plans, nor the will, to negotiate a reduction in the unreasonably high compensation package for school employees during the next OAPSE collective bargaining negotiation in early 2010.
What will be their position during the 2011 SEA (teacher) negotiation?