Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Notification of the official BOE budget adoption

The Council received this notification from the TM regarding the BOEs adopted budget:Tim White


Anonymous said...

The boe voted to reduce the proposed increase by $950,000 so the difference of $49,551 is????

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

Everyone seems to think the super's budget is so "lean"..maybe someone can explain these numbers:

Long Term Subs - In 08/09 we spent $131,547. In 09/10 and 10/11 the requested numbers are $245,000. Why would it nearly double?

Acct 520115 Bluecare - In 08/09 we spent $784,343. In 09/10 the budgeted amt is $1,100,000. In 10/11 the request is $1,300,000. Again it's nearly double.

Acct 520104 B/C RX - In 08/09 we spent $455,892. In 08/09 the budgeted amt is $1,450,000. In 10/11 the requested amt is $1,600,000. This is more than triple the 08/09 expenditure.

And although this is peanuts in comparison - In 08/09 the water usage at CHS fields was $6,683. In 09/10 and 10/11 the budgeted amount is $12,828. Nearly double. I wonder why...hmmm

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the handful of people that went to 2 or 3 budget meetings and consider themselves knowledgable on the budget have no comment...or maybe it's better to say they have no clue.

Anonymous said...

The enroolment in the schools has been going down for the last few years.

The enrollment is projected to be 500+/- students fewer 5 to 6 years from now.

Why does the budget keep going UP?

Where is the plan to consolidate, streamline and do more with less? Florio makes big bucks....he better start reading the tea leaves and set a different course. The rhetoric about "hurting the kids" is getting old.

Anonymous said...

Wow you pull out a budget book and look at three lines and you got it all figured out, your great! Are you a board member? Maybe you should run, we could use more people like you, someone with all the answers!!!

Anonymous said...

10:48 Maybe 11:08 is trying to say that more people should take a good look at the budget before they stand up at a meeting and say pass it along as is.

Save your sarcastic comments and learn how to spell.

Anonymous said...

Your great too, I am sure you also have answers, why don't the two of you get together and tell us all how it should work.

Anonymous said...

11:08 is correct. There are more accounts in the budget that are questionable. For example, why are music teachers being added at the elementary schools if this is a "keep the lights on" budget and enrollment is stagnant?

As for the long-term subs account...teachers have been banking their unused personal days and will have to start using them or losing them. Others take time off for various reasons but every time a sub comes in, it costs money and if a sub works a consecutive amount of days (30?) then the district has to get them certified which costs us more money.

Why is an additional coach being hired at the high school? For what activity? Is it really needed?

Why is money being set aside in this budget for district-wide air quality improvement? I ask this because that effort was canned by the town council. This was also budgeted for the current budget but nothing was done for air quality. More than likely, this money will be pilfered by some other part of the budget. It's called fluff.

If more folks like 11:08 actually took an active interest in the budget then more of these details would come out. Take the blinders off and have a look. It's quite amusing. It's no wonder the board was able to cut $950K. I think they missed another $300K or so but I'm certain the town council won't miss it.