To all Staff,
I realize it seems to become a tired refrain when I talk of budget
challenges. We all know from personal experience if the money isn't
there, we can't spend it. Well, developing the public school budget
in Illinois is a bit of guess work, some fortune telling, hope and good
intention. The bottom line is also that if the money isn't there, we can't
plan to spend it. The State of Illinois is one of the most financially
challenged states in the country. The State has delayed paying many of its
bills. The school district was still receiving categorical state aid payments
for last year's expenditures in December of 2010. Superintendents are being
told that districts would be lucky to receive one of the four payments for
this year's expenditures.
In order to plan possible budget scenarios for the upcoming school year,
superintendents need to make certain assumptions regarding revenues and
expenditures. The State legislature has just begun working on next year's
State budget. To date I have been told by our legislators to plan on a 5%
reduction in general state aid (GSA). This year's amount is $6,119 per pupil
and a 5% reduction would cut approximately $800,000 in revenue. At the same
time, the Governor submitted a budget proposal that increased the GSA amount
to $6,268 instead of the decrease foretold by our
legislators. The "middle ground will not be defined until the State
Legislature completes the budget process sometime in July or August.
Needless to say, planning for the correct level of expenditures when you have
such a wide margin in possible revenue makes budget development a bit of a
guessing game. Regrettably, as we develop the
budget, we need to take the worst case scenario into consideration.
Approximately 75% of the district budget goes to pay salary and benefit costs
of all district employees. The remaining 25% of the budget has to be
committed to inescapable costs like fuel, electricity, gas for heat and
instructional supplies. Our local congressman was quoted as forecasting fuel
prices exceeding $4.50 a gallon by this summer, and increased fuel costs
"trickle down" to other areas where we need to budget.
Last year, we were forced to make many hard choices
and as result, reduced over $1.5 million in expenditures. We changed many
things that we had previously taken for granted such as the back to school
luncheon and Christmas ham. Unfortunately, we do not have the same kinds of
choices in developing next year's budget because many of last year's cuts are
now gone and can't be made again. This year we will have to focus on staff
reduction to balance the budget.
Because we are required to notify teachers that
they will be laid off or not asked to return by the end of March, we need to
make staffing decisions four to five months before we have a firm
understanding of our expected revenue. To this end, the administration of the
school district begins to discuss staffing as early as late January.
This year not only do we not know what our revenues
are going to be, we also do not have a contract with
the BEA and therefore we do not have a firm understanding of
our anticipated expenditures. Referring back to my earlier statement that we
need to plan for the "worst case scenario" I wanted to inform you that I will
be meeting with the administrators to identify staff reductions for next
school year to be presented to the Board at their March 29th board meeting.
The preliminary "worst case scenario" requires that we reduce at least 20
positions. I anticipate that we will focus on non-classroom positions where
possible and I will ask the administrators to work to define ways we can
reduce costs related to various extra duties. I do anticipate that class
sizes will be increasing. I wanted to provide everyone with this early notice
so that there will not be any surprises when the 2011-2012 staffing plan is
presented to the Board next month.
Myron V. Palomba, Ph.D.