greatplain-there was a power outage that day. There was not a problem with the septic. You can only flush so many times when the power is out. The kids did not walk but were bused to another facility during the outage. The water has been drinkable and is tested every three months. Several years ago the school had to bring in bottled water for a couple of days while a water problem was being fixed but the septic has never been an issue for at least the last 10 years.

Greatplain - Consolidated class sizes have always been comparable to the other Milton elementary schools. Overall numbers are lower due to the size of the school.

---

As for shipping students out - why not do the opposite? Close East or West. 2 schools within about a mile of each other serve the same geographic area - talk about redundancy. Expand Consolidated like they did with Harmony and serve all areas of the district - not just the City of Milton.

---

I made a call - the water problems at Consolidated were 10 years ago and have long since been resolved.

Ted - True, but you're not 100% right. The tax relief was off the revenue limit authority. If Fund balance was used to offset that reduction in authority, it could be planned for well in advance of the short term borrowing required for cash flow needs. That is entirely different than cutting programming mid-year.

Sprinkles: About seven years ago, Consolidated was called into question due to the near failure of its septic system and fresh water supply. Second graders were walked to a nearby home of a teacher to use the bathroom. Has that been resolved? Is the water drinkable now?

Stubby: Consolidated numbers have always been lean compared to other school numbers; I know. Also, they do not serve the disabled population but those struggling students are often shipped into Milton for services.

If they numbers are up, great! Bring them in. All four classrooms. And all of those traveling teachers, such as Art, Phy.Ed., Music and Librarian won't have to drive everyday for considerable minutes, and can teach.

In the unlikely event that the District actually had to use money from its fund balance (which we know is unlikely from past experience)it would not at all be disastrous -- in fact, the District did just that to pay for a half million dollars tax cut. It is sad that the school board was willing to use reserve funds to pay for a tax cut, but is unwilling to face even the unlikely possibility of using reserve funds to preserve education.

Ted - you're completely disregarding the impact of using fund balance mid-year. First of all, it is NOT a fund reserve that is sitting in an isolated account. This notion is a COMPLETE fallacy. Fund balance is an audited statement of equity on June 30 at the end of the fiscal year. School districts do not receive funds at the same time they expend them. They don't even get most of their funds BEFORE they spend them. This is why they have to short-term borrow just to meet large expenses like payroll! Without borrowing, most districts would be broke by August or soon after. Significant sources of revenue don't even ARRIVE until after January and the first tax revenues come in from the municipality.
--
Now, to your idea that using fund reserves could be used mid year to "plug the hole": this could have a devistating impact on the district's cash flow. It could cause the district to run out of money before their tax revenues come in in January. This leaves the district with little to no alternative to meet major expenses (again, payroll). In this situation, the lending institution will take note of the district's failure to manage their short term cash flow, and their short term rating will be jeopardized. The district may be forced to seek shotgun funds to float by until budgeted revenues arrive. These deals will cost money and hurt the districts creditibility even more. Also, the ratings institutions will require explanations of unexpected reductions in fund balance. If the explanation is unplanned, expect another ding to your rating. In short - it snowballs into a flurry of problems that reinforce the need to project and plan ahead for pitfalls. The needs of the students come first, but the district also has an obligation to use the best predictors available to prevent a bad mark on their fiscal management abilities. If this means that the district is under budget significantly more than it is close to or over budget, then they have met that obligation.

Noleftist - ....and all this time I thought schools were supposed to spend tax dollars to educate children. I didn't realize they were in the business of taxing us for the purpose of raising "long-term capital". I'm all for saving for a rainy day, but, brother, it is pouring!

Good. :)

If the Milton budget projections are off by the average inconsistency over the past five years --$650,000 (which is reasonable and likely, especially given that the District was off by at least $700,000 for the current year), then we can expect a shortfall of...about $200,000. The District could simply use $200,000 from this year's surplus to pay for next year's technology spending (which the District is already planning to do), and no cuts are necessary. The District should not look to cut first, but should instead give priority to properly funding education.

Paying operating costs out of a fund balance is buffoonery: it lowers your bond rating and is the equivalent of funding operating costs out of your long-term capital. When people make such ridiculous claims, be sure to ask exactly when they will be proposing to cut current budgets to replenish the general fund.

rossnmeg: There is no reason why the District , if it had a real deficit next year, could not use some of its reserve funds to plug the hole for that year, and then make necessary adjustments going forward. It would not be necessary to make mid-year cuts. In fact, that is what responsible school districts do -- only make cuts when there is a demonstrated need for them, rather than based on projections that are proven to be unreliable. Using the fund balance in this way (and given the unreliability of past budget projections, there is a very good chance it would not be necessary) would not solve everything. But it is better for education, community and the kids to avoid cuts until they are absolutely necessary. At some point the District must ask itself: Which is more important -- putting money into reserve funds, or providing a top notch education?

Ted - I completely disagree. Cutting deficit spending during the fiscal year is almost impossible. Most school districts spend anywhere from 70-80%+ on just staffing expenditures. To cut from the budget when most of the districts money is tied up in payroll costs suggests that cutting people loose mid-year is possible...? Most of these employees have contracts, and those that don't are not positions you can just cut loose or furlough. At that point you're either halting all maintenance, supply purchasing, teaching and learning, or other semi-controllable budget you can find. Those departments go into complete freeze mode at great expense when other predictions go over budget (i.e. unexpected staffing as I mentioned in the last article).
--
Also, why do you pretend that if a real deficit materialized at the end of the fiscal year that using fund balance would solve everything? The public would be even more angry! I think we agreed before that the district's fund balance is very low, and needs to be replenished for a host of reasons. I don't see how suggesting deficit spending is okay or positive thing.

Ted, it couldn't be stated better. The district has been pretty quiet about their extra money this year after being off their guess by $700,000. Why in the world would they then over cut? They "project" needing $758,000 but they cut almost $900,000? Why can't they do things like textbooks and technology after they find out what their real budget is? Or stop building stupid over the top parking lots!

Stubby- you are correct is all your statements!
The school is NOT in a "poor state" as greatplain stated. Also there are more students at Consolidated this year than there has been in the last 6 years. I have had kids there that long. I do not know what the numbers were previous to that.

rossnmeg: Making cuts after deficits actually happen (instead cutting based on projected deficits) is not only very possible, it is more responsible and better for the kids and community. If the District had an actual deficit next year, then it could use some of its accumulated surplus to fill holes, and then possibly make changes for following years. Cuts should only be a last resort after an actual financial crisis, rather than the first response to a projected deficit that never actually materializes.

Ted - Very true. However, cutting retroactively is almost always impossible. Cuts based on projections are all we have. So little of the district budget is absolute when it must be adopted. Perfect example: look what happened at the state level last May. Districts are still reeling from the blowback from that change.

Whew! Generous retirement benefits for union employees are still safe. That's good, since it's all for the kids.

rossnmeg: This is not about being "perfect," this is about what is best for kids and the community. If we know from past experience that the budget projections will not be accurate, then it is wrong to make cuts based on those projections. It is difficult to guess what the District's finances will be for the following year, and school districts often use conservative estimates for projections. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it is wrong to proactively make cuts based on those projections. We should not expect any school board to be perfect, but we should expect a school board to act reasonably and as the steward of the education system. It is unreasonable to use budget projections that have a proven track record of inaccuracy as a basis for cutting education.

greatplain - you are correct. Consolidated does not serve the same population it used to. It severs a larger student population than in the past.

-----

In a previous thread another contributor debunked the "Poor state" argument. Apparently the roof has been recently re-done (some parts as recently as last summer), the parking lot is new, the gym has new flooring and lighting, and even more improvements have been made. It is not a "modern" facility, but it is efficient and functional. One thing it is not is handicapped accessible. If it were to close, it would, as I understand it, be required to be handicapped accessible before re-opening.

At the least, something is wrong with the numbers. Every year it seems to be a big financial hole that is always filled later, miraculously, (not necessarily cuts).
Consolidated School does not handle the population of children it used to. The facility is in poor state. It, like the GM plant, will close, sooner or later.

Way to go throwing that first stone ted. Must be nice to be perfect.

The District made cuts based on projections that we know are unreliable. The District projected a half million dollar deficit for this year, but is running at least a $200,000 surplus (and is thereby off by at least $700,000); last year the District's projections were off by $400,000; the year before, the projections were off by $1,350,000; etc. The Board is negligent in using projections,that it knows from past history are completely unreliable, to make cuts to education. The kids and community deserve better.