[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

Re: Levy promises

No, the district has not spent money it didn't have at any 
time that I'm aware, at least since I've been on the board.  
As I said in my last posting, there may even be 2% or so 
available to carry over from this year's operating budget 
to next year.
Regardless of the characterization (lying v. serious about 
its plan), YES, the board is serious about its plan to spend 
the funds next year in the categories indicated.  As you 
know a final budget is not developed until June and nearly 
every levy election in the past has been before June. 
It is NOT true that a budget has not been developed.  A 
budget was developed to determine what level of funding 
would be needed to continue the programming at current 
levels;  a budget was developed to determine how the 
district would operate next year without any additional 
levy funds (the West Park Kindergarten Center;  loss of Jr. 
Hi. team teaching; loss of 25 sections at Sr. Hi. et al 
reductions); and a budget has been developed to 
determine the needs and uses of the increased levy if it 
passes.  I gave you details of that previously.
I don't see from your post how the district will be unable 
to keep its promises in August if the levy passes.  We will 
have team teaching;  we will not lose 25 sections at the 
high school, we will not have West Park as a Kindergarten 
Center.  None of those things is in doubt if the levy passes.  
True, the state revenue figures could change (most likely 
downward), but we are operating on the best information 
that we have available right now.  We have been told that 
the PERSI (retirement fund) account contributions are not 
expected to be raised, but there is talk the legislature 
could reconvene and institute further "holdbacks."  
(parenthetical because the holdbacks became permanent 
cuts this year.)


On 8 Apr 02, at 17:11, John Danahy wrote:

Date forwarded: 	Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	"John Danahy" <>
To:             	<>
Subject:        	Re: Levy promises
Date sent:      	Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:11:01 -0700
Forwarded by:

I am reminded that the Republican caucuses were also
conducted in confidence.  However, I would think that the
district has already spent money it didn't have or it would
not be asking for a 25% increase in the supplemental levy. 
I was not politely asking if the board was lying, I was
politely asking if the Board was serious about how it was
planning to spend the increase.  The district has asked the
voters to approve a tax increase without a developed 
without any real knowledge of next years state payments, 
without having completed negotiations with the MEA.  We 
being asked to support teams at the Junior High without 
assurance that our support will actually be used for 
By August, the district could very well find itself with a
tax increase and unable to keep its promises to the voters.

John Danahy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Curley" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: Levy promises

> John:
> The district cannot spend money that it doesn't have.  It
> cannot--well, perhaps, more appropriately it should not
> and does not have any history of--negotiating a pay
> increase with "one time" money.  Pay cannot be decreased,
> so any pay raise must be backed by revenue that occurs
> every year.  "One time money" is money such as grants,
> savings from this year's budget (no guarantee there will
> be similar savings next year), or the "refund" of PERSI
> money the district received last year. So, all the
> assumptions cannot be true--unless more permanent funding
> is made available from another source (other than the levy
> would provide).  The board has identified that there is
> $250,000 of additional revenue that had originally been
> set aside (in next year's budget) for the reserve fund
> (that the auditors say should be increased for fiscal
> viability and safety).  Given the district's financial
> difficulties, it is likely that the reserve will not be
> increased this year--at least not by that amount. 
> Additionally, there may be savings realized in this year's
> budget.  All the funds budgeted and available this year
> may not be spent because of increased fiscal restraint
> this year.  It is not unusual for the district to have
> some money carried over from year to year.  Actual
> expenditures have often varied from about 97% of budget to
> 101% of budget.  This year we may be lucky enough to have
> about 2% left over, although that remains to be seen.
> And that will have to be my last comment on a subject that
> deals with salary and negotiations, because as you well
> know negotiations are conducted in confidence and it is
> not appropriate to talk publically about what is or may or
> may not happen in the process.
> If you are politely trying to ask if the board is lying to
> the public, the answer is "no".
> Mike
> On 7 Apr 02, at 21:55, John Danahy wrote:
> Date forwarded: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:56:38 -0700 (PDT)
> From:           "John Danahy" <>
> To:             "Vision2020" <>
> Subject:        Levy promises
> Date sent:      Sun, 7 Apr 2002 21:55:57 -0700
> Forwarded by:
> The following question is based on two assumptions.  First
> is that if the levy passes, the district will actually
> spend the funds as it has stated, and second, that salary
> and contract negotiations with the MEA have not yet been
> finalized. ( or maybe even begun)
> The MEA will bargain for a salary increase plus benefits
> for its members. An across the board 3% salary increase
> plus benefits increases and steps and columns will cost @
> $500,000 to $600,000.  Where will these funds come from if
> the district cannot pay for current programs and has made
> promises as to how the levy will be used?
> Note: The above figure is a guesstimate on my part and
> assumes a contract settlement that pays a 3% raise.  The
> actual amount is not important to the answer.
> John Danahy

Back to TOC