Whitefish Bay Schools Aim to Cut Budget Without Cutting Teachers
Preliminary data show district is $300,000 shy of offsetting a $2.1 million loss in state aid.
The Whitefish Bay School District's projected $2.1 million loss in state aid in 2011-12 may be managed without cutting teachers or increasing class sizes, district officials say.
Preliminary projections show the district is within $300,000 of closing a $2.1 million shortfall in state aid, as proposed under Gov. Scott Walker’s biennial budget, according to Mary Gavigan, district superintendent.
The preliminary data show the loss in state aid could be offset, in large part, by more than $1.7 million in wage and benefits cuts, primarily through salary freezes and increased employee contributions to pension costs, and by an $82,000 increase in district revenue.
Specifically, if Walker’s budget repair bill withstands legal challenge and takes effect, the district expects to save $810,839 in pension costs, as the bill requires public employees to contribute 5.8 percent of their salaries to the Wisconsin Retirement System pension program. The district currently bears that cost, as part of the 11.6 percent of employee salaries it contributes toward the pension program.
Custodians are the only employee group whose contract will not expire June 30, but they also have agreed to start contributing 5.8 percent toward their pensions. The concession in custodial benefits would save the district $85,000.
The district also will save about $468,543 through salary freezes for non-union employees.
The district is not asking employees to increase their 8 percent contribution to health insurance premiums. The district does not participate in the state health insurance pool, so it is not bound by the budget repair bill’s requirement that employees contribute 12 percent toward their health insurance benefits.
As the district works to balance its budget, Gavigan said, the district will examine health insurance plan design changes to improve plan offerings without increasing premium costs.
“We are looking at it from a venue of, ‘How can we bring about good quality health insurance and still bring about savings?' ” she said. "Those (questions) are the spirit of the discussions that are going on.”
The district expects to save $160,000 through staff reductions and $155,146 with non-salary budget reductions.
Gavigan said district officials are looking to eliminate two full-time employees somewhere within the district, but she said they are not sure which positions will be cut.
She said a reducing staff by two full-time employee positions would not be unusual, particularly given the state budgeting proposal, and other districts have been hit much, much worse.
“That would have been there before the budget repair bill, and it would be very common and typical for what the school district does every year,” she said.
On the revenue side of the equation, enrollment growth is expected to increase the district's revenue cap, bringing in an additional $77,000, and fee increases will boost revenue by another $5,000.
Gavigan said the preliminary projections are meant to provide working data as the School Board works to pass a budget by July 1.
“You’re seeing a plan that is designed to bring in a balanced budget, protect programs and services, protect class size and bring stability to a system within a matter of months,” she said.
Concerned WFB Voters 2009
2:32 pm on Sunday, April 17, 2011
Concerned WFB Voters '09
All WFB residents can only hope that in the quote in the April 16 Patch, attributed to new WFB School District Administrator Gavigan, that she either misspoke, was misquoted or was replying to another question when she made this statement, "... the district will examine health insurance plan design changes to improve plan offerings without increasing premium costs." With current family plan health insurance premiums costing WFB between $25-29 K annually (both amounts have been stated in the press, both are outrageously over-priced, and coincidentally (?) provided by the Teachers' Union), just how or why could/should the plans be IMPROVED?!
WFB School District Union member employees of WFB do not NEED a raise. They do not NEED improved health insurance plans or other fringe benefits, nor does the District NEED an "acoustically correct music room (how does THAT improve preparation for college, test scores or GPAs?).
The WFB School District NEEDS to lower its costs, including fringe benefits (this means health insurance), and to live within the means of all its residents/taxpayers, especially considering the taxes levied by the Village. The District needs to improve its stewardship of all WFB residents' resources.
The students seem to be doing just fine.
Jeff Rumage
8:01 pm on Sunday, April 17, 2011
I feel like I should clarify. I was referring to improvements in efficiency, which would lead to spending cuts, not increases, while maintaining the same services. Dr. Gavigan spoke about possible efficiencies possible in copays, prescription drug plans, etc. Sorry about the wording.
derick voden
6:45 pm on Sunday, April 17, 2011
Mentioned an increase in enrollment. 220 students or property tax paying parrents with children.
Terri Froiland
1:30 pm on Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Did you really just ask such a racist question in a public forum, Derick?
Kevin Buckley
11:36 am on Monday, April 25, 2011
I don't see how that's racist. Chapter 220 kids can be any race. -- It's valid to ask whether the increased load of students originates with WFB residents which we are required to educate, and 220 kids, who are optional.
As an FYI to Derick, though, 220 kids bring revenue from outside. Generally speaking, they are financially beneficial to the district -- in addition to bringing diversity to the system.
Terri Froiland
2:21 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
It is racist, as 220 kids are generally admitted only if they enhance the racial balance of a school. It is also classist. He didn't ask how many of the kids reside in WFB whose parents are not homeowners. If we don't start seeing that it is our responsibility to educate ALL children, regardless of race, class, religion, disability, etc., we will all regret it in the end.
Bob McBride
3:18 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
No, Terri, you're wrong. It's not racist or classist, just because you, yourself, define chapter 220 kids as a form of racial balance. It's a legitimate question, as noted by Kevin above. And it makes perfect sense to ask the question. If we're being told that there's an increase in students and it's determined that this increase is related to students coming in from outside the physical school district, that's different than if the actual school age population in WFB is increasing. It makes a difference, for instance, when WFB taxpayers are asked to foot the bill for school related expenditures based on a reported increase in enrollment. If that increase is due to an elective decision to bring more kids in from outside the village, the benefits of making that decision need to be weighed against whatever the cost is of the proposed changes.
Terri Froiland
5:09 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
Then why did Derrick use the phrase "property tax paying parents with children"? If the distinction needs to be made between WFB kids and non WFB kids to determine direction based on population, why does it matter if the WFB parents are homeowners or renters?
Bob McBride
5:16 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
Terri,
You're missing the point. It's not renter versus homeowner. It's WFB resident versus non-resident. You're the one making the rent/ownership distinction. The point is that a WFB resident, owner or renter for that matter, pays WFB property taxes. A student whose family is non-resident (ie, a Chapter 220 student) doesn't - whether they rent or own in their own community is immaterial.
You're looking for a reason to make this a racial/class issue when there's no indication that that's the case.
Kevin Buckley
7:37 pm on Monday, April 25, 2011
What Bob said.
But to answer the above question, while one could successfully argue our society should educate all children, legally, that responsibility begins and ends inside the boundaries of the district. Don't get me wrong, I think the 220 program is net net beneficial for the district, and the greater area .. but it does need to focus on excess capacity and not be a detriment to the local taxpayer, who is already paying dearly.