Norwalk BOE Budget Comes In

Interim Superintendent Papallo asks for about $5 million more despite declining enrollment. The details as reported by the Hour:

Norwalk Public Schools Superintendent’s Operating Budget request for the coming fiscal year is $154,832,896, a $5,089,815 or 3.39 percent increase over the 2009-10 budget.

Board of Education Central Office Interim Chief Operating Officer Dan Cook said Monday that fiscal restraint was used developing the budget. 

“This is a replication budget. It’s as low as we can go and provide the same services as last year,” Cook said.

In the budget’s forwarding message, Interim Superintendent of Schools William Papallo noted the prime consideration during the budget process was the retention of programs necessary to meet the needs of Norwalk’s nearly 11,000 students. 

Describing the budget as a delicate balancing act given the negative impacts of the worldwide financial crisis, Papallo stressed scrutiny was given to all accounts, and staff worked to preserve all students programs and was sensitive to school system employees. In contrast to the past, he said this year’s message would not include reasons for increases in specific accounts or information about new programs.

Hrmm, isn’t the school population 10, 591?  And shouldn’t we be accurate in describing numbers in something like a budget?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

  • Retired Yes

    154 832 896 / 10 591 = 14 619.2896
    final? probably not.
    maybe the supt budget to be cut by BOE then to town.
    spending per student about normal.
    this is not the final number I’m guessing. He must have several contracts to honor including buses and unions.
    I’ll bet the average Norwalk student sees about 60% of the money and special ed gets the high side. state has cut reimbursement for special education and many towns are in trouble.

  • Bruce Kimmel

    You’re right: The key question is the number of students in the system and, more importantly, how they are distributed as compared to the previous year. As we examine this budget proposal, I would suggest:

    1. Use a hard number — not to be tampered with — for student enrollment and don’t play games by repeatedly reminding the public that enrollment will change between now and next summer. Students come, but they also go. If there is a problem at one or two particular schools late next summer because of some enrollment issues, address the issue then.

    2. Staffing, and thus salaries and health insurance, grow naturally from enrollment, so the math should be straightforward. However, there is always some wiggle room when it comes to insurance projections. I would call in our consultant and firm up our insurance projections using past years experiences. This is tricky, and I still don’t fully understand how it’s done. But it needs to happen.

    3. Salaries are generally based what’s been negotiated in contracts, but there are also projected step increases. In the past, if I remember correctly, this is an additional 1.5% to 2.0% to the base salary account. I would check this; I was never quite sure if it was accurate. Also, one might argue that Papallo’s proposed 3.4% increase is rather high, considering the net costs of recent contracts.

    4. Don’t address the “small” issues until the staffing, salaries and insurance numbers are clear; they account for roughly 85% of the budget. Last year, before I stepped down from the Board, the big, sustained fight was over the number of teachers at Nathan Hale. Remember: the budget is close to $155 million.

    5. Any object codes that show an inordinate increase — without a clear explanation as to why — can and probably should be cut. Several years ago, after Corda proposed a budget with a 7+% spending increase, I was able to remove about a half million dollars from Central Office accounts that showed inexplicaly large increases. I was never informed why my proposed cuts could not be made. I was only told that my proposal was being looked into. (Interestingly, my proposed cuts were deemed moot after much larger cuts were made by making “adjustments” to projected insurance costs and enrollment.)

    Finally, a question: When will the Board be presented with the superintendent’s capital budget request?

  • Retired Yes

    Contract agreements and awards through arbitration include step movement, so the 4.5%, or whatever you, see includes the movement up the experience ladder. Many towns are finding it cost saving to offer a retirement incentive to certified staff eligible for retirement but teaching on after their years are fulfilled. New, lower level experience staff may cost less (but family insurance can cost lots more).

    Ask other insurance consultants for quotes for the same plan. A broker will cut to get the accounts. You can also do an insurance audit for eligibility. Perhaps you have some family members how do not belong there.

    I am sure there is a line by line budget out there, but perhaps not out to public yet. It is not finalized and so not ‘the budget’ proposal yet.

    The capital plan should follow close to the 5 or 10 year plan put out in the previous few years. The costs change but the projects should not change substantially. Don’t forget the physical plant must be maintained as greatest assets in town. No building viable, no school location.

  • Fleeced

    Cut the many USELESS 100K+ administrators in the Central Orifice.