Goodrich – The board of education meeting room overflowed last Monday with district residents wanting answers.
On the agenda: Whether to finalize the layoff of 39 teachers.
Tearfully, board members approved the layoffs, by a margin of 6 to 1. Although school officials expect to call back teachers as the budget allows, 11 to 15 teachers are expected to be permanently laid off, unless cuts are made via a shorter calendar year, which is expected to save approximately $70,000 for each day not on the 2005-2006 school calendar, said Kim Hart, Goodrich schools superintendent.
‘We’ve hired top-quality teachers year after year, that’s why I moved here. This affects my children too. I have to listen to them cry when they hear somebody got pink-slipped,’said board vice president Ken Rappuhn, who said teachers were ‘loved and supported? despite a vote approving layoffs.
Rappuhn, donating his board compensation to the Fine Arts: A Mainstream in Education (FAME) program, vowed not to accept a penny in board compensation, and to find a way to bring back laid-off teachers.
Also voting yes were treasurer Gary Foltz, trustee Michael Tripp, president Michael Thorp, secretary Shane Tiedeman, and trustee James Bertrand.
Trustee Timothy Zirnhelt voted against the layoffs.
The matter was decided following comments made by 15 audience members, on topics including teachers? salaries, budget queries, and layoff alternatives.
Student Tony Onica, speaking for others concerned with the future of the school’s fine arts program, addressed the board on behalf of music and drama teachers.
‘We want to make it known…how much this means to us,? said Tony. ‘It serves as a springboard to other areas…such as mathematics.?
‘Have any administrators been laid off or pink-slipped?? said district resident Tom Cavric. ‘I’m very embarassed as a Goodrich resident over how this has gone. There seems to be a lot of strife going on, it’s turned into a newspaper ordeal. It’s embarassing.?
‘Our students have been tremendously successful, last year we had six merit scholarships,? said parent Mark Griffiths. ‘Have we looked into voting in some sort of millage, any kind of millage? A lot of people moved here because of the (quality of) education, and are willing and able to pay more. We need to look at a lot of other alternatives before pink slips.?
‘I feel the way this has been handled has been like a blackmail situation,? said parent Kathy Hergenreder, who felt the board asking teachers to choose between a shorter school year or layoffs would lead to a loss of trust. ‘Why are we looking at it as either-or? Are there options in between??
Since the crux of the layoff issue is how the school budget went from having a surplus to a deficit situation, The Citizen asked Hart for an in-depth explanation. Hart’s response follows:
‘Regardless of how much our homeowners make, we have never been a rich district, and only get a specific set amount per pupil from the state. The district’s been very conservative over the last 20 years and has tightened its belt for two or three years, which is why we don’t have the extra programs, textbooks, and staff that larger districts have.
‘New buildings were funded by bond issues’a loan from the state’which we’ll pay the next 30 years. We legally had to spend that money on that.
‘Our annual budget is based on the 6 mills from each homeowner and 18 mills from business, commercial, vacation, rental properties, etc. These two taxes fund the per-pupil amounts of $6,700 from the state.
‘With more students, there’s more money to work with, but increased teacher and supply costs. With less students, we base our budget on less money from the state. Over the last few years this district has been fortunate to add an average of 46 students yearly, but with relatively slow growth in the past year or two, statistical enrollment projections show a possible increase of only 10 new students next year. With largest class sizes at the high school level, and smallest sizes at elementary, it’s possible we could actually see enrollment decreases.
‘Our fund balance-also called fund equity, it’s similar to a savings account’was $2,303,008 at the end of the 2003-2004 year. Our revenue for 2004-2005 is $15,037,829. Our expenses for the school year are expected to be $499,658 higher than our revenue, so we’ve made cuts all year, bringing our fund equity down to approximately $1,803,350.
‘We are projecting a shortfall of about $840,000 next year, based on the fact that the amount we exceeded the budget by this year would continue until next year, and to account for an approximate $350,000 in added salary costs and arsenic water treatment systems required by federal law. The good news is any money saved through cuts this year will hopefully transfer into next year’s budget, reducing that amount we need to take out of next year’s budget.
‘If we were to take all next year’s shortfall out of the fund equity, we’d have fund equity of $966,358, or about 6.1 percent. One additional year after that of excess expenditures over revenues like we are predicting for 2005-2006 would put us into bankruptcy.
‘This is why it’s important that we address the budget situation now, to better protect the district’s future. Our auditors don’t recommend anything below 12 to 15-percent fund equity for a district to be considered healthy. This is because we only have one pot of money to use, called the general fund. The fund equity helps maintain stability in the general fund, should we have rising fuel or energy costs or unexpected emergencies to pay for. Otherwise, we would have to cut something every time an unexpected expense came in. Fund equity is just for one-time expenditures, like buses, but it shrinks very quickly if used for ongoing expenses like salaries.
‘Also, we don’t get state aid money every month, just 11 out of 12 months each year, and we need about $1,300,000 a month just to pay our bills. With 235 employes, each payroll is approximately $500,000. Even with an increase from the state next year of possibly $125 to $174 per pupil, that money won’t cover the cost of increases in salaries, benefits, health care, retirement, and increased energy and fuel costs. The state has estimated districts would need an additional $250 to $300 per pupil just to make ends meet due to costs rising beyond our control and the amount of expense over revenue getting larger.
‘For the last four years, the state has promised $6,700 per pupil per year, but in two years they took back, or pro-rated money at a cut of $73 to $74 per pupil. We can no longer count on or budget for money we can’t guarantee the state will give us.
‘It’s similar to homeowners not getting a raise for the past four years while bills steadily increase.?