HARTFORD — Budget and monetary discussions again dominated Wednesday evening’s Southern Lyon County Board of Education meeting.
Fewer than 20 people attended the meeting and only one person spoke up for public comment. The board meetings over the past couple of months have been heavily attended as the district looks at options to balance the 2010-11 budget — a budget that, like many districts, is facing a shortfall. On Dec. 16, the Southern Lyon County board learned that the district would lose $400,000 in the budget for the next school year. It’s a situation faced by many school districts across the state after both the Kansas Legislature and Gov. Mark Parkinson made repeated cuts in school funding to balance the state budget.
Since July 2008, the Southern Lyon County budget has dropped from $4,622,732 to $3,836,093. Superintendent Mike Argabright said state cuts of $202,836 on Nov. 24 made the budget even tougher, causing a $423,836 shortfall for the 2010-11 budget cycle.
Among Wednesday evening’s topics were financial reports from Argabright, who said the biggest hit the district took in funding was in free lunches. The FTE was 57 this year compared to last year’s 67, which equated to a little over $40,000 loss in at-risk funding, Argabright said. The district also is down about $226,787 in total budget since July 1, 2009. The district had $3,074,687 in the general fund in unencumbered cash in January 2009. Today it stands at $2,540,272 for a difference of $534,415.
The next agenda item centered around efficiency and building analysis review. Argabright presented the board with three options. Option 1 was to perform a post audit on the district similar to the one that Rep. Peggy Mast presented to the district at a recent meeting. There would be no cost to the district but the audit can’t be performed until the end of the summer, Argabright said.
The next options were to perform other cost studies. One cost study would be performed by the Center for Innovative Leadership and would study efficiency in the district. The cost would be $1,000 but the study can’t be performed until later this spring. The board voted to be put on the list for that study.
Another study could be done by the next board meeting and would include a cost analysis of the buildings. The board voted unanimously to have that study done on the Hartford and Neosho Rapids buildings for a cost of $4,100 per building.
The board also briefly discussed options to balance the 2010-11 budget for the district. Argabright asked for input as to what the board would like administration to prepare for the next board meeting. The board members decided on the following topics:
• Four-day school week,
• Longer days and shorter school year,
• Increasing the Local Option Budget,
• Increasing pay-to-play fees and other sports-related consolidation and cuts.
The next board meeting will be at 7 p.m., March 8 at the USD 252 Southern Lyon County Board of Education office in Hartford.
jimbo (anonymous) says...
I thought of something pretty pertinent to this problem. A couple years ago a certain contractor was going to build a subdivision by neosho rapids. Unfortunately that got turned dohwn due to some of the Emporia government higher ups. If this had been done maybe the enrollment in the Hartford school would have been higher and some of this budget concerns could have been eliminated.
February 12, 2010 at 5:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
It would be interesting to find out why it was turned down, wouldn't it? Neosho Rapids is a neat little community and even had it's own post office at one time, maybe still does. The roads need help. Was it the infrastructure I wonder? I'm not being rhetorical, I'm just real curious about why. I don't know the answer. It bears looking into.
This area is rocked by unemployment and low income so the free lunch program would definitely be taking a hit. Something needs to be done about somehow economizing there.
This is going to sound controversial, and I'll take some hits but I don't care. What if the lunch program were to be discontinued all together and everyone, teachers, staff, and students alike were required to bring their own lunch everyday? It's not unheard of. It worked that way when I went to parochial school in the 50's. My mother packed me a sandwich everyday and some carrot sticks and celery; the school provided the milk. What's the harm?
Even if you did it this way for a couple of years untl this ungodly recession is over, it might help keep this school open. Yes, I know, it means lunch ladies and a nutritionist would be out of a job. I'm just making a suggestion since free lunch is the reported big ticket item.
February 12, 2010 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
create
As I understood the original concept of the school lunch program it was based on the presumption that some parents were unable (or perhaps unwilling) to provide money for their children to eat on at school.
If that presumption was valid (and for the sake of argument let's assume for the moment that it was) wouldn't the same dynamics then apply to requiring everyone to bring a lunch? And wouldn't that be made even worse by the very recession that is causing the funding problem to start with?
We may have to adopt just such measures to keep thing going before we are through....but I would certainly think there are other areas (like athletics as an example) where cost reductions could be achieved first.
February 12, 2010 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
My first line should have read the free school lunch program.....sorry again.
February 12, 2010 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
You're absolutely right about the original concept, that the free lunch program was instituted to provide a more rounded nutrition for those low income children who could not afford a lunch.
While parents may be unable, yes, unwilling too, to send lunch money to school, the tricky part is "money." Many people may not have the extra money it takes to buy a lunch ticket. It's not on a daily basis, it's a monthly thing I believe and some people just can't afford that. Some who can afford it buy a lunch ticket for the entire year.
While they don't have the actual money, they surely have some bread and peanut butter or cheese or baloney. NO CHIPS PLEASE!
I feel bad to be even making such suggestions at a time when the First Lady is launching a healthy child program with regard to obesity.
Yes, my suggestion is only temporary. And don't forget, the free lunch program has something to do with farm subsidies of some sort. We can't put that on the back shelf for too long.
More study is required for this. I want to know how much state funding is provided through agricultural surplus for free lunch programs. I think that was the original idea. But to see the lunch menus, I wonder. All these beef or chicken chunks and such...somebody is getting subsidized. I think more attention needs to be paid to the menus. Everything is processed. Why not more home cooking style? A small school should certainly more easily be able to do that. As I understand it, however, the state has recipe requirements for exact content and many homestyle recipes don't really translate. That may be why they go to the chunk menu. You know, 4 chicken chunks = x grams of fat, protein, etc. Ease.
I like it when you provide argument, biscuit. It always makes sense and we can actually discuss.
I agree with you on athletics, and I used to coach volleyball, so I'm aware of all the expenses. Jerseys are a big ticket item. Perhaps each kid should simply buy his own jersey. It's definitely not the coaching salaries. I remember figuring it out to the hourly wage one time and it was less than 50 cents an hour when you figure all the time involved.
I'm also aware of the first time they were required to go to air helmets for football. Wow! Now THAT was an expense and a half. Still, I know, it kept heads safer, and I agree with all that.
February 12, 2010 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
I didn't really understand what the article actually meant by the big hit the program took either. Was it a big hit in the number of people using it......a big hit in the amount the district was reimbursed....a bit hit how? It might have been there and I just failed to understand but it wasn't clear to me. I am quite certain you are correct that there is also some connection to the program and agricultural subsidies...but I don't understand that connection either.
Thank you for the kind words. I am making a conscious effort to return to more of that after coming to realize I have been becoming too combative of late. I don't like to do that but some times the fog and heat of battle pushes you into areas you don't like to go.
February 12, 2010 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Though I don't like to be aggressively combative I also recognize that I am pretty good at it. That ironically is one of the reasons that I don't like to go there. Does that make any sense?
February 12, 2010 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yev_kassem (anonymous) says...
This post is not going to be popular but here goes...
I for one am tired of all the handouts. School is very inexpensive when you compare it to daycare. I think you pay like $50 for your kid to attend school for 9 months out of the year. Compare that to the average of $80-90 per week for daycare. Yes you have to pay for meals also but $100 goes a really long way.
I think everyone should be required to pay for school and everyone should be required to pay for the lunches. If you can't afford the $50 for tuition and the $1.50/day for your child's lunch you shouldn't have had kids.
Parents need to start taking responsibility for their kids, you chose to have them, you should take care of them.
Sadly, the children are the victims though. A system was put in place to protect the kids and irresponsible parents took advantage of it.
We live in a world of way too many handouts and it needs to stop. Take responsibility for your actions. The government is here to help you get back on your feet but it is not here to take advantage of.
*steps off soapbox*
February 12, 2010 at 10:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
yev_kassem
A system was put in place to protect the kids and irresponsible parents took advantage of it.
You are exactly right and the same could be said of almost all social programs. even the old welfare system was intended to help the children not reward women for having ever increasing numbers of them.
The problem comes when efforts to punish or restrict the abuses of the parents really only hurt the innocent one...the child. How can we sidestep that? That's the real question?
The most effective way would be to control who has children to start with......but now you are getting into an area of controversy where even angels would fear to tread.
February 12, 2010 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yev_kassem (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy-
You are exactly right. Most if not all social programs have people taking advantage of them, and I am not sure how to prevent that. I do think there needs to be a better system in place that checks the validity of some of the people that are getting benefits.
I don't know if it is still in place because it has been a while since I was doing the hiring, but a few years ago, to get unemployment benefits you had to prove that you were seeking a job. I can not tell you how many times people would come in my store and ask me to sign a form saying that they asked me about a job. I refused of course, but I would just watch them walk down to the next place and do the same thing. All they wanted was their handout and didn't want to actually do honest work for it. That program, is/was a start. Definitely had it's flaws but at least it made people do something.
I understand that it is hard now to find jobs but I also think alot of people who are "looking" are not willing to take a $7/hr job because they feel it is beneath them. I think people need to get off their high horse and do what they have to. I would take two $7/hr jobs working 40 hrs each in order to provided for my family before I asked the government for a handout.
February 12, 2010 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
koalemos (anonymous) says...
I would work for myself and take no pay before I would accept a slave job at $7 per hour. A person can earn more money in less time collecting pop cans on the side of the road. $7 per hour = $56 per day before taxes or $40 after taxes. Why do we pay that $16 per day in taxes? So when we loose our crappy job we can draw unemployment and go fishing and catch fish and sell them in the employee parking lot at Tyson during shift change. Some people have no imagination.
February 12, 2010 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Even though I am certain that in reality I am worth 56 or more dollars per hour......if nobody is willing to pay me what I deserve...then I may have to settle for less until I find somebody more appreciative of my worth.
What I am saying is seven dollars per hour is seven times as good as zero dollars per hour...and will buy seven dollars more things. Of course that becomes complicated then when you can draw the equivalent of six or seven dollars per hour in unemployment to act like you are looking for a job.
So the break down is not in the plan to pay unemployment to help you through a layoff.....the break down is in the inability to insure that the plan is not being taken advantage of. Fixing the problem sounds easy....but the trick in in the application of the fix.
February 12, 2010 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
As I see the problem with social programs is the fact that there are more people taking advantage of the programs, than should be allowed to take advantage of the programs.
Such as , Illegal Immigrants using forged papers, etc., etc., to illegally take advantage of social programs aimed at helping legal, documented, bonafied citizens of the USA.
I am trying to pick another fight with anyone, just stating what should be obvious fact to everyone.
And taking advantage of public schooling is not exempt from being taken advantage of. In fact public schooling is a social program and I believe one of the easiest social programs to take advantage of . Any program that is available to the public is in reality a social program. So those who are afraid of and shoutthe loudest, that our country or government is becomming a socialist government or society, are, evidently oblivious to the fact , our government, country, society has/had become socialistic when the first tax funded social program was implemented in 1935, which was named the Works Progress Administration and then (renamed during 1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA) .
And now the same USA infrastructure repair/rebuild effort has or is about to begin again with tax funds, provided by the U.S. taxpayer.
So you see, socialisim and social programs have been around for a long time. These social programs have only become more plentiful and more costly, due to greed, graft and corruption !
SOCIALISM in the USA, hmmmmmm, it has been around for at least 7 decades.
Think about it .
Police Protection
Fire Protection
Trash/Refuse pick up
Sewer
Water
Street Repair
Etc., Etc.
Could these all be considered Social Programs or Socialism? Remember these programs are all taxpayer funded programs . Hmmmmmmm.
February 12, 2010 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Sorry, my first sentence in my third paragraph should have been, I am NOT trying to pick another fight with anyone, just stating what should be obvious fact to everyone.
February 12, 2010 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
Yes, biscuit, it does make sense what you said about the heat of battle causing us to become more combative. Who, of course, would know this more than I? I am sometimes the consummate bitch on these threads. I have a tendency to parse phrases, but that's where ideas reside after all. Such is analysis.
With regard to social programs, I agree with yev. Too many have learned the tricks of taking advantage of these handouts, and there must be put in place some kind of limitation or a cap perhaps. Then the state will tell us how understaffed their social workers are to begin with and we can't afford to hire more. Six of one or half-a-dozen of another.
But when it comes to irresponsible people who have so many children, it is the child who suffers. Believe me, I've seen many, many examples. I used to know a family of kids who shared basketball shoes. I drove home crying the day I found out.
A little kid doesn't have a job; a kid can't really prepare himself a decent meal. Given the choice, a kid will eat a bowl of cereal or pop tarts.
I can see a woman with a child or two who is a single mom getting help. Lots of those. All too often, men abandon families. I was a single mom, but I had a widow's pension and I worked as a waitress at first then began college while working part time. It was hard, but I also remember paying my children's tuition and buying their lunches without help.
It's a real problem, to that I will agree.
But I want more information about the state lunch program. I don't quite understand it. I think the reporter should have asked more questions.
February 12, 2010 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grace1 (anonymous) says...
Here's how I understand it. At-risk funding is based on the number of kids on free or reduced price lunches. 67 students qualified last year. Only 57 qualified this year, so at-risk funding dropped by $40,000. This money is not actually for lunches, it is to help educate kids who are at-risk of failing.
February 13, 2010 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
grace1
If I understand what you are saying this at risk funding reduction occurred because the number of students qualifying for free or reduced price lunches decreased? Does that mean then that the problem this is causing school finances has nothing to do with the cost of providing these lunches to qualified students?
Very interesting,,,and very misleading as presented....if true!
February 14, 2010 at 5:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
good post
February 15, 2010 at 7:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
uranidiot (anonymous) says...
The big hit Mike Argabright was referring to had nothing to do with food being served. The At-Risk program is money the school receives based on the amount of students receiving free and reduced lunch. This money is not used for the lunch and breakfast program. It is used for many other things. For a complete list please contact the USD 252 District office.
Also by federal law lunches have to be provided at all public schools. The free and reduced lunches are a federal program to help parents that might not be able to afford to feed there kids at school. And yes it is abused sometimes, but it also is a life saver to those few children that come from dysfunctional homes.
February 15, 2010 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grace1 (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
I think it was not communicated clearly by the reporter. This $40,000 cut to at-risk funding for USD 252 is in addition to the 5 cuts in state funding. It just adds to the pain for South Lyon County.
February 15, 2010 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
grace1
Thank you for the information. It was most helpful in understanding.
February 16, 2010 at 6:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )