WHSD1 Financial Questions
- on 03.15.06
- Winthrop Harbor
- 2 Comments
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
Interesting charts for a district trying to blame everything on the previous administration and bleak future. The ISBE Analysis shows a surplus of over $500K up until 2003 when it decreased dramatically. Isn’t that when Dr. Tenbusch took over?
The ISBE numbers are off as well. It appears they averaged 2% growth in revenue each year. The historical average in Lake County since 1991 has been 2.6%. They also do not take into account any appreciation in home values that would accompany each succesive year nor an increase in State or Federal funding. I believe ImATaxpayer on GoFlo.com has pointed out a 6% increase in home values in Winthrop Harbor. With conservative corrections of 5% appreciation, keeping the historical 2.6% CPI, not including any state or federal increases, it would appear the district balance sheet should appear more accurately as follows:
| Fiscal Year |
Operating Revenue |
Operating Expenses |
Results of Operations |
Fund Balances |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | $5,098,401 | $5,258,183 | -$159,782 | -$225,686 |
| 2007 | $5,485,879 | $5,407,782 | $78,097 | -$147,589 |
| 2008 | $5,902,806 | $5,568,265 | $334,541 | $186,953 |
| 2009 | $6,351,420 | $5,729,148 | $622,272 | $809,224 |
| 2010 | $6,834,127 | $5,895,476 | $938,651 | $1,747,876 |
| 2011 | $7,353,521 | $6,067,458 | $1,286,063 | $3,033,939 |
| 2012 | $7,912,389 | $6,245,314 | $1,667,075 | $4,701,014 |
You can see I started with the current balances of the 2006 fiscal year. I am giving WHD1 the benefit of the doubt that these numbers are correct despite past mistakes. Some of the accountants out there can check my calculations for accuracy. As you can see, using the ISBE figures for expenses, the district returns to a surplus in 2008 instead of blowing up as projected. This again is without the referendum passing and the District not going on a spending spree which they appear to have done in 2003.
I did a second analysis on 2.5% CPI and 2.5% property appreciation. A surplus results in 2009 instaed of 2008. Both scenarios do not require a referendum passage or an increase in State or Federal funding. It only requires fiscal restraint to stick to the expenses estimated by the ISBE.
I did a quick look at the WHD1 claim of the 65% solution. I immediately saw a problem. According to a candidates for office forum I attended librarians do not count along with several other of the district inclusions. I really have to question whether TAWs count. Sorry, the District does not meet the 65% standard.
And finally the Spring Bluff analysis; nowhere that I saw does it include selling the property. If the school is closed, sell it and use that money to do the addition to North Prairie or lease temp space. Then the money from the reduced staff is surplus and this becomes a cost effective solution.












The line about blaming the previous administration reminded me of a classic joke:
———–
A man starts work as President of a company. His predecessor tells him as he prepares to leave for the last time that when he gets into trouble that he has left three envelopes that will help but that they should be used one at a time.
Things go along okay for a while and then trouble pops up. The guy opens the first envelope and reads, “Blame previous management.” He does and things go better for a while.
When things get bad again he opens the second envelope and reads, “Re-organize”. This makes things better for a while, but sure enough he finds himself reaching for the third envelope.
Inside he finds, “Prepare three envelopes”
Great story. I have heard that before as well. It is very appropriate.