The Greenbush-Middle River School is facing another deficit—this time to the tune of $314,242. After previously approving its 2023-24 budget in June 2023, the board approved the revised 2023-24 budget -- one that included this deficit -- at its December 18, 2023 meeting. The board approved it by a 6-1 margin, with board member Peter Kern voting against it.
GMR Superintendent Barb Muckenhirn presented this deficit during both the Truth in Taxation Hearing prior to regular meeting business and during the regular meeting when discussing the school’s revised 2023-24 budget.
According to Muckenhirn’s presentation during the Truth in Taxation Hearing, the 2023-24 budget reflects a rollover estimate of revenues and expenditures from the 2022-23 revised budget. She highlighted how this 2023-24 budget will need to be revised after the district finishes negotiations with licensed teachers to reflect salary and benefit adjustments.
This budget does take into account the deficit reduction plan approved by the board in March 2021. At that time, the board approved estimated reductions of $451,000-- implemented July 1, 2021. This budget also reflects a Fall 2021 voter-approved referendum.
Notably, back in August 2021, the GMR Board approved a twoquestion levy ballot. GMR voters approved the two following levy questions in November 2021. 1.) Renewing its $506.05 per pupil levy for seven years 2.) Passing a $1,206.05 per pupil operating levy that would last seven years ($700 per pupil above the current levy) During discussions over these two levy questions back at a July 19, 2021 meeting, previous Board Chairperson Shane Kilen didn’t believe there was a chance of passing a second question— the increased levy question-- at the same amount it asked for the year before.
Kilen was referring to the levy that district residents voted down in November 2020. This 2020 levy, if approved, would have revoked its current $506.05 per pupil operating levy and replaced it with a $1,306.05 per pupil operating levy that would have lasted ten years starting with taxes payable 2021. The eventually approved second levy question in 2021 provides $100 less per pupil than the levy voters turned down in 2020.
Kurt Stenberg, a regular board member at the time, but now the Board Chairperson, said the following back at that July 19, 2021 meeting, “If you go any less (than the levy we tried to pass last year), it's not enough. You can't go any more. I mean, I'd be willing to go a little bit less.”
Fast forward to the December 18, 2023 meeting, Superintendent Muckenhirn asked the board to approve the revised budget with the $314,242 deficit. Muckenhirn said the district was still working with auditors and Region One on budget items, but added how the district did need the board to officially approve this budget again, based on her understanding of the law.
“What if we don't approve this?” board member Kern asked. Muckenhirn said she didn’t know, but later in the meeting mentioned how the board would need to approve something if it didn’t approve this budget. She explained how the district would have to change the budget to be what the board wanted, but she didn’t have additional numbers for them.
“There isn't anything we can change for these numbers. This is what you approved in June (2023) going into the fiscal year,” Muckenhirn said. “So, we just don't have all of that information of how to adjust the numbers yet, but we will after negotiations are settled.”
Also, according to GMR Truth in Taxation Hearing info, the budget will need to reflect any estimated additional costs associated with the Earned Sick and Safe Time law for qualifying employees who work at least 80 hours per year. It will also need to reflect the estimated additional costs associated with summer unemployment benefits for qualifying seasonal employees.
“At this point in time, this is still the budget that we approved in June, and we don't have additional revenue coming in and we aren't cutting staff in the middle of the year,” Muckenhirn said, then asking board member Kern. “… Does that help?”
Kern said this info helped, but expressed his frustration over the situation.
“We continued a resolution or a budget in June (2023) and I remember asking for budget numbers coming into that. And we pushed it off, pushed it off. And then… we're just gonna roll over last year's budget because we're allowed to do that,” Kern said. “And we never actually seen any numbers. And then I look at these numbers and I'm like, I would not have approved that in June. That's frustrating, so I guess we'll have to revisit that coming up here.”
Muckenhirn reiterated that this was what the board approved and Kern said he knew this was what the board approved.
“I'm just saying I just went and looked back to make sure that I didn't actually see any numbers because I’d, if I’d have actually seen a $300,000 deficit spend in that budget, I don't think I would have signed up for that,” Kern said. “So, I would like us, well, to have to figure this out and look at this more, but that's unfortunate that that's what we sign up for.”
Next Meeting: The board’s next regular meeting takes place on Monday, January 22 at 7:30 pm.
