1 / 13

2010-2011 Proposed General Fund Budget

2010-2011 Proposed General Fund Budget. Middle Bucks Institute of Technology Executive Council February 8, 2010. Act 1 of 2006 Index = 2.89% General Fund + Lease Rental = 2.96% increase $9,603,860 vs. $9,327,876 Increase $275,984. 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010 Proposed Budget Change.

gwyn
Download Presentation

2010-2011 Proposed General Fund Budget

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2010-2011Proposed General Fund Budget Middle Bucks Institute of Technology Executive Council February 8, 2010

  2. Act 1 of 2006 Index = 2.89% • General Fund + Lease Rental = 2.96% increase • $9,603,860 vs. $9,327,876 • Increase $275,984 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010Proposed Budget Change

  3. Member District Contribution = SD budget increase 3.31% • $6,998,390 vs. $6,774,456 • $223,934 Increase • Allocated using 3 year averaging of ADM 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010General Fund Member Contribution

  4. Member District Contribution – Lease Rental • $1,467,050 vs. $1,469,100 • Decrease $2,050 • Allocated based on STEB Market Value 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010Lease Rental

  5. Combined General Fund and Lease Rental • Member District Contribution Net Increase $221,884 or 2.69% • $8,465,440 vs. $8,243,556 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010 Member Contribution

  6. Expenditure Budget Increase = 3.54% • $8,136,810 vs. $7,858,776 • Increase $278,034 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010General Fund Expenditures

  7. Salaries & Wages – Teachers • Teachers’ matrix is best guess – 3 out of 4 SD expire • For 2009/2010 used 2008/2009 matrix rates • Increase for 2010/2011 $170,972 • Add new instructor – Dental Assisting • Eliminate CET Instructor – 2008/2009 curtailment 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010Budget InformationSalaries & Wages

  8. Salaries & Wages Non-Bargaining Unit • Instructional Assts $1 hourly adjustment • Elimination of Math / Reading Coaches • Elimination of Resource Specialist • All other wages budgeted 4% increase • Overall net decrease $13,173 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010Budget InformationSalaries & Wages

  9. Medical & Prescription - Decrease $100,113 • Plan Design Changed 2008/2009 to 2009/2010 • 2009/2010 Budget Based on 2008/2009 Plan Info • First Look for 2010/2011 is 9.2% Increase • PSERS used certified rate 8.22% • Increase 72% or $164,216 over 2009/2010 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010Budget InformationBenefits

  10. Penn State Program – Tuition & Enrollment • Increase $18,640 • Addition of Math & Reading Coaches as Consultants • Increase $41,040 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010Budget InformationProfessional & Technical Services

  11. Program Equipment Maintenance • Net Increase $28,182 • Facility Maintenance • Net Increase $31,425 • Cleaning Service Increase $28,500 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010Budget InformationPurchased Property Services

  12. Program Supplies • Net Reduction $96,963 • Utilities • Net Reduction $24,500 2010/2011 vs. 2009/2010Budget InformationSupplies

  13. Member School District Contribution is 2.69% - Act 1 of 2006 Index 2.89%. • A lot of effort on part of all stakeholders – professional staff, administration, PAC & Finance Committees to reduce increase. • Fiscally responsible without jeopardizing program integrity. • Questions? • Thank you! Conclusion

More Related