Jul 30, 2013

What are the financial particulars of Perkins Schools?

Can you obtain financial information for Perkins Schools? This would help myself and others make an educated decision for the Aug. 6 levy vote. Doug in Perkins Township.

The question sought to answer exactly how much each Perkins Schools official — including teachers, administrators, staff members, and elected school board members — makes in addition to inquiries about the athletics budget.

Perkins Schools treasurer Lisa Crescimano provided the Register with numerous documents detailing this. To view the information, click any one of the files attached.

The district is proposing a 10-year, 6.73 mill emergency levy to taxpayers a week from today. If approved, the levy would generate $2.88 million per year to fund day-to-day operations for Perkins Schools, including employee salaries and benefits.
 
If approved in a week, the levy will cost the owners of a $100,000 home an additional $206 per year. That same homeowner currently pays $998 a year in school taxes.
The Mailbag is a daily feature on SanduskyRegister.com. Every weekday at noon, we will post one question-and-answer from a resident. To ask a question, send a letter to The Mailbag at 314 W. Market St., or e-mail mailbag@sanduskyregister.com. Please include your first name and a location in the e-mail, e.g. “John from Decatur Street."

Comments

EZOB

Sugar,
Do you really expect anything different from a Liberal. They always are looking for ways to get in your pocket. They honestly believe it is your duty to pay for them. We are Slaves (White, Black, no matter skin color) to their wants. If their kids would play soccer in Europe they'd think we should foot the bill. Notice the "Looking Down" on you. You are less educated but as far as I know you could be a Rhode's Scholar. They might have an education but they learn very little because they lack the ability to debate and can't see past thier noses.

lovingmysoccerm...

oh geez!!! EZOB you are another smart! cant keep up with you boys!

bobshumway92

.

lovingmysoccerm...

Nope! Just enjoying reading all of your comments! Would love a beer though! sweet dreams!

Suitcase Simpson

You'll need a few beers when the levy goes down in flames next week. Can't wait to cast my ballot. A big, gigantic, quit trying to rip us off, NO.

SanduskyCountyR...

Its funny to read people saying people should coach for free...they have no clue what goes into it and the sacrifices that are made to to the job right.

citizen

I haven’t read any comments on here, because I certainly don’t have time to read 300+. That in and of itself show what a divisive leader Jim Gunner has been. Great leaders are able to bring people together for a greater cause or for the good of the organization. Gunner has the opposite effect.

Regardless, have any of you tax increase supporters actually looked at Perkins Schools’ audited financial statements? The battle cry made on here over and over by individuals like RMyer and Bherrle is that Perkins Schools haven’t received any new money in 18 years. We can’t currently fund operations. It’s for the sake of the kids and on and on and on.

I would encourage all of you tax increase supporters to actually take a looked at Perkins’ financial statements. I think you’d be surprised. They are located on the State of Ohio Auditor’s website.

Again, I am not sure where the talking point that Perkins Schools hasn’t received new money in 18 years comes from? It’s simply not true.

Over the past 10 years, Perkins Schools revenue has increased 31.6%. It went from $20,064,189 in FY 2002 to $26,420,362. That's an average increase in revenue of 3.1% every year.

Additionally, Perkins Schools has been extraordinarily profitable up until Gunner made his mark.

In governmental or non-profit entites such as Perkins Schools, they don't have "net income" or "profit" but rather the total revenue less total expense is called "change in net assets." Take a look on their audited financial statements.

Perkins Schools net profit:
2005 $ 2,966,760
2006 $ 730,341
2007 $ 1,062,522
2008 $ 1,652,076
2009 $ 1,967,560
2010 $ 1,536,872
2011 $(1,456,758)
2012 $(1,108,801)

You may ask yourself, how in the world did Gunner take Perkins Schools from making a profit of approximately $1.5 million in 2010 to a loss of approximately $1.5 million in 2011, while revenue was exactly the same.

To further illustrate my point, Gunner took Perkins from a profit of $1,967,500 in 2009 to a loss of $1,456,758, A DECREASE IN NET INCOME OF 174%, WHILE REVENUE ROSE 4% (from $25,823,366 in 2009 to $26,854,404 in 2011)

I honestly don’t have a clue how someone can mismanage an organization so incredibly bad that in 2 years, revenues increased 4%, yet profits decreased 174%. Gunner should be gone for that reason alone.

This leads to the next lie and/or misconception that Perkins Schools under Gunner have strictly controlled their costs.

Take a look at the FY2011 financial statements. IN A SINGLE YEAR, from 2010 to 2011, instructional staff expense increased an unbelievable 147%... in one year, from $1,379,954 to $3,410,467. How in the world does a company's labor expense increase 147% year over year?

It’s simply mind-boggling the financial ineptitude Jim Gunner has led Perkins Schools with over the past several years. And he wants MORE of our money? Again, these are the facts of Jim Gunner’s tenure:

In the last 5 years, revenue has increase 12.8% from $23,413,895 in 2008 to $26,420,362 in 2012. (Contrary to Gunner's lie Perkins Schools hasn't received any new money in 18 years).

In the same time period, Gunner has decreased net income 167% from a profit of $1,652,076 in 2008 to a loss of $1,108,801 in 2012.

Revenue up 12.8%, profit down 167%.

And you want to give this guy MORE money?

Wald

This is the best comment of the thread and exactly why I am voting no. Does the net loss in 2011 and 2012 have anything to do with the unethically moved operating funds? I wish the Register would print your post, Citizen. I think a lot of people would change to a no vote if they knew this.

Bherrle

I can only comment very briefly for now due to time constraints. Using just numbers, anyone can paint a negative picture. Several things that your post ignores:

1. The stadium was a safety hazard and had to be addressed.
2. Facilities issues have been know for some time and planning for the future needed to be done.
3. I may be wrong, but at first glance I believe you are only using operating funds numbers, which leaves out Permanent Improvement money set aside as an asset.

RMyer

Citizen-a few items: (1) I have stated on several occasions that our district has not received any new tax levy money for operations in 13 years and only once in 18 years (in 2000 for 2.9 mills). Those are both true statements.
(2) I have stated that we have received significant additional revenue from open enrollment/tuition which amounts to approx. 6-7 mills in local tax levy dollars which allowed the district to delay asking for an operational levy and then asking only for a reasonable 4.98 mills in 2010 and earlier this year.
(3) At the same time the state has been phasing out the Business Tangible Property Inventory tax formerly paid to schools which I believe is one reason the district has seen local tax collections decline significantly from FY 2010 (also, the property devaluation has reduced local taxes)
(4) I have stated that the district has received some increase due to new construction, but it hasn't amounted to enough to offset revenue losses; recently completed large commercial developments are currently under TIF agreements which are due to expire in approximately the next 10-12 years (Kalahari, Lake Crest, for example).
(5) Cost savings the past 3 years due to base salary freezes/insurance changes = $2.2 million; Cost savings going forward due to position cuts/program cuts/salary and insurance savings = approx. $13 million over the next four years.

Lastly, when looking at the auditing reports that you cite, I believe that the General Fund is where the focus should be since that is where operating levy revenue goes. District five year forecasts are for General Fund Operations. The revenues you quote for FY 2012 include permanent improvement funds (which can't be used for operations) and other Gov't Funds (I'm not sure exactly how those fit in).

When comparing General Fund Revenues for a couple of the same years that were mentioned: FY 2008 Total Revenues = $20,584,660 compared FY 2012 Total Revenues = $20,658,880 for a five year increase of $74,220.

The details of school finances are somewhat complex. It's easy (and can be misleading) to pull numbers out of context when discussing school finances. That is why I encourage anyone who has an interest in the district finances to show his or her analysis of the district finances for discussion or direct any questions to the district treasurer's office. Please get the correct explanation about school finances before forming a conclusion based on partial information (and, yes, I encourage people to check my numbers and analysis with the treasurer, as well).

bobshumway92

.

RMyer

That is certainly your perogative. But I would hope that you or anyone else wouldn't take either one of our explanations on faith, and I once again encourage you and all others to make a call to the treasurer or some other expert on school finance. Correct information is knowledge and is important to have and doesn't take more than a phone call or email to get.

I'm not sure what being in the teacher's union has to do with whether or not my understanding of school financing is correct. Am I to assume that if I were a non-union teacher, then you would agree with me?

And, please, could we agree to stop with the name calling, derogatory comments, innuendos, etc. I really don't get why reasonable adults feel the need to communicate in such a manner. Can you help me understand that?

bobshumway92

.

bobshumway92

.

Strong Schools ...

Perkins has not passed a levy in 18 years and the last levy that was passed was 13 years ago. The district has only passed two levies in 20 years and I think that is pretty fiscally responsible. Remember, this levy is for NEW money. Dr. Gunner has been in our district for five years and the board told him that our district would have to go on the ballot in one year upon his arrival. He has kept us off the ballot for five years and has tried everything to keep us off the ballot. The state has taken away money form the district and it is time to go back on the ballot. We need to support our students and our community. We need to have graeat schools so our communtiy can stay strong and flourish in the future. Your comment has encouraged me to vote YES!

DLK

This again is misleading. Perkins hasn't needed to pass a levy due to property values and new growth in the township, plus open enrollment money they've taken from area schools (crippling Sandusky Schools). Do NOT make it sound like it is because they are fiscally responsible!

citizen

"Dr. Gunner has been in our district for five years and the board told him that our district would have to go on the ballot in one year upon his arrival. He has kept us off the ballot for five years and has tried everything to keep us off the ballot."

Well that is just an outright lie. This is the 3rd or 4th time Perkins Schools has proposed signinficant tax increases on the ballot under Jim Gunner.

Wald

Strong schools, you're going to vote yes because your superintendent and BOE have led the school system into a financial deficit? Interesting...

samiam

Strong Schools states "Perkins has not passed a levy in 18 years and the last levy that was passed was 13 years ago. The district has only passed two levies in 20 years.." Very confusing! Which is it, 18 yrs, 13 yrs or 20 yrs? It can't be all three.

soccermom10

Schools can say "support or students", what they cannot say is "vote yes".

bobshumway92

.

Lil DAB

That was the strategy of the now incarcerated ex superintendent of Clyde Green Springs Schools. He took his "charmingly persuasive" mantra to the seniors homes to get their votes; assuring them the outcome would not affect their income!

Strong Schools ...

The "Yes" people are not recruiting...the levy committee can't go into OVH and tell them how to vote.

DLK

Really Strong Schools? They are holding breakfast meetings there and encouraging absentee voting or free transportation to the polls. I just hope the college kids they are going after talk to their tax-paying parents first before drinking the Kool-aid.

EZOB

The false statemenmts from supporters is enough to sway many voters. Quit saying "NO" new money when in fact there has been more money each year. They (An Adult)have come down my street with school kids asking for support. I think asking yuou to support the levy is the same as asking you to vote Yes. They are getting way over 70% of our tax dollars already, live within the budget. They don't care about streets, fire, police just as long as the schools get more money. Gunner would take 100% and see everything else shut down. Oh, He'd still have all that in Oregon.

EZOB

RMeyer,
Not just you but a few people who support the levy and claim to have a lot of knowledge. Just maybe you need a better economics department in Perkins because you can't seem to operate any type of budget.

citizen

Bherrle-
The stadium and/or other new faciliites have absolutely nothing to do with the Gunner leading the district from a $1.5 million gain to a $1.5 million loss in a single year.

New facilities and stadiums are capitalized as assets, not expensed immediately (rather, they are expensed through depreciation over their useful lives). Rather, the $1.4 million loss and $1.1 million loss Gunner has led the District to in 2011 and 2012 after years of record profits, has to do with a total lack of cost control. As I mentioned, instructional staff expense increased 147% from $1.3 million to $3.4 million in a single year. I'll ask again, how in the world does a organization's labor expense increase 147% in a single year?

This leads me to your point, RMyer. Will you please, please stop with the lie/misleading statement about teacher pay "freezes." It's simply not true. Either go to the State of Ohio Treasurer's website and search individual teachers, and you will see significant increases in compensation for most all of them over the past several years. Or, just look at Perkins Schools' income statement. Instructional staff expense increased 147%.

And lastly, I am not manipulating numbers or cherry-picking numbers. These are the numbers directly off of the Perkins Local Schools audited financial statements. These are audited by a CPA firm to ensure they fairly and accurately represent the financial position of Perkins Schools. There is no way of getting around it. They are what they are. And I certainly don't need to remind you that it was Jim Gunner who chose to move operating revenue into permanent improvement revenue, do I? It wasn't the State of Ohio, it wasn't the students and it surely wasn't the taxpayers.

Again, here are the facts from Perkins Schools audited financial statements, which fairly and accurately represent their financial position.

Over the past 5 years, revenue has increased 12.8% from $23,413,895 in 2008 to $26,420,362 in 2012.

In the same time period, net income has decreased 167% from a profit of $1,652,076 in 2008 to a loss of $1,108,801 in 2012 (again, nothing to do with buildings, the stadium or facilites- just due to Gunner's lack of operating cost controls).

Perkins was wildly profitable for years until Gunner made his mark on the district. With revenues up almost 13% and net income down 174%, this guy would lose his job in a minute in a minute in the corporate world. Yet this guy is still leading the district and wants even more of our money? They are all delusional.

DLK

Can anyone tell me if the staff freezes included cost of living AND step increases? Just curious.

goodtime1212

Thank you for spelling out what I was thinking. Was not sure of all the numbers, but I know a few years ago when they said they had to Build a new school to get state moneys and the voters said no, we were not having this discussion about being broke. They moved the money around now we are broke. That is what it is, they created it.

RMyer

At this point, we are not going to agree on some items regarding the finances. So, I urge you to present your analysis and findings to the treasurer and ask for explanations. The instructional staff expense was reduced to $1.6 million in FY 2012 from the $3 million in 2011 (I have asked for what expenses make the Instructional Staff account; I have an idea but wish to verify it before explaining). The treasurer would explain what this expense is for and why the increase from 2010 to 2011, then the decrease from 2011 to 2012.

Pages