Budgeting for attendance over 100%

Discuss questions around local unit policies for budgeting, reconciling, etc. This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
peterivie
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:25 pm

Budgeting for attendance over 100%

Postby peterivie » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:41 pm

Let's say there is a ward in a stake that normally has attendance well over 100%. They used to allocate more than 100% to the other units to distribute the funds more fairly. I know that with the new system, the stake can't automatically allocate more than 100% to a ward's budget, but does that extra attendance still get allocated to the stake?

If so, can the stake just write a check to a unit to effectively allocate additional funds to their budget? How would such a check be categorized?

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14691
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:51 pm

peterivie wrote:Let's say there is a ward in a stake that normally has attendance well over 100%. They used to allocate more than 100% to the other units to distribute the funds more fairly. I know that with the new system, the stake can't automatically allocate more than 100% to a ward's budget, but does that extra attendance still get allocated to the stake?

If so, can the stake just write a check to a unit to effectively allocate additional funds to their budget? How would such a check be categorized?


That's pretty amazing that one ward could be so far in excess of 100% that it can provide the entire operating budget for the stake.

But in any case, the mechanics of what you're asking are fairly simple. The stake writes a check from the Budget:Budget Allocations category payable to the ward and the ward deposits the check into that same category. That special category is not used normally, but this is the exact scenario where it can and should be used.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20757
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:19 pm

In this situation, you may want to set the allocation in MLS to 0% and then cut checks for the full amount to the wards. You'll have to see which one is easier to deal with.
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

jonesrk
Church Employee
Church Employee
Posts: 1454
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:12 am
Location: Farmington, UT, USA

Postby jonesrk » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:09 am

aebrown wrote:That's pretty amazing that one ward could be so far in excess of 100% that it can provide the entire operating budget for the stake.

That's what happens when your ward is near popular LDS historical sites.
Ryan Jones
CDOL Developer
Stake Technology Specialist - Software / Stake Assistant Clerk
Former Ward Clerk

TinMan
Member
Posts: 472
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:08 am
Location: Bountiful, UT, USA

Postby TinMan » Thu Nov 01, 2012 10:11 am

JonesRK wrote:That's what happens when your ward is near popular LDS historical sites.
Or Bear Lake in the summer...

rwood90
New Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2011 10:00 pm

Postby rwood90 » Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:01 pm

Your budget allocation is based on Sac attendance numbers - not number of membership records. If 1000 attend average for a qtr then 1000 x current qtr allocation amount x percentage set by Stake in MLS = funding to unit....

jdlessley
Community Moderators
Posts: 6526
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: USA, TX

Postby jdlessley » Sun Nov 11, 2012 7:43 pm

rwood90 wrote:Your budget allocation is based on Sac attendance numbers...
You are partially correct. There are five meeting attendance figures used in computing the budget allowance - sacrament meeting, young men, young women, primary, and young single adults meeting attendance. Each attendance figure is multiplied by a specific amount per attendee (a capitation amount). In computing the allocation for the ward the stake inputs to headquarters the percentage for each of the five for the ward to retain. The result is the ward budget allocation for the quarter.

The discussion by the OP, while worded in percentage, really is addressing those wards with inflated attendance during certain periods that exceeds the normal local membership attendance. It is this location attendance inflation that gives the ward higher numbers for budget allowance than the other units within the stake.
JD Lessley
Have you tried finding your answer on the LDS.org Help Center page or the LDSTech wiki?

Gary_Miller
Senior Member
Posts: 1218
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Emmett, Idaho

Postby Gary_Miller » Mon Nov 12, 2012 7:26 am

All the stake has to do is give the ward a lower percentage of funds from the allocation of the ward with the inflated attendance. And a higher percentage of funds from the allocation for the other wards. This may mean the stake budget comes mostly from the ward with the inflated attendance and the other wards keep most if not all of their allocation. The is no rule that the percentage allocated to the wards by the stake be the same percent. I

Example: where ward A has the inflated attendance.

Stake allocations to wards

Ward A: 30%
Ward B: 100%
Ward C: 100%
Ward D: 90%
Ward E: 100%

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14691
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:52 am

Gary_Miller wrote:All the stake has to do is give the ward a lower percentage of funds from the allocation of the ward with the inflated attendance.


The problem is that it is not an option to give a ward more than 100%, but in the scenario discussed in this thread, that's precisely what is desired. Using your example, Ward A's portion of the budget allocation is so much higher than the other wards that, for example, Ward B needs to have 110% of their budget allocation in order to get to the level that the stake president has determined is appropriate for them. In that case the only reasonable options are to set Ward B's allocation at 100% and have the stake write a check for the other 10%, or to set Ward B's allocation to 0% and write a check for the entire quarterly allocation.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.

dannykos
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:26 am
Location: UK, East Grinstead

Postby dannykos » Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:30 am

Or you could just have Ward A cover ALL the cost of the ward contributions for EFY for the entire stake?


Return to “Local Unit Finance”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest