Excess Budget funds stake sweep

How are other stake finance clerks interpreting the CHQ letters addressing excess budget funds dated 7 Dec 2022 and 15 Jan 2023? We thought we understood the intent of the first letter and took actions accordingly. But the wording of the 2nd letter has me wondering if we misunderstood the first letter.

Based on the 7 Dec letter, our understanding was:
1) Wards complete their 2023 budget. Excess budget funds would appear as Available to Assign on the Budget > Assign Budget tab in LCR-F. If that amount was less than 50% of the ward’s 2022 Budget Allowance and there was a future need for it, the ward may retain. (Though if there's a future need for it, shouldn't it already be parked in a budget category?). If not, then transfer the funds to the stake. Any amount Available to Assign (excess) over 50% would be transferred to the stake regardless of future need.
2) Stake receives any excess ward budget funds to use, redistribute, or forward to CHQ as appropriate. The stake follows the same process as the ward in completing the stake budget and any Available to Assign (excess) funds retained for future needs must be less than 50% of the stake’s 2022 Budget Allowance (parent unit’s share). Otherwise, transfer to CHQ.

The wording of the 15 Jan 2023 letter has me rethinking that understanding, specifically the letter’s 2nd paragraph, and more specifically the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph. It sounds like the upcoming stake sweep is based on the stake’s 31 Dec balance (consolidated, not parent unit as viewed in LCR-F > Overview > Income and Expense Summary) and should not exceed 50% of the total 2022 budget allocation given to the stake. If this is the case, using the 31 Dec end balance to calculate the 50% excess amount instead of the budget’s Available to Assign amount will result in funds being swept that have already been earmarked in the 2023 budget.

Is this how you read the stake sweep will occur? For excess are we (stake) looking at 2022 Budget category's End Balance or funds still Available to Assign in the Budget tab? And which stake Budget balance will be adjusted: stake (parent unit) or stake (consolidated)?

I'm believe the new letter is talking about the End Balance for the year.

My interpretation of the original letter is that we should figure out our budget needs for 2023 and return everything above what we have specific plans for. But regardless of our 2023 budget and future plans, we should not have a carry over from year-to-year that is more than 50% of the annual budget allocation. That max 50% does not depend on what we have entered into the 2023 budget but just on how much we received for 2022.

The new letter is now saying that if a stake still has more than that 50% it will be automatically transferred to CHQ.

But I don't know for certain.

I would think there could be exceptions, especially in a stake’s case. I plan to call Tuesday and ask. For example, historically our stake tries to take the Youth to Palmyra for youth conference, once every four years. That requires saving $5,000 to $7,000 a year I would think there would be an exception available, if carry over funds triggered 50% of the budget.

Also, a Stake may have an account for coordinating council funds that they have been assigned to hold and then pay, such as public affairs. Any ideas about exceptions, and how the exception is requested?

thawkins3 wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:16 pm For example, historically our stake tries to take the Youth to Palmyra for youth conference, once every four years. That requires saving $5,000 to $7,000 a year I would think there would be an exception available, if carry over funds triggered 50% of the budget.

We do the same rotating between Palmyra, Kirtland, and Nauvoo every other year. In off years we budget half just to hold it for next year then budget full amount on travel years. If they're sweeping year-end account balances without regard to the new year budget earmarks, then a portion of the funds will disappear.

thawkins3 wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:16 pm Any ideas about exceptions, and how the exception is requested?

Not a clue. The letter doesn't give any provision for exceptions. As usual, it seems we're left with insufficient details to act on so we'll figure it out as we go, by trial and error.

I interpret the letter to mean that any amount left at the end of 2022 that exceeds 50% of the 2022 budget allowance will automatically be taken by church headquarters.

This is a big problem for our stake. Our stake has a trek every four years and a youth conference every four years between the trek years. Stake girl’s camp is every other year on non trek non youth conference years. We have to save money every year to carry over until it is needed.

Our annual budget allowance is around $18,000. Our trek budget is $24,000. If we are not allowed to carry over all of our surplus funds in surplus years we will not be able to cover our expenses in trek years. If we are not allowed to keep our surplus funds we will basically not be able to have any more treks.

Reading General Handbook 34.6.2.3, it indicates that you can carry over funds for activities "that are planned for the next year". (Emphasis added) It doesn't seem to provide an exception for activities done only every 4 years.

I suspect the best route is for the stake president to bring this up with his coordinating council. Presumably neighboring stakes are in the same situation and would support a united effort to kick it up higher. He can try contacting support, but I'm skeptical if they can do much more than explain the process.

russellhltn wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 3:23 pm Reading General Handbook 34.6.2.3, it indicates that you can carry over funds for activities "that are planned for the next year". (Emphasis added) It doesn't seem to provide an exception for activities done only every 4 years.

I suspect the best route is for the stake president to bring this up with his coordinating council. Presumably neighboring stakes are in the same situation and would support a united effort to kick it up higher. He can try contacting support, but I'm skeptical if they can do much more than explain the process.

I had an “emergency” meeting in the hall this morning with my stake President regarding this letter. His plan it to bring it up in the coordinating council meeting.

I hope there is swift broad reaction to the letter which will bring about a revision of the policy.

I would be surprised if an administrative policy trumped a trek, which is spiritual. I suspect the second letter was in response to many units not forwarding excess funds up the line. Many had the opportunity, and now the school master takes over.

thawkins3 wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 9:23 pm I would be surprised if an administrative policy trumped a trek, which is spiritual.

I see this as "policy verses tradition". I know the church news always plays them up, but there's nothing in the Handbook about holding a trek.

I think there's a fair chance what will come back down is "reduce and simplify". Perhaps a shorter time period, or a closer but less historical route. It wouldn't be the first time that beloved grand traditions have been done away with.

Do bring it up with the coordinating council, but be prepared if the answer that comes back isn't the one you wanted to hear.

thawkins3 wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 9:23 pm I would be surprised if an administrative policy trumped a trek, which is spiritual. I suspect the second letter was in response to many units not forwarding excess funds up the line. Many had the opportunity, and now the school master takes over.

The point is that if the funds are being saved for a future event they are not surplus. However, according to the letter the funds exceeding 50% of the budget allowance will be taken without regard for what they are being saved for.

russellhltn wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 9:46 pm I see this as "policy verses tradition". I know the church news always plays them up, but there's nothing in the Handbook about holding a trek.

I think there's a fair chance what will come back down is "reduce and simplify". Perhaps a shorter time period, or a closer but less historical route. It wouldn't be the first time that beloved grand traditions have been done away with.

The thing with the trek in our area is that the trek center is only about thirty miles away and is owned by the church. The church has put a lot of money into it and it seems unlikely that ecclesiastical leaders would discourage its use. If the church wanted the stakes in our area to reduce trek expenses they could stop changing the stakes thousands of dollars to use the trek center. Why charge stakes to use church owned property. That’s sort of like having to pay to go to the temple.

I don’t believe this policy of taking back funds that rightly belong to the stakes is an ecclesiastical decision. I suspect it’s a decision made by church accountants looking at all the money sitting in stake and ward accounts.

BlairEsplin wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:29 pm I don’t believe this policy of taking back funds that rightly belong to the stakes is an ecclesiastical decision. I suspect it’s a decision made by church accountants looking at all the money sitting in stake and ward accounts.

It's possible the accountants noticed it, but I believe the letter came from the Presiding Bishopric who would have been the ones making the decisions.

russellhltn wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:31 am It's possible the accountants noticed it, but I believe the letter came from the Presiding Bishopric who would have been the ones making the decisions.

I wonder if this is a post-Covid policy where many units did not use much of their budget while Church was generally not in session.

lajackson wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:27 am I wonder if this is a post-Covid policy where many units did not use much of their budget while Church was generally not in session.

Quite possible. While I think we're well past the Covid situation, I know in my stake there's some programs that have yet to reach pre-covid levels of activity.

eblood66 wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 2:10 pm I'm believe the new letter is talking about the End Balance for the year.

My interpretation of the original letter is that we should figure out our budget needs for 2023 and return everything above what we have specific plans for. But regardless of our 2023 budget and future plans, we should not have a carry over from year-to-year that is more than 50% of the annual budget allocation. That max 50% does not depend on what we have entered into the 2023 budget but just on how much we received for 2022.

The new letter is now saying that if a stake still has more than that 50% it will be automatically transferred to CHQ.

But I don't know for certain.

This is my understanding of the new letter, but what remains unclear to me is whether the "annual budget allocation" refers to the amount received by the stake for its own expenses or the total allocation received by the stake and all of its subunits. Any insights on this?

devonerickson wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:58 pmThis is my understanding of the new letter, but what remains unclear to me is whether the "annual budget allocation" refers to the amount received by the stake for its own expenses or the total allocation received by the stake and all of its subunits. Any insights on this?

I have wondered that myself. The letter only mentions stakes and not wards, branches or units. That makes me think they may look at the stake as a whole but it's by no means clear. If they do, I wonder what they will do if the majority of the excess is in the wards themselves. Will they take it from the stake's account (possibly making it negative) and then leave it to the stake to get the wards to transfer back to the stake to get it positive again?

russellhltn wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:31 am

BlairEsplin wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 11:29 pm I don’t believe this policy of taking back funds that rightly belong to the stakes is an ecclesiastical decision. I suspect it’s a decision made by church accountants looking at all the money sitting in stake and ward accounts.

It's possible the accountants noticed it, but I believe the letter came from the Presiding Bishopric who would have been the ones making the decisions.

The letter was sent from the Office of the Presiding Bishopric Finance and Records Department.

The first thing in this chain of events was the closing of the authorized member financed activities account. This money that had previously been kept separate from budget was then moved into the budget account. The wards in our stake had in the range of a thousand dollars or more in this account which was fundraiser money set aside for girl’s and boy’s camps.

Then came the letter saying not to spend excess budget money but to send it to church headquarters by the end of the year. Therefore the money that was camp fundraiser money which was part of the excess budget funds was then to be turned over to the church, contrary to the policy that camp fundraiser money was to be spent for the purpose for which it was raised. Now apparently this excess money will be subtracted from our account without regard for the Stake President’s authority and responsibility for managing stake funds.

I don’t know how this most recent letter applies to wards but in our stake some of the bishops used their authority as manager of ward funds to buy camping equipment, technology for their buildings and pre purchasing of supplies for ward activities ensuring there would be no excess funds at last year’s end. Other wards simply held onto the money because they need it to pay for this years FSY Conference.

Has anyone outside the US received this letter?

I love this conversation, but I think we really are missing the point we should be learning.

Spend your budget, plan and spend, however, when priesthood leaders treat budgets like their own personal expense accounts (yes, this is EXACLTY how many of the use it) they are not being financially responsible. I've been in the Young Men for the last 4 years, never once did we plan activities ahead of time and assign at least an estimated value to come up with what our budget should be (boy I liked being a clerk better) - It is the height of irresponsibility not to have a budget with estimated activity $$. Everyone on this comment thread is like, hey, look at all our planning, etc... but that's not the problem, the problem is the 'not planning' and seeing the money sit there unused. It's like the stake or ward missionary budget sitting with tens of thousands of dollars doing nothing. When CUBS was first introduced, I saw wards 'build up' a surplus to the point that they had 'double' their budget and when we finally had our come-to-Jesus meeting, they claimed it was being saved for a rainy day, what a crock, it was not, it was that you didn't plan anything.... In my own ward I paid $375 for my girls to attend YW Camp, all-the-while knowing there was 4K held over from the previous year in our ward budget (I was the stake clerk at the time)

So, I agree that those planning for 2 to 4 year activities need to figure that out, but honestly, we need to worry about what the purpose is... wards aren't spending their money, why? Wards are hording money in their accounts why? until we, at the local level, figure it out, the church will say, thankyou kindly for the free money you're not using, and likely, asking your members to pay more because tradition says they should. Talk about not taking care of the widow's mite... first we give our tithing, then when a portion of that tithing comes back to our ward, leaders spit in the eye of the widow... goodness gracious, we should be ashamed.

While I think Johnshaw has some valid points, I think the bigger issue is that big ticket items were shut down for 2-3 years while the church worked to keep funding at pre-pandemic levels.

In my stake I doubt if there were any big-scale Youth events for 2-3 years. The annual regional singles conference didn't happen (or was strictly virtual) for 3 years. Even if events were held they probably had a low turn out.

It appears that the budget sweep was based on total allocation of funds to the stake including wards. A small amount was pulled from our stake today. You can find it under "Income and Expense details" / "Budget Allocations" labeled as "Collect 2022 budget excess funds as per PBO notice (15 Jan 2023)". For example (numbers used for clarity only): if the total allocation for the stake and all units in the stake for 2022 was $20,000 then 50% of that would be $10,000. So any amount over $10,000 on 31 December in the stake budget (not including ward budgets) is swept out. In this example, if the stake budget ended the year on 31 December 2022 with $11,000 then in 2023 you will see the Q4 allocation (posted on 5 January in our stake) and a sweep with the negative $1000 (posted 17 January in our case).

Our stake had been saving up for a Trek that we had previously done every 4 years. The funds needed for that exceeded the 50% of 2022 budget allowance. We called in to ask if there are exceptions and received the following:

A letter was issued to Local Units from the Presiding Bishopric on January 15 communicating a review of 2022 budget balances and the return of excess budget funds as requested in the previous notice dated December 7, 2022.

For stakes with a December 31, 2022 budget balance exceeding 50 percent of the total 2022 annual budget allocation (meaning if their current balance is larger than 50% of what they received in the year), the excess amount will be swept by church headquarters to reduce the overage. After the adjustment is made, a stake will retain 50 percent of the total annual budget allocation given to the stake in 2022, in addition to all allocated amounts received or projected for 2023.

There are some funds that stakes have planned for specific activities for the next year, such as trek or larger stake activities. While this need has been taken into consideration, it has been determined that the remaining 50% of the allocation that will stay in the stake and the entirety of the 2023 allocations, should be sufficient to cover costs of most activities, bearing in mind the counsel from the General Handbook of instruction that if necessary, leaders should reduce and simplify activities to stay within the allowance. Most activities should be simple and have little or no cost (Section 34.6). For this reason, there will be no option for units to request a retention of budget funds. Units should continue to use available budget funds to support stake and ward organizations.

We just got this this morning so are still reeling from the implications. We are only a few months away from the Trek and lots of wheels are already in motion, but it seems there is no recourse with the "there will be no option for units to request a retention of budget funds" statement. No clue what we are going to do, but hopefully this helps others who have come with similar questions.

barkeraj wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 8:48 am but it seems there is no recourse with the "there will be no option for units to request a retention of budget funds" statement. No clue what we are going to do, but hopefully this helps others who have come with similar questions.

The stake president can still discuss it with their coordinating council. However, the prospects for an exception doesn't look good.

BlairEsplin indicated a significant part of the cost of his trek was coming from a church-owned trek center. I'd think there would be room to discuss that in the council. Especially if those charges pretty much forces the need for an exception.

If these "church-owned trek centers" are truly the budget-busters for treks, it will be interesting to see if stakes still use them this upcoming year. Either all stakes will fall into this category of not having enough funds after the sweep to pay what these centers charge, or some stakes will still have enough funds to do Trek there. Then the question becomes why that is the case? Are they just squeaking in under the threshold due to less total youth participating in their stake? Or are they doing fewer days? Or are there other ways they've simplified?

For those of us far away from church-owned properties, we generally have to pay to use whatever facilities we select for the Trek, and the "thousands of dollars" range doesn't seem unreasonable.

For our stake, 95% of trek costs are for 3 items: Food, Costs for the camp, and transportation. We have hired school buses which are expensive, but less than the cost of fuel for the many members driving mini-vans. Most members would donate time/vehicle/fuel, but that did not seem appropriate when using school buses was cheaper than the fuel. Coach buses have toilets and air conditioning, but cost twice as much, so we have never used them. We have held some treks closer, but then you have costs for handcarts or handcart maintenance (some stakes/members have purchased them and rent them as a way to share costs without any profit). Finding a location with usable trails and getting permits is not trivial in our location. I suspect youth Treks are going to diminish as a stake activity with FSY taking their place. FSY is not cheap either, and probably actually costs significantly more than a trek if you count costs that are covered by headquarters in addition to the amount paid by wards and families. In my opinion FSY has a greater spiritual impact on youth than a trek. Treks do provide a good experience and help many youth learn they can do hard things.

Handbook 20.6.2 says fund-raising is allowed for "One annual extended Aaronic Priesthood camp or similar activity" and "One annual extended Young Women camp or similar activity."

In my mind, a trek is similar to one annual extended camp for those groups.

If budget can't be saved up to cover it, that's one option.

So far nothing has been taken from our stake account. Perhaps they haven’t gotten to it yet or if the total stake budget allowance is taken into consideration including wards, perhaps our stake does not have an excess surplus.

Our stake has a four year budget cycle. We have different expenses each year on a four year cycle. Money not spent on low cost activity years is saved for the high cost activities years. Last year I projected the Stake budget out for ten years to make sure we would still be solvent in ten years or if we need to reduce spending. The budget projection indicated that we need to reduce expenses somewhat. Those projections included saving carryover funds. If any of the funds given to the stake are taken away from us then major changes will have to be made. I don’t see why if on average a Stake spends all of its funds over a period of four years there should be any concern for excess carryover.

My advice to the wards of our stake following the December 7th letter was to plan their 2023 spending to ensure they do not have excess carryover by the end of the year. We are given a budget allowance so we can have activities. There’s no point of being frugal and saving money if it’s going to be taken away.

My advice to my Stake Presidency and wards going forward will be to prepay any possible high cost activity expenses on a low cost budget year rather than relying on budget carryover. For example, trek supplies that are non perishable such as buckets, journals, paper products, disposable eating utensils etc. could be bought on a non trek year. Perhaps trek center fees could be paid in advance and the bus company who busses us may accept pre payment. Then the trek expense left to pay on trek year would mostly be just food.

I’ll add that the Church owned Trek Center charge for our last trek was approximately $5,400 for three days. Food was our biggest expense but when divided by the number of people in attendance it was quite reasonable per person.

Beyond Stake activities, our stake also has to pay a number of “Regional assessments”. Things such as the regional family history center, regional humanitarian center, the Church booth at the State Fair etc.

rknelson wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 6:44 pm It appears that the budget sweep was based on total allocation of funds to the stake including wards. A small amount was pulled from our stake today. You can find it under "Income and Expense details" / "Budget Allocations" labeled as "Collect 2022 budget excess funds as per PBO notice (15 Jan 2023)". For example (numbers used for clarity only): if the total allocation for the stake and all units in the stake for 2022 was $20,000 then 50% of that would be $10,000. So any amount over $10,000 on 31 December in the stake budget (not including ward budgets) is swept out. In this example, if the stake budget ended the year on 31 December 2022 with $11,000 then in 2023 you will see the Q4 allocation (posted on 5 January in our stake) and a sweep with the negative $1000 (posted 17 January in our case).

I added up our accounts and it looks like the total carryover for all units in our stake is approximately equal to the total budget allowance for all units in the stake. The majority of the carryover is in the ward accounts. Using the formula you outline the carryover in the stake account is nowhere near 50% of the total stake budget allowance and therefore therefore would not be subject to being taken back. How are they going to handle large carryovers in ward accounts since that’s where most of it is held?

russellhltn wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:31 pm Handbook 20.6.2 says fund-raising is allowed for "One annual extended Aaronic Priesthood camp or similar activity" and "One annual extended Young Women camp or similar activity."

The handbook says that the bishop can authorize ONE fundraising event annually. One to cover any additional expenses. You can't have one for Young Women and another for the Aaronic Priesthood.

airguy wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:19 pm The handbook says that the bishop can authorize ONE fundraising event annually. One to cover any additional expenses. You can't have one for Young Women and another for the Aaronic Priesthood.

To clarify, General Handbook, 20.6.2, states "If funds from ward and stake budgets and from participants are not sufficient for camps, the bishop may authorize one ward fundraising event annually. This event must comply with the guidelines in 20.6.5." (emphasis added) The appropriate part of 20.6.5 states "[The] bishop may authorize one fundraising event each year for the following purposes only: To help pay for the activities listed in 20.6.2. To help buy equipment that the unit needs for annual camps as outlined in 20.6.4." So the max number of fund raising events per year is one total for the camps and/or equipment for the camps.

So woke up this morning to further sweeps, dated Jan25 on our ledgers. In our stake, they have now transferred out the ending balance amount for 2022 from each of our units. On top of that, and I think this is a mistake, they also did the same to our Stake account. Again for the stake, that is the 2nd sweep (one last week that was the 50%) and now this new one that was the ending balance. We are now negative in the stake budget but as whole also negative.

sdespain wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:50 am So woke up this morning to further sweeps, dated Jan25 on our ledgers. In our stake, they have now transferred out the ending balance amount for 2022 from each of our units. On top of that, and I think this is a mistake, they also did the same to our Stake account. Again for the stake, that is the 2nd sweep (one last week that was the 50%) and now this new one that was the ending balance. We are now negative in the stake budget but as whole also negative.

This has to be a mistake. We transferred our excess prior to any sweep so we were below the 50%. Now they have transferred out the ending balance for the stake and all the units. Since I wasn't able to do our transfer before the end of the year, our stake is now very negative. I assume they will figure this out fairly quickly. Did you submit a support case about it? I don't want to inundate support but I also want to make sure they realize what happened.

eblood66 wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 8:18 am

sdespain wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:50 am So woke up this morning to further sweeps, dated Jan25 on our ledgers. In our stake, they have now transferred out the ending balance amount for 2022 from each of our units. On top of that, and I think this is a mistake, they also did the same to our Stake account. Again for the stake, that is the 2nd sweep (one last week that was the 50%) and now this new one that was the ending balance. We are now negative in the stake budget but as whole also negative.

This has to be a mistake. We transferred our excess prior to any sweep so we were below the 50%. Now they have transferred out the ending balance for the stake and all the units. Since I wasn't able to do our transfer before the end of the year, our stake is now very negative. I assume they will figure this out fairly quickly. Did you submit a support case about it? I don't want to inundate support but I also want to make sure they realize what happened.

Yes.. I opened a ticket this morning. Global Services help desk was not aware of this new transfer, but he did confirm that it happened and was going to send the ticket to finance to see what is going on..

jdlessley wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 2:21 am

airguy wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:19 pm The handbook says that the bishop can authorize ONE fundraising event annually. One to cover any additional expenses. You can't have one for Young Women and another for the Aaronic Priesthood.

To clarify, General Handbook, 20.6.2, states "If funds from ward and stake budgets and from participants are not sufficient for camps, the bishop may authorize one ward fundraising event annually. This event must comply with the guidelines in 20.6.5." (emphasis added) The appropriate part of 20.6.5 states "[The] bishop may authorize one fundraising event each year for the following purposes only: To help pay for the activities listed in 20.6.2. To help buy equipment that the unit needs for annual camps as outlined in 20.6.4." So the max number of fund raising events per year is one total for the camps and/or equipment for the camps.

As an added note, a new audit question has been added (starting with the 2022 end-of-year audit) which basically asks whether you held a fundraiser, was there only one, was it authorized by the unit leader and was it only for camp purposes.

Our stake saw the same thing this morning - ALL funds as of year end transferred out. What is going on?

As a result of the chatter here this morning I went and looked at our stake and found a similar "more than we expected" taken out. I thought to check our wards and found that every ward had 100% of their 2022 carryover taken in a budget sweep. If they had $1234.56 left at the end of the year, they had $1234.56 taken. No 50% of previous year budget appears to apply in this case.

Did I miss an announcement of budget being taken directly from the wards? The only thing I remember was encouraging wards to send surplus to the stake, but nothing about directly taking from wards.

In our stake all 2022 budget year end amounts have been swept from the stake budget and all ward and branch budgets.

Our stake as well all funds from 2022 from stake, ward and branch with "Annual transfer of surplus budget funds".

We had the same problem, but within the last 30 minutes, the sweep transaction was removed and our budgets are now back as they were yesterday.

swigginton wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:46 pm We had the same problem, but within the last 30 minutes, the sweep transaction was removed and our budgets are now back as they were yesterday.

I see this as well. All units are back to what they were and it is as if it never happened on the ledger. Our bishops' heart rates won't be back to normal for a while though

barkeraj wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:58 pm

swigginton wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:46 pm We had the same problem, but within the last 30 minutes, the sweep transaction was removed and our budgets are now back as they were yesterday.

I see this as well. All units are back to what they were and it is as if it never happened on the ledger. Our bishops' heart rates won't be back to normal for a while though

So my question/concern is what was the mistake last night. Doing a sweep that SHOULD NOT have included Stake Budgets but only units within the stake, or was the entire sweep done in error. Just don't know if we are truly back to normal or should we expect a unit level sweep to take place in the coming days..

The sweep for our stake was the stake as well as each unit. All have been restored. I am waiting for the response to the support ticket that was submitted to see what happened.

"Annual transfer of surplus budget funds"

This tells me something further is coming down the pike, possibly at 2023 year end, but they let the cat out of the bag early?

garystroble wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 1:10 pm "Annual transfer of surplus budget funds"

This tells me something further is coming down the pike, but maybe they let the cat out of the bag early.

This is quite telling, it means they are seeing many wards (probably not as much stakes) that just aren't managing any kind of budget. I've always been very concerned that my Bishoprics treated the money as an expense account. When CUBS first came out I watched as ward after ward had carried over like 1/2 their budget, after the 2nd year of doing this, we called a meeting and asked for it back at the stake level to fund some stuff. The Bishops were miffed, I mean incensed that we dared question their stewardship. I was (as the clerk) literally being yelled at by my own Bishop for this very thing so I asked him, Why did you charge me for my girls to attend Young Women camp knowing you had $4000 carry over in the budget. I'll tell you why, because you didn't know you had that kind of money in a carry over, because you don't budget anything. All the while I'm being asked to contribute out of pocket, Bishops are hording $$ - It's a bad deal. Now I'm certain that many places do it really well, I've just never lived in one for the last 25 years.

We have to start budgeting or it's going away, they'll start to reduce it if we don't use it. Boy, will we ever learn our lessons.

I think in this case the sweep was applied to all units church-wide, including stakes and districts. Obviously an error, as our ward's carryover was well within guidelines. If they were trying to send a message it was clumsily done. If not, the arbitrary sweeps of all units was way overreach or a major malfunction caused by human error.

Our ward didn't see budget sweeps, even though the carryover was far more than 50% of our annual allotment. I haven't heard of any sweeps in our stake either.

I'm very glad we didn't need to worry about transferring money out, or an automated sweep, because commitments for 2023 could leave us less than $400 at the end of year. I'm even a little worried we'll run out. Decades of shrinking attendance doesn't help, though a fundraiser might.

I started serving as a clerk in the late 70's, have had very little time away from it, and this is the first year I felt a need to warn our bishopric and organizations about running out of money.

If we are moving toward automated budget sweeps, I see them as driving unnecessary spending. Our ward's leaders have tended to be frugal, and if their perspective adjusts toward a 'use it or lose it' approach I expect spending choices to become less worthwhile, at least for a time.

My 2 cents, anyway.

I’m curious if anyone had money taken from their ward or stake. Nothing has come out of our stake despite having a large surplus which is being held in reserve for our next trek and other future stake activities.

Did the church silently reverse the plan to take excess budget funds or should we still expect money to be taken?

It appears that funds were only pulled from stakes, not wards. Funds were pulled if the amount in the stake budget category on 31 December 2022 (not including ward funds) exceeded 50% of the total allocation of funds to the stake including wards for 2022. This is listed in LCR Finance under "Income and Expense details" / "Budget Allocations" labeled as "Collect 2022 budget excess funds as per PBO notice (15 Jan 2023)". Transfers took place in mid-January.

rknelson wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 1:19 pm It appears that funds were only pulled from stakes, not wards. Funds were pulled if the amount in the stake budget category on 31 December 2022 (not including ward funds) exceeded 50% of the total allocation of funds to the stake including wards for 2022. This is listed in LCR Finance under "Income and Expense details" / "Budget Allocations" labeled as "Collect 2022 budget excess funds as per PBO notice (15 Jan 2023)". Transfers took place in mid-January.

My ward had funds swept!

rknelson wrote: Sat Apr 01, 2023 1:19 pm It appears that funds were only pulled from stakes, not wards. Funds were pulled if the amount in the stake budget category on 31 December 2022 (not including ward funds) exceeded 50% of the total allocation of funds to the stake including wards for 2022. This is listed in LCR Finance under "Income and Expense details" / "Budget Allocations" labeled as "Collect 2022 budget excess funds as per PBO notice (15 Jan 2023)". Transfers took place in mid-January.

I was told in a call to Salt Lake to expect about $43,000 to be taken from our stake and wards but nothing was taken.

UPDATE to my original post. I called CHQ on 31 Mar 2023 at the request of my stake president to get a sweep update. All of our units had been on "sweep watch" and have been very frugal with YTD spending. CHQ responded that all sweeps for 2023 have concluded so if the stake hasn't been swept, it won't be this year. CHQ acknowledged the sweep glitch in late Jan but noted that was all corrected and restored (ours was). It was also emphasized, multiple times during the call, that funds would only be swept from stakes, not wards. We've told our units to resumed normal spending but I personally won't be fully at ease until I see at the end of the year that no sweep has occurred. Trust but verify.

When I called in January I asked where the money would be taken from. I was told it would be taken from the stake account because as per the earlier letter, wards were supposed to have transferred their extra money to the stake. I then asked what if the wards didn’t transfer the money? He didn’t have a response for that.

BlairEsplin wrote: Sun Apr 02, 2023 1:28 pm When I called in January I asked where the money would be taken from. I was told it would be taken from the stake account because as per the earlier letter, wards were supposed to have transferred their extra money to the stake. I then asked what if the wards didn’t transfer the money? He didn’t have a response for that.

Is there any guidance on how much "excess funds" wards should be sent back to the Stake? I would love to guidance on this.

Also, I'm still a little confused about how to calculate "budget balance exceeding 50 percent of the total 2022 annual budget allocation".

We had a large sweep of funds only from the Stake level, going into a year where we're hosting a Regional Simply Prom, Regional Youth Conference, and increased costs of Stake YM, and YW camps.

I'm a little surprised this thread went silent back in April. What I hoped to see here is a summary of what has been determined and the community's best projection what we are going to see in the way of sweeps in 2024. I'll summarize what I believe has happened and what we expect to happen and request comments and corrections from the group....

1. Last January (2023) many (but not all?) stakes in the US were swept of funds in excess of 50% of their total 2022 budget?
2. Later that month there was another sweep that also hit some wards but that was done in error and was promptly corrected?
3. From what I gather reading this thread, some stakes with funds in excess of 50% of their 2022 budget were not swept. True?
4. Many stakes made attempts to get their swept funds returned, claiming obligations/plans of treks, etc. Was any ever returned?
5. The plan as far as we know is for this policy to continue and the sweeping of funds in excess of 50% of 2023's budget will be swept in January 2024, but only from stakes, not wards?

ckmcdonald wrote: Wed Aug 23, 2023 10:14 am I'm a little surprised this thread went silent back in April. What I hoped to see here is a summary of what has been determined and the community's best projection what we are going to see in the way of sweeps in 2024. I'll summarize what I believe has happened and what we expect to happen and request comments and corrections from the group....

Since I'm the OP, I guess I'll get this jump started again. There's a few things I learned since things calmed down

1. Last January (2023) many (but not all?) stakes in the US were swept of funds in excess of 50% of their total 2022 budget?

1. Yes, many but not all. My stake was one that had a balance over 50% but was not swept. Don't know why. We didn't send any excess because we were trying to understand how to calculate the excess and where exactly the sweep would occur (stake only, wards also?). Some of the wording in the Dec 2022 and Jan 2023 was a bit unclear. By the time we got solid answers back from CHQ, we were told the sweeps had already occurred.

2. Later that month there was another sweep that also hit some wards but that was done in error and was promptly corrected?

2. Yes, my stake and all our wards were hit by that error. All unit budget balances were reduced by the same amount of their 31 Dec 2022 budget balance. It was not only restored by the next day, but the ledgers (Transfer screen in LCR-F) were wiped clean as if it never happened. That last part was a surprise since ledger book errors should never erased. A second entry is usually made to correct the error, or at least that’s what I remember from bookkeeping classes once upon a time.

3. From what I gather reading this thread, some stakes with funds in excess of 50% of their 2022 budget were not swept. True?

3. True, my stake had a balance excess of 50% at year-end along with a few of our wards but the stake (unit) was not swept.

4. Many stakes made attempts to get their swept funds returned, claiming obligations/plans of treks, etc. Was any ever returned?

4. We didn't deal with this scenario so I can’t answer that one. Instructions I received from CHQ in response to a different question contained some interesting information related to your question:

“If after counseling with the bishops of the units, the funds are still insufficient for the activity that they have planned, and they would like to request an exception to keep additional funds. The stake president will need to contact his Area Authority and provide the details of what activity they are planning, how much they expect it to cost and the amount of additional funds they are requesting. This request will be reviewed and submitted to the Area Presidency and DTA and if they approve it will be passed to the Presiding Bishopric for final approval.”

5. The plan as far as we know is for this policy to continue and the sweeping of funds in excess of 50% of 2023's budget will be swept in January 2024, but only from stakes, not wards?

5. Yes, this is what I understand. After asking for a clearer definition of sweeping the stake (stake as a unit or the stake collectively with all units), I received a detailed response that would’ve helped with the process early on had it been included with the original instructions.

In a nutshell, the instructions are for each unit to look at their year-end Budget balance in LCR-F. Each unit, ward and stake, calculates if that number is over 50% of what the unit received in Budget funds during the year just ended. Calculating the 50% point is easy enough. Once the final quarterly budget allotment for the year drops in October, each unit in the stake can calculate the 50% point of Budget funds received for the year. If an excess above the 50% point exists by year end, wards transfer the excess to the stake for consolidation with the stake’s excess, if any. The stake then transfers the consolidated excess to CHQ. The one disconnect with these instructions is the Dec 2022 letter wanted all transfers, including the stake transfer to CHQ, to be completed by 31 Dec, yet units won't know the actual year-end balance to compare to the 50% point until the transfer due date. At least I never do. There's always a mad rush about mid-Dec with "forgotten" receipt turn-ins from earlier in the year. My understanding is any CHQ sweep is based on the stake balance as of 31 Dec. So that was one problem I noticed.

I'm hoping any instructions sent out near the end of this year will have clearer instructions on calculations and due dates.

I have to wonder if there's a "minimum amount" you have to be over, or perhaps there is a grace percentage.

I'm not sure if CHQ is going to sweep out a measly $1.49 over, but I'm pretty sure they'd sweep $10,000 over.

Many organizations have analyzed their costs and know how much a transaction costs them to process (even if it's all in the computer). They're not going going to act on something that's too close to their transaction costs.

After I posted my message above (#56) I called the Global Help Desk and had a long conversations on this topic. I got the exact same answers that CJ gave above (thank you) in post #57 with one exception. On my question #5 about the future I was told there has been no statement from CHQ that the sweep game that occurred in Jan 2023 will repeat. It may or may not, we don't know. They said we'd just have to wait and see if another memo comes out. Does anyone have any differing data that would suggest that answer is wrong? CJ, you said that you got something that suggested this will be a yearly event going forward?
Have anyone heard anything about CHQ having plans to sweep wards?
As far as I know sweeping wards has never been done or suggested.

So if our 2023 year-end balance is $15,000, our carryover to 2024 will be $7,500, and in addition, our 2024 quarterly allocations will be reduced by 50% as well. Am I reading this right?
Thank you.
Howard

BRIBRETRAKIM wrote: Fri Oct 20, 2023 1:16 pm So if our 2023 year-end balance is $15,000, our carryover to 2024 will be $7,500, and in addition, our 2024 quarterly allocations will be reduced by 50% as well. Am I reading this right?
Thank you.
Howard

Based on the information provided from the GSD the sweep was for any funds in excess of 50% of the total annual budget that remains at the end of the year.
It is not 50% of what remains in the budget at the end of the year.
There was no mention of anything affecting the next year's quarterly allocations.

Many will be aware, but yesterday the Church sent a communication, and there's a corresponding notice posted on the main dashboard page of LCRF. I'll hit some of the highlights, for anyone wanting more details, I think the communication actually does a pretty good job of giving details and explanation. Actually, compared with past experiences, I think this communication is 1000% better than most of what they've done previously! (which includes the Church doing things and not telling local leaders about it...)

1) LUBA is increased. Interesting, but not pertinent to this thread.

2) One authorized fundraising event per year. There's additional guidance that funds should be used in the year they are received. I suppose you could raise funds in 2023, make a deposit in Dec 2023 for a Youth event in 2024, and have that be a workaround to trying to carryover those funds. But the principle in the communication is definitely that expenses should not be excessive. And if carryover is an issue, or if youth families are asked to contribute an excessive amount to participate in an event, a reevaluation may be in order.

3) Budget sweeps will occur Dec 31st, 2023, for all stakes, but not for any wards. If a stake adjustment is required, after the adjustment is made the stake’s budget balance will be 50 percent of the total annual budget allocation given to the stake in 2023. Stake presidents are encouraged to work with bishops to review and maintain reasonable budget balances in the wards. So while there's room for interpretation about what's "reasonable" at a ward level, at least for now there's no indication that at the end of next year (Dec 31 2024), wards will be swept at any level. I would hope that given the stake experience and pushback, that when/if the Church does decide to also cap the ward budget carryover, they would give a year's heads-up so that any ward carrying a lot of excess budget, would at least be able to talk with the Stake President about what they should do to be ready for the eventual sweep.

BrianEdwards wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:04 am Many will be aware, but yesterday the Church sent a communication, and there's a corresponding notice posted on the main dashboard page of LCRF.

How was the communication sent out? I see the LCRF notice but I don't see anything in the Official Communication Library and I haven't received an email. I'm a Stake Finance Clerk so I would hope that I'd be included on the distribution list if it were an email.

Apparently stake finance clerks were not copied on the communication (Official Communication Library), our finance clerk wasn’t copied either. Excellent communication compared to last year!

The letter states that the recipients are "the following leaders in the United States: Stake, Mission,and District Presidencies; Bishoprics and Branch Presidencies; Stake and Ward Clerks; Stake Auditors". In "Official Communications", I see the letter listed under the "Notices" category. I guess the "Stake Clerk" group doesn't include Stake Financial Clerks, probably the same at the Ward level.

Will someone detail the changes to the local budget funding? I have a Bishopric who doesn't record any attendance of the youth even after seeing what is submitted in the quarterly report, I can't get them to understand just how much $$ we're losing from not tracking attendance of our Young Men.

johnshaw wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:20 pm Will someone detail the changes to the local budget funding?

There were no specific details in the notice. This was the information provided: "Local Unit Budget Allowance (LUBA). Effective January 2024, the base quarterly LUBA rates will increase."

So this leaves more questions unanswered. Is this change applied to the 3rd quarter 2023 attendance used to calculate the 1st quarter 2024 LUBA? Or, is this change applied to the 1st quarter 2024 attendance used to calculate the 3rd quarter 2024 LUBA? I am leaning toward the former 1st Q 2023 attendance.

For planning purposes most of us who estimate the quarterly LUBA will be at a loss until either the exact rates are provided or we get the Q1 2024 unit LUBA notice where the rates are shown.

jdlessley wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:54 pm

johnshaw wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:20 pm Will someone detail the changes to the local budget funding?

There were no specific details in the notice. This was the information provided: "Local Unit Budget Allowance (LUBA). Effective January 2024, the base quarterly LUBA rates will increase."

I just got a copy of the letter from my stake clerk. The letter does provide the specific amounts but I'm not sure whether they should be posted in public.

johnshaw wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:20 pm I can't get them to understand just how much $$ we're losing from not tracking attendance of our Young Men.

Unless it has changed (and it very well may have) I thought the budget allowance was based on how many Youth records you have, not how many are actually attending.

That's interesting, because I got a letter notice, but it did not include the rates. I'll have to ask my stake clerk to see what he got.

eblood66 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:26 pm The letter does provide the specific amounts but I'm not sure whether they should be posted in public.

I think not.

lajackson wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:49 pm

johnshaw wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:20 pm I can't get them to understand just how much $$ we're losing from not tracking attendance of our Young Men.

Unless it has changed (and it very well may have) I thought the budget allowance was based on how many Youth records you have, not how many are actually attending.

The capitation rate is based on the attendance and pulled from the quarterly report, line 18 for YM and line 19 for YW. Primary is a computation based on both records and attendance.

jdlessley wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:57 pm

lajackson wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:49 pm

johnshaw wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:20 pm I can't get them to understand just how much $$ we're losing from not tracking attendance of our Young Men.

Unless it has changed (and it very well may have) I thought the budget allowance was based on how many Youth records you have, not how many are actually attending.

The capitation rate is based on the attendance and pulled from the quarterly report, line 18 for YM and line 19 for YW. Primary is a computation based on both records and attendance.

I believe Primary is based on Activity Day age attendance, not all of Primary.

jdlessley wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:57 pm Primary is a computation based on both records and attendance.

There's also a YSA category. Since typically there is no YSA class, IIRC, it's done by using making a guess based on sacrament meeting attendances and the percentage of YSA in the ward.

I'd be a bit surprised if Primary is done that way since they do have a separate meeting.

YSA LUBA is computed by multiplying the number of YSA records by the sacrament meeting attendance percent on line 7 of the quarterly report. Primary LUBA is computed by the number of records for children age 7 to 10 by the primary attendance percent found on line 22 of the quarterly report. When using records, such as for computing the YSA and primary LUBA, the number is what is found on the last day of the quarter. The YW and YM numbers are attendance throughout the quarter. If they attended one meeting during the quarter they are counted. The previous method of counting attendance was if they attended a meeting in the last month of the quarter.

jdlessley wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:50 pm That's interesting, because I got a letter notice, but it did not include the rates. I'll have to ask my stake clerk to see what he got.

The amounts are at the top of the second page after the end of the main 'letter'. Does your letter have more than one page? Does it mention an 'enclosure'?

When was this notice sent out? I’m a stake auditor and I did not receive it.

When was this notice sent out? I’m a stake auditor and I did not receive it.

The communication was sent November 9th, with the recipients listed in an earlier post in this thread. For those without access to the official communication, the first page of the communication is essentially what is listed in the pop-up message in LCRF.

Does your letter have more than one page? Does it mention an 'enclosure'?

My assertion that this new Notice provided helpful details and explanations, is definitely based on a recipient having the version I see, which contains a total of three pages. The first page is what I'd describe as a basic notice from the Church, while pages two and three are something we might not have at first, but then would eventually appear in a less-official FAQ that might not be as visible or as accessible. Having all three pages contained in the same official communication is quite nice. Anyone who just has a single page notice, is missing these helpful details and explanations, so I'd definitely suggest reaching out to another leader, perhaps the Bishop or Stake President if needed.

And as is often the case, this thread discussion is specific to the United States (since the Communication was specific to the USA). So for anyone elsewhere, you'll hopefully be receiving your own updates for 2024, likely in whatever manner your Area currently uses to instruct local leaders regarding Church funds.

BrianEdwards wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 7:48 am

When was this notice sent out? I’m a stake auditor and I did not receive it.

The communication was sent November 9th, with the recipients listed in an earlier post in this thread. For those without access to the official communication, the first page of the communication is essentially what is listed in the pop-up message in LCRF.

Unfortunately, I don't think auditors even have access to LCRF. It must be an oversight that auditors didn't get sent the letter and don't have access in OCL since the letter explicitly indicates that it's for Stake auditors. So I'm assuming it was also an oversight for Stake Finance Clerks as well since it most definitely is relevant to our calling.

Interestingly, I do have access to the recent letter on the 2024 Youth theme which isn't relevant to my calling and where I don't fit into any of the listed recipient categories.

Relative to Church notices (Official Communications) not usually shared with your calling, try changing your site account Subscriptions Settings to include Official Communication Library. I turned this on years ago, and it seems to keep me informed of all the stuff I want to be aware of, and some that I don't, which seems to include notices I wouldn't normally be CC'd on. Hope this helps.

[ Disclaimer (or something kinda like it): Been ward clerk for long long long time, and I regularly warn folks that I'm not sure what they can or cannot access in the Tools app' and on the Church's website because I'm so used to being mostly in the know. ]

Thanks for all the comments on this topic. They really do help.

eblood66 wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 6:36 am

jdlessley wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 9:50 pm That's interesting, because I got a letter notice, but it did not include the rates. I'll have to ask my stake clerk to see what he got.

The amounts are at the top of the second page after the end of the main 'letter'. Does your letter have more than one page? Does it mention an 'enclosure'?

When I first got the notice on 9 November it was one page. After seeing your post today I went to the OCL and the full three pages are there.

I hope the issue of finance clerks not being able to view the 9 Nov notice is simply a system glitch that will be corrected soon. As a stake finance clerk, this is critical information needed to stay on top of finances and to advise stake and ward leaders. I can view many other notices on subjects not directly related to finance (2024 Youth Theme & Song, Submitting Digital Annual Histories, ASL classes, etc.) where clerks are not listed in the distribution, yet there they are. I don't mind these, they're helpful for overall situation awareness on issues that may indirectly involve finance clerks.

I've created a GSC trouble ticket in LCR to address the problem. Hopefully the problem will get fixed soon or, at the very least, explain the reason for the oversight. Maybe if additional finance clerks submit trouble tickets CHQ will become aware of how widespread the access problem to the 9 Nov notice is and its impact?

Despite reading letters and comments over and over I am still confused about how excess funds are calculated and where they will be taken from.

Our stake did not have anything taken last January and I’m not sure why that was either.

The letters say that the excess funds will be taken from Stake accounts. Is that to be understood as only the Stake account and not ward accounts? The letter also says that you can see the stake budget allotment on the Q4 budget allotment report. My question, can the stake as an individual unit not including the wards keep 50% of the total stake allotment which includes the wards share?

For example, if the entire stake budget allotment for 2023 was $90,000 could the stake in its individual account keep $45,000? Do ward carryovers factor into the equation?

BlairEsplin wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 10:26 am Despite reading letters and comments over and over I am still confused about how excess funds are calculated and where they will be taken from.

Our stake did not have anything taken last January and I’m not sure why that was either.

The letters say that the excess funds will be taken from Stake accounts. Is that to be understood as only the Stake account and not ward accounts? The letter also says that you can see the stake budget allotment on the Q4 budget allotment report. My question, can the stake as an individual unit not including the wards keep 50% of the total stake allotment which includes the wards share?

For example, if the entire stake budget allotment for 2023 was $90,000 could the stake in its individual account keep $45,000? Do ward carryovers factor into the equation?

I recommend reading Church IT system (finance, membership, etc.) notices as generalized summaries, instead of like scientific research papers. Quite a while back I learned to avoid reading between the lines for unspecified detail, except to understand the spirit of rules. Over time, local auditor comments, Church website instruction, and stake finance clerks have/has occasionally filled in gaps and updated perspectives. I even look forward to audit exceptions because we get to learn.

Though the potential for returning local unit (Stake and Ward) funds has apparently been around for a while, this software automation of it is very new, so implementation glitches should be expected. Then, if glitches seem to impact your unit call Global Services for support and resolution. IT folks dedicated to finance and membership systems have consistently been very caring and helpful.

Our stake seems to know or at least feel that funds sweeps shouldn't impact wards because they distributed some to us recently. They're trying to ensure enough money is available for a super youth activity next year. Since we have more than a couple CPA's and advanced IT folks in stake leadership, I expect they've made appropriate inquiries to guide actions.

For example, if the entire stake budget allotment for 2023 was $90,000 could the stake in its individual account keep $45,000? Do ward carryovers factor into the equation?

I feel the letter covers this question in the "Budget Retention Limit" section. There's two aspects to me: (1) How much is the max? (2) Is carrying over the max amount correct for us?

For (1), the letter speaks about stake budget end-of-year balances, and adjustments that would be made. There is no mention of ward budget balances affecting potential stake adjustments, simply adjustments based on the end-of-year amount in the stake balance. Paragraphs 3 & 4 are what I feel apply, and my reading is that in your example scenario, $45000 would be the max carryover allowed.

For (2), the letter also gives counsel that neither stakes nor wards should retain significant portions of the budget allowance received. I know we all have many reasons why we feel it appropriate to max out our carryover, and there's nothing wrong with that since Stake Presidents are given that discretion. But if maxing out the carryover is a yearly occurrence, perhaps a re-think of the types of expenses being incurred, would help align with the general counsel of not retaining significant portions of the budget allowance (instead of always defaulting to hitting the max carryover amount). Again, this is all decided at the local level.

Based on the first sweep from last year and seeing this again for 2024 here are my thoughts as Stake Clerk. We are being taught and encouraged to plan and prepare a budget. That budget should be prayerfully considered and funds allocated in the system prior to each year end. Then the church will “sweep” 50% of any remaining funds that have NOT been allocated to specific budget line items for 2024. It’s as simple as that. Plan, prepare, and stick to your budget. If it was a money issue there wouldn’t have been a 16% increase this year. It’s not a money thing, it’s a planning thing. I would even go as far as to say that the church is setting the example at the stake level and the stake then needs to set the same example at the individual unit level. While that has not been explicitly outlined that may be a best practice.

I called the global service center this morning. I asked a lot of questions and went over a lot of scenarios. What was told boils down to the following.

The stake with all of its units can only carry over 50% of the total budget allotment. The year end balance includes the stake account and all unit accounts. If there is an excess of more than 50% the money will be taken out of the stake account. If the amount taken from the stake account creates a deficit in the stake account, wards will have to transfer money to the stake to cover the negative balance since the wards were to have already transferred their excess to the stake account.

Whether this is correct or not I can not say but this is what I was told.

keeganjh wrote: Sun Dec 10, 2023 9:01 am Based on the first sweep from last year and seeing this again for 2024 here are my thoughts as Stake Clerk. We are being taught and encouraged to plan and prepare a budget. That budget should be prayerfully considered and funds allocated in the system prior to each year end. Then the church will “sweep” 50% of any remaining funds that have NOT been allocated to specific budget line items for 2024. It’s as simple as that. Plan, prepare, and stick to your budget. If it was a money issue there wouldn’t have been a 16% increase this year. It’s not a money thing, it’s a planning thing. I would even go as far as to say that the church is setting the example at the stake level and the stake then needs to set the same example at the individual unit level. While that has not been explicitly outlined that may be a best practice.

100% - I ran into an issue as a stake clerk with many Bishops that claimed they were 'saving for a rainy day' - When you think that most of our Bishops and Bishoprics are NOT necessarily LARGE CORPORATE ENTERPRISE manages of budgets they think like a 'family' thinks. The instinct isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when you combine it with the idea that most (through my observation) wards / stakes think of the money as an expense account it becomes a huge problem.

In addition to Planning, we need to get the idea that orgs don't have a certain amount of $$ for the year, but they have $$ per activity and those activities need to be planned ahead of time and the $ associated with those plans. As does a stake. In fact, I have no idea how a stake even knows what to give wards without those things implemented by wards.....

It's like we're going around saying.... well, it FEELS like I should do this... it feels like this ward needs this... etc... Lets do better

BlairEsplin wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 9:42 am I called the global service center this morning. I asked a lot of questions and went over a lot of scenarios. What was told boils down to the following.

The stake with all of its units can only carry over 50% of the total budget allotment. The year end balance includes the stake account and all unit accounts. If there is an excess of more than 50% the money will be taken out of the stake account. If the amount taken from the stake account creates a deficit in the stake account, wards will have to transfer money to the stake to cover the negative balance since the wards were to have already transferred their excess to the stake account.

Whether this is correct or not I can not say but this is what I was told.

This is the exact conclusion that the person I asked at the GSC and I came to around the same time you did. But two days ago, I got a different answer from the next GSC person I talked to. Their answer was that, from the most recent training they received, the ward budgets aren't affected - meaning that the 50% cap on the carryover only pertains to the stake budget and doesn't include the ward budgets.

I'm working off the assumption that the 2nd person is probably mistaken, but I'd like to know if other stake/financial clerks have gotten any other "official" communication to the contrary (or if any church employees involved with the pending sweeps are monitoring and can comment). I'm inclined to just allow the sweep to happen rather than transfer the excess myself, but our stake has a special circumstance that is currently being reviewed to keep more than the 50%.

I received the answer to my question from the GSD (after they consulted with the church finance dept.)…

It turns out that the calculation of the amount that will be swept is not either of the cases that I described.

My conclusion was correct that the 50% is on the total stake budget (including ward budgets); however, the sweep is only looking at how much is remaining in the stake’s budget only (not including the ward budgets).

So, for example, if the total stake allotment for 2023 is $50,000, and the total amount remaining at the end of the year for all stake/ward budgets is $40,000, but the amount in the stake only budget is $10,000, then the amount to be swept will be nothing – since $10,000 is less than $25,000 (50% x $50,000).

It doesn’t make much sense to me why the sweep only pertains to a portion of what’s remaining when it’s based on 50% of the total allotment…but there it is.

I also learned that they are expecting the sweep to happen on Jan 15th.

greggo wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2024 1:36 pm It doesn’t make much sense to me why the sweep only pertains to a portion of what’s remaining when it’s based on 50% of the total allotment…but there it is.

I have zero knowledge about this situation, but I'm been around long enough to witness an interesting interaction between problems and rules in life.

When there's a problem, the natural reaction is to create a rule/law to deal with it. But in trying to precisely deal with the problem, it's easy to create a rule that's overly complex and too hard to implement/enforce.

Clearly, some stakes have amassed quite an amount of funds. Given that youth camps happen every two years, it makes sense that the units will need to carry over "off year" funds to finance the camp years. But to do that exactly gets into the details of how each unit is handling their camp budget, as well as other area approved but less common activities. It's understandable that the church is going to want to find some simple approach that still tackles the bulk of the problem instead of trying to stamp out every single abuse.

The fact that the church has decided on a simplified approach of taking anything over 50% of the stake total allotment from just the stake suggests to me the magnitude of the problem they were seeing.

greggo wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2024 1:36 pm It turns out that the calculation of the amount that will be swept is not either of the cases that I described.

My conclusion was correct that the 50% is on the total stake budget (including ward budgets); however, the sweep is only looking at how much is remaining in the stake’s budget only (not including the ward budgets).

So, for example, if the total stake allotment for 2023 is $50,000, and the total amount remaining at the end of the year for all stake/ward budgets is $40,000, but the amount in the stake only budget is $10,000, then the amount to be swept will be nothing – since $10,000 is less than $25,000 (50% x $50,000).

It doesn’t make much sense to me why the sweep only pertains to a portion of what’s remaining when it’s based on 50% of the total allotment…but there it is.

As we approach "sweep season", I decided to take another look at our stake numbers since I had been unable to clearly explain how our stake has not been swept the past two years. The only equation that made sense, and worked each time with our numbers, was as greggo describes above. This year I decided to approach it a little different and calculate it as a ratio between the stake budget ending balance and the total deposits (stake + wards) for the year. It takes a different path but arrives at the same destination. Using greggo's example above, if all deposits for the stake + wards was $50,000 and the stake budget ending balance on Dec 31 was $10,000, then the ratio is 0.2 or 20% with no sweep occurring since its under 50%.

To test it out with my stake numbers, I got the stake deposits number from the Year-to-Date Total (in bold) on the bottom of page 3 of the 4th Quarter Local Unit Budget Allowance Report sent out in Oct. For the stake budget balance, I used the LCR-Finance > Overview > Income and Expense Summary page. I left it on Stake Summary and read the Budget End Balance column. Taking the Budget End Balance / YTD deposit total gave me 14.5% for 2024 (thus far), 15.9% for 2023, and 47.4% for 2022. I then tried using the stake + all ward ending balances / YTD deposits (as one GSC response suggested) and got 80.7% for 2024 (thus far), 59.0% for 2023, and 119.0% for 2022. Using the stake ending balance vs total stake allotment to calculate if 50% was exceeded as greggo describes seems to explain why we haven't been swept for the past two years since the sweeps were first implemented and shouldn't be swept for 2024. (For some extra 'gee-whiz' info, I did the same for all our wards/branches to see where they're at with budget balance vs yearly allotment and it really made a couple data points pop out for discussion at the next stake presidency meeting.

Thanks cjbeckert for your insights on this.
It makes me want to do the same analysis on our units - but I'm assuming they're all in "good shape," since I had them transfer their excess to the stake last year.

Has anyone following this topic received a notification this year about transferring excess budget back to headquarters or any sweep happening after the end of the year?
I've heard nothing on my end.

Based on how the sweep was calculated last year, I'm not going to be too worried about carrying over more than the 50% this year.

greggo wrote: Wed Dec 11, 2024 1:23 pm Has anyone following this topic received a notification this year about transferring excess budget back to headquarters or any sweep happening after the end of the year?

Same Policy as last year. Notice appears in LCR/Finance on the Dashboard (at least on the stake dashboard)

Budget Retention Limit

Similar to prior years, an automated adjustment will be made in January 2025 for stake accounts with 2024 year-end budget balances exceeding 50 percent of the stake’s total annual budget allocation. Stake presidents are encouraged to work with bishops to review and maintain reasonable budget balances in the wards.

One point that confuses many in this discussion is that "stake's total annual budget allocation" is the sum of stake and all ward/branch units allocations in the stake. And yes, the adjustment is based funds remaining in the stake account and has nothing to do with what is in ward accounts. The stake president works with bishops on ward accounts.