South Kingstown Public Schools Memo

Date:              1/26/07

TO:                    school committee

From:             Robert Hicks

RE:                    2007-2008 budget

Introduction

This memorandum covers the superintendent’s recommended budget for the South Kingstown public schools for the 2007-2008 year.  This year’s budget is different from past budgets in a fundamental sense.  Prior budgets were a prioritized expression of needs. This budget fits prioritized needs into fixed revenue.  Senate 3050 prohibits the School Committee from adopting a budget that requests more of the town than the tax cap permits, specifically 105.25% of the dollar amount received in 2006-07.  Consequently, it would make no sense for this budget to do otherwise.

The budget represents an expenditure increase of 6.22% on the current budget, or $3,452,213.  The maximum increase that can be requested of the town is $2,276,006, leaving $1,176,207 to be funded from other increased revenue sources for the budget to balance.

Within this budget memorandum is an explanation of how the recommended budget was developed, the goals it works to serve, costs that drive it, and how it was brought into conformance with available revenues.  It also includes a description of how it can be reduced if the non-property tax revenue assumptions are not realized, or, if other needs, mandated or essential, emerge in the budgeting process.  The budget cover includes the following sections:

                                 District Goals       The goals of the school district and how they are used to set budget priorities

                               Budget Drivers       The items that have the most substantive impact on budget increases

                                   Enrollments       Enrollment projections and their budget impact

                       Undesignated Funds       Unspent funds remaining from previous years, how they were accumulated, and their impact on future budgets with added information on the district’s ability to stay within the FTM appropriation

Additional Mandated Requirements       What new mandates are required to be addressed in the 2007-2008 budget and how they are included in the budget

                                      Personnel       Staffing patterns, history, and plans for 2007-08

                                     P-Accounts       Our supply and equipment accounts that are allocated to schools to support their operation

            Extraordinary New Expense       How a single extraordinary expense impacts the budget and how it is planned to be accommodated

                              Tax Cap Impact       The impact of the tax cap on the school budget

           A Budget within the Tax Cap       How the 2007-2008 budget was brought into conformance with tax cap restrictions

                                        State Aid       The role of state aid in the budget, its historical share, and the expectation for 2007-08

                     Revenue Assumptions       The revenues assumptions that were used in developing the budget, where there is uncertainty, and how reduced revenue will impact the budget

                         Budget Reductions       Where reductions to this budget will likely come from should they be necessary due to either additional expenses or reduced revenue

 

District Goals

The prioritized work of the school department is guided by its strategic plan.  Work in recent years was based on the plan developed in 2002 and included five goals that emphasized curriculum, professional development, community partnerships, student intervention, and data analysis.  Reports on the accomplishments towards these goals are posted on the district’s web-site, skschools.net.

Over the past year the data analysis from the accountability system was used to assess the progress of the district and develop the next generation strategic plan.  To do this, the school committee examined data from throughout the school system that included both our own results and those of comparable communities and held public forums to gather community input on system goals. The goals that resulted from that analysis were –

1.      Continue Accountability Work – the work this past year provided a solid beginning in creating an accountability structure for the district.  This work should continue and accountability should be a component of all our work.

2.      Improve Communication Across the School System – to date the committee’s communication work has been focused on the district level.  Communication should be a system-wide goal permeating every facet of the school system, including, for example, how someone is greeted when they walk in the door, the technology systems we put in place, consistency in implementation, clarified expectations, and policies.

3.      Improve High School Success For All Students – continues a goal from last year and is amplified by the state requirements for proficiency graduation.  The committee expressed interest: in learning more about why students drop out; looking for options that intervene early when signs of failure appear; how the K-8 system can support high school success, seeking solutions that both retain students and improve school safety; and resolving the limitations imposed by the high school schedule on flexible programming, most notably internships and work site learning.

4.      Supporting Innovative Strategies for Student Achievement – the committee is interested in what policy initiatives would promote innovative programming in the district.  This work will need to address the innovation and consistency balance, budgeting for innovation, and necessarily supportive cultural shifts.

The importance of these goals was recently emphasized by the news regarding the classifications of the high school and school district.  Specifically, the Rhode Island Department of Education labeled the high school as making Insufficient Progress because of missed subgroup targets.  Under NCLB schools and districts are no longer accountable only for aggregate student achievement, but also for the achievement of individual subgroups of students.  At the high school, students on Free and Reduced Lunch and students with IEP’s missed targets. So, in spite of the fact that the percentage of students meeting state proficiency is among the highest in the state, the fact that the non-proficient students fell disproportionately into these subgroups caused the high school to miss targets.  Similarly, even though all elementary schools were classified as High Performing, when the scores of students with IEP’s were aggregated to the district level a target was missed.  These two factors, when combined, caused South Kingstown to enter intervention status with RIDE.  A fuller discussion of this topic is available at skschools.net.

 

Budget Drivers

The increase in the school department budget for 2007-08 over 2006-07 is driven by several factors, including contractually negotiated contracts, state and federal requirements, increases in contracted services, benefit cost increases, and program decisions. Below is a breakout of key budget drivers and their cost impact.

ITEM

COST

NOTE

Wage increases

$1,143,200

Contractually negotiated

Certified = 3.75%, Clerks and aides = 3.5%, Custodians and maintenance = 3.4%

Step increases

$297,900

Decreasing impact, most on top step, in recent years equated to 2% of base, now 1% of base

New positions

$100,850

Unbudgeted in 06-07, in the current year aide positions were added in response to specific student needs.

Health/Dental rates

$483,781

Budgeted at 5 year trend, HC @ 8%, Dental @ 5%

Pension rate

$492,346

Certified and Non-Certified rate increases

Certified from 11.62% to 13.04%

Non-certified from 4.82% to 6.68%

Contract Services

$59,643

A combination of services, the increase is driven by technology, Compu-Claim (for Medicaid) and special education

Substitute teachers

$68,041

Provides the first increase in five years (10% in base rate)

Special education tuition

$447,832

Primarily group home costs

Unemployment

$25,000

Costs for reduced positions

Electricity

$37,500

A budgeted 8.24% rate increase, our “rate lock” runs out in October, 2007

OOD transport

$82,763

3% cost increase, out-of-district mini-bus

 

Our health care is budgeted at the average rate increase of the last five years.  The town has taken a more conservative approach in using a 10% increase.   If we utilized at 10% rate in the budget it would increase the budget line by $116, 596, requiring commensurate reductions elsewhere.

 

Enrollments

We remain in a period of declining enrollment as smaller cohorts of students move through the system.  The School Committee has taken action on this trend, closing an elementary school two years ago and adopting a plan to restructure middle schools that takes effect in 2008-09.  What is evident is that we appear to be near the end of the decline in the elementary schools and project seeing enrollment increases in our K-5 population within a five-year period.  The middle school population will drop another 150-175 students before stabilizing:  The restructuring will remove 200 students of capacity from the schools and eliminate between 8 and 10 teaching positions.  The enrollment decline is just beginning to reach the high school.  This can be seen in the table below with enrollment projections in grade combinations.

Likely as a result of full day kindergarten the ratio of births to kindergarten registrations soared.  The ratio had recently increased slightly, but jumped by about 10% this year to 97% of births.  The cohort ratio from grade 5 to 6 was increased based on expected charter school transfers.  When meeting with the local charter schools it surfaced that KHA will not, at this time, add a middle school program so its current fifth graders will move on.  With the new students placed, we retain balance between the two middle schools and the ability to move to all 3-member teams.

 

Undesignated Funds/Expenditures within Budget

The school department has worked to maintain its expenditures within the FTM appropriation and to honor the “Handshake Agreement” with Town Council by not spending unanticipated revenue.  The record of meeting this goal has improved substantially in recent years even in spite of unanticipated expenses.  For example, in 2005-06 the school department met its handshake commitment of $617,872 in unanticipated reductions in pension and charter tuition expenses while absorbing $133,058 in unanticipated expenses and revenue reduction in Title I, school breakfast reimbursement, and state aid set asides.  The history is in the table below.

Budget to Actual Expenditures and End-of-Year Balances

 

Actual

Actual

Actual

Actual

Projected

 

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

Budgeted

 $44,100,563

 $47,404,597

 $48,813,877

 $51,925,052

$55,521,024

Expended

 $44,650,202

 $47,671,022

 $48,417,267

 $51,030,594

$55,620,345

Balance

($549,639)

 ($266,425)

 $396,610

 $894,458

($99,321)

% expenditure

101.2%

100.6%

99.2%

98.3%

(100.018%)

Net Total

 $209,282

 $1,355

 $444,181

 $992,061

($64,749)

 

Given the revised nature of budget development under the new tax cap, it would be appropriate to discuss with the Town Council a revisiting of the handshake agreement to consider the possible reinstatement of reductions made to keep the budget within the cap should unanticipated revenue increases or expenditure reductions arise (see section on state aid). 

The balance of $992,061 from 2005-06, combined with earlier undesignated funds of $637,757, and deducting the $400,000 used to offset the 2006-07 budget, leaves the school department with undesignated funds of $1,043,686 entering the 2007-08 budget.  This budget proposes using $500,000 in undesignated funds to support the 2007-08 budget.  While this leaves similar funds available for 2008-09, it will be important to find replacement funds for the 2009-2010 budget, most likely through budget balances in 07-08 and 08-09.  Otherwise, the 2009-10 budget will be at risk.

Expenditures within the current (2006-07) year are running very close to budget and are at risk of being over-expended.  While there was positive news in charter school tuition, this has been offset by special education expenditures for aide positions, contract services, and expenses associated with the new group home.  Restoring control over these lines and developing cost saving alternatives are fiscal goals as we move to the coming year’s budget.

As the school department moves into a fiscal environment changed by the tax cap, and pressured to reduce budgets to conform to restricted revenue, the role of the undesignated funds should be understood.  The schools, as a department of the town, are not required to maintain undesignated funds in the same way as a town.  The schools are not financially independent such as is a regional school district.  However, the school department is separately required to balance its own budget and receives allocated funds in the form of state aid, grants, and Medicaid.  Consequently, it is prudent for the schools to retain undesignated funds to protect against unexpected expenditures or revenue shortfalls, or to smooth spikes in revenues or expenditures.

Consequently, while available, it would be imprudent for the school department to drain its undesignated fund balance to fund a budget shortfall, especially one that is not one-time, but is part of the operational base.  If this is done, an even larger shortfall occurs in the ensuing year.  The operational budget is increased to a level not supported by reliable revenues, and undesignated funds are no longer available, leaving a double gap, lower revenues and higher expenditures.

The undesignated funds dilemma also impacts Caroulo actions.  Caroulo actions are suits brought by school departments against towns to increase budget appropriations.  While South Kingstown has not used this process and neither anticipates nor seeks it, the undesignated fund balance provides an additional disincentive.  Even if the school department prevails, it must use all its undesignated funds prior to seeking additional funds from the town.  This almost guarantees a repeat in the following year when the tax cap prevents the town from increasing revenues to support a school department budget increased to a level the allowable property tax levy cannot support.

 

Additional Mandated Requirements

There are two specific additional state mandated requirements that require resources in the 2007-2008 budget and both relate to the high school.

First, state regulations lengthening the school day take effect.  The school department addressed the longer school day in its current contract with the NEASK (Teachers).  Additional time was added to the elementary and middle school day in 2005-06 and is added to the high school day in 2007-08.  This requires no additional cost.  However, the regulations also require the elimination of study halls, or, specifically, study halls no longer count as time in the school day, having the same effect.  Currently, high school students have as one of their instructional periods two quarters of physical education, one quarter of health, and one quarter of study hall.  To eliminate the one quarter of study hall, by itself, would require 2.4 teachers assuming every class at the contractual maximum.  However, by adding the classes to the current health/PE program, some additional efficiency can be gained and, with the slightly smaller entering ninth grade class, we anticipate meeting the mandate with only two teaching positions.  This would have the added benefit of increasing physical activity time in support of the recently adopted Wellness Policy.

Second, the class of 2008 is the first to graduate under the state’s new proficiency based graduation system (PBGR).  While the regulations themselves contain no specific staffing requirements, meeting their complex and rigorous requirements does require resources.  The administration recommends against under-implementing these regulations as the risk is too great.  If our graduation system is not approved by the Commissioner the ability of our graduates to achieve their post-secondary aspirations is placed into question.  Currently we have been reviewed by the Commissioner’s office and found to be making good and appropriate progress in developing and implementing our PBGR system.  In the 2006-07 budget we created a part-time (0.4 FTE) position to manage the PBGR system, particularly the portfolio requirement.  This has proved both helpful and inadequate.  The portfolio system applies to every graduating student, utilizes a new software system, requires review teams to judge portfolios, and includes a submission system based on validated tasks linked to school learner outcomes.  To assure this is properly done for the graduating students, a fulltime coordinator is necessary.  However, as mentioned in the “a budget within the cap” section, given revenue restrictions, the additional 0.6 FTE for this position will be taken from current class offerings at the school.

 

Personnel

The recommended budget is based on 609 personnel in the district, or one less than is currently in place.  That reduction comes from a teaching position, although there is reallocation.  Two positions are removed from the elementary schools and one from the middle school, and two of those added to the high school.  The reason for the two added high school positions, the elimination of study halls, was described in the preceding section.

The reduction in elementary positions comes from collapsed sections and an increase in fourth grade class size at PDES.  In total, three sections are collapsed and one of the reduced section FTE’s is used to create the committed third coach position.  The resulting grade and class configuration is in the table below.  It retains the three split sections currently in place, although in a slightly different configuration: two at Matunuck and one a West Kingston. The table shows the expected number of pupils, sections and class size as well as totals for each school and grade.  Kindergarten enrollments are based on current year, and exact numbers will not be known until registration.  Other grades utilize current (Fall, 2006) enrollments.

 

Kind

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

TOTAL

 

P

u

p

i

l

S

e

c

t

S

i

z

e

P

u

p

i

l

S

e

c

t

S

i

z

e

P

u

p

i

l

S

e

c

t

S

i

z

e

P

u

p

i

l

S

e

c

t

S

i

z

e

P

u

p

i

l

S

e

c

t

S

i

z

e

P

u

p

i

l

S

e

c

t

S

i

z

e

P

u

p

i

l

S

e

c

t

S

i

z

e

MES

60

3

20

60

3

20

55

2.5

22

55

2.5

22

56

2.5

22.4

62

2.5

24.8

348

16

21.8

PDES

90

4

22.5

90

4

22.5

85

4

21.3

75

4

18.8

98

4

24.5

95

4

23.8

533

24

22.2

WES

40

2

20

40

2

20

33

2

16.5

55

3

18.3

41

2

20.5

48

2

24

257

13

19.8

WKES

60

3

20

56

3

18.7

58

3

19.3

58

2.5

23.2

55

2.5

22

64

3

21.3

351

17

20.6

TOTAL

250

12

20.8

246

12

20.5

231

11.5

20.1

243

12

20.3

250

11

22.7

269

11.5

23.4

1489

70

21.3

 

The middle schools reduction is a section in the sixth grade at CCMS.  Currently, our sixth grade organization has four teams, two in each school.  Three of the teams have three members and one has four.  This reduction will make all teams three-member teams.  The remaining four member team has been retained due to larger enrollments at CCMS.  The table below includes the expected grade six team size and class size with the reduction.

School

Sixth Graders

Sections

Teams

Class Size

Broad Rock

136

6

2

22.7

Curtis Corner

133

6

2

22.2

 

In special education it is expected that one FTE will be necessary at the high school due to population movement, although that will be addressed with an internal transfer.  It is expected that the FTE count for the district in special education will rise during the year, however.  Currently, all resources for students in the newly opening group home are placed in tuition services since, as the best information available indicates, that is the current placement.  It is expected, however, that local programs can and will be created within our schools for a portion of the students.  This is expected to result in reallocated resources, from tuition to personnel, however, rather than in additional costs.

Also in the budget for next year are these personnel items:

o      Unbudgeted teaching assistant positions were added in 2006-07 to respond to specific special education needs.  There are 3.8 such added to the budget at a cost of $100,850.  These three added positions were offset by one unrelated eliminated position.

o      Contractual pay increases for teachers (3.75%), aides and clerks (3.5%), and maintenance and custodial staff (3.4%).

o      An increase in base substitute teacher pay.  We have not increased base substitute pay for five years and are now at the point where substitute teaching assistants and clerks, who are paid at the entry hourly wage, will make more than substitute teachers unless pay is increased.

District Positions in Full Time Equivalents

 

02-03

03-04

04-05

05-06

06-07

06-07

07-08

Description

actual

actual

actual

actual

budget

actual

budget

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

total administrators

 23.0

 22.0

 22.0

 21.0

  21.0

  21.5

21.5

total certified

385.3

382.4

379.2

373.1

380.6

380.1

379.1

total non-certified

212.4

210.5

203.5

198.8

206.8

208.5

208.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total all FTE's

620.6

614.8

604.7

592.9

608.4

610.1

609.0

 

P-Accounts

These accounts are called P-accounts because they are allocated to Principals for use in supplying their buildings.  Building administrators typically have discretion in how these funds are used to support teaching and learning, but are required to follow district curricula and there within purchase the necessary materials.  These accounts are allocated to schools based on their student counts.  The allocations in the 2007-08 budget are – Pre-K = $85.22; Kindergarten = $145.71; Grades 1-5 = $181.88; Grades 6-8 = $230.80, and grades 9-12 = $282.86.  These amounts are set based on past experience.  Secondary students have higher per pupil amounts due to the greater relative cost of textbooks and the greater reliance on them.

Occasionally supplementary amounts are added to supply and equipment budgets.  For example, in recent years supplements were budgeted to implement the elementary mathematics program and to supply additional classrooms for full day kindergarten. In this budget an additional $30,000 is included for middle school science. We have not had consistent, coordinated instructional science programs in the two middle schools since they opened.  An investment was delayed until a common curriculum was developed and that task is now complete.  These funds will establish a common middle school science program in the two schools.

In the 2007-08 budget material, supply and equipment amounts are lower for two reasons:  (1) there are fewer students in the district; and (2) the per pupil allocation was frozen as part of the effort to bring the budget in within the cap.

 

Extraordinary New Expense

The school department 2007-08 budget is impacted by the establishment of a group home for eight significantly impaired adolescent students.  These students will be entering a community placement from an institutional setting.  First, it is important to reiterate that concern over funding impact should not be construed as concern or lack of support for either community placements or educational support through local public schools.  The school department strongly supports community placement and education in less restrictive settings.  It accepts and embraces its requirement to provide an appropriate education to our new community members residing in the group home and will work diligently to fulfill it.  The school department is concerned how it manages a significant new expense in the confines of capped revenue and uncertain support.

Rhode Island reimburses school departments approximately $22,000 for each group home bed in the community.  The rate is calculated to be an average expense associated with educating students in the local schools.  Two issues exist with this system.  One, the reimbursement is based on a list of group home beds provided by DCYF in December of the preceding year: the December, 2006 list is used for aid in the 2007-08 budget.  Since the South Kingstown home will not open until January, 2007 it will be neither on the December, 2006 list nor in the 2007-08 budget.  The process to address this is for the school department to petition the Commissioner of Education to submit a supplemental appropriation to the General Assembly.  This petition was submitted for both the 2006-07 and 2007-08 budget years and is contingent on approval of the General Assembly and the Governor through the supplemental budget process.  This budget assumes group home aid will be approved for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

Regardless, given the programmatic needs of the students the group home aid will not cover the required educational cost.  The school department also receives Medicaid reimbursement for non-educational costs.  With this additional revenue, total revenue covers slightly more than half the total estimated costs as detailed in the table below.

Education

 $  257,600

Medical

 $  285,200

Transportation

 $    75,440

Total

 $  618,240

Medicaid

 $(136,160)

State Aid

 $(176,640)

Net to SK

 $  305,440

 

GL 44-5-2 (2) provides for emergency exceptions to the tax cap. While the statute specifically lists examples of permissible exceptions, it also includes the language “Without limiting the generality of the foregoing” indicating that other emergencies, such as this one, may exist.  This budget requests that such an emergency cap exception be requested of the Auditor General by the Town.  The requested exception is in the amount of the net cost to the school department in the amount of $305,440.  Such an exception can only be submitted to the Auditor General after a 4/5th vote of the Town Council.

 

Tax Cap Impact

The recently enacted property tax cap has two substantive limitations on property tax revenue available to support the school department budget.  In FY 2008 the limit on the cap drops to 5.25% and lower each year thereafter until reaching 4% in FY 2013.  Also important is that towns can no longer use growth in computing the cap.  In FY 2007 the cap could be measured by the increase in the tax rate.  Beginning in 2008, only the total levy can be used.  The impact of the revised cap is shown below.  The impact of loss of growth is measured by subtracting what would have been available if the revised tax cap had been in effect in 2006-07 from the FTM approved 2006-07 tax transfer.

Loss of Growth

2005-2006 Tax Transfer

$40,733,077

105.5% of 2005-2006 Tax Transfer

42,973,396

2006-2007 Tax Transfer

43,352,497

Required reduction

$379,101

Percentage Reduction

2006-2007 Tax Transfer

$43,352,497

0.25% of Tax Transfer

108,381

Combined Impact

$487,482

 

A Budget within the Tax Cap

In September the school administration developed a pro forma budget to estimate the impact of the property tax cap on school expenditures.  That exercise made clear that the status quo, rolling forward existing services and structures, would not be possible.  Consequently the budget recommended to the School Committee, to be consistent with state law, required reductions from previous budgeting assumptions and planning.  Following is a review of those changes:

·       Classroom teaching positions were reduced, including necessary staff to eliminate study halls at the high school (2.0 FTE) and make the graduation proficiency coordinator full time (0.6 FTE), both additions in response to unfunded state requirements.  To accomplish this, two positions were dropped at the elementary level, one at the middle level, and three elective classes (0.6) dropped at the high school.

·       The 5200 “Pay As You Go” capital plan was reduced by $95,000, dropping painting projects and a computer lab.

·       Classroom materials and supplies (P-accounts) were frozen at the same per pupil level as the current year.  Given the enrollment drop, actual budget amounts are less that the current year.

·       One aide FTE was eliminated at the high school.  With the elimination of study halls, the four aide positions we planned to shift into supervisory aides to supervise in school restriction, general school areas, and lunch.  Instead of four study hall positions becoming three supervisory aides, three study hall positions will become two supervisory aides.

 

State Aid

A substantial, but decreasing portion of the school department budget is funded by state aid.  In 1995-96 nearly 30% of the budget was funded by state aid, a proportion that dropped to under 20% in the current budget.  In 2006-07 the largest dollar increase in recent years was received.  However, that increase did not even cover the additional pension contributions attributable to the state determined rate increase.  Consequently, an apparent large aid increase was, when balanced against added state requirements, a net loss.

 

Year

Aid

% of Budget

1995-1996

$7,433,939

28.9%

1998-1999

$7,925,315

25.3%

2001-2002

$9,221,139

22.3%

2004-2005

$9,976,903

20.2%

2006-2007

$10,428,698

18.8%

 

For the 2007-08 budget the level of state aid becomes even more critical.  Since the 1990’s, when the aid formula was abandoned suburban districts, like South Kingstown, have had to assume an increasing share of education budgets as both the proportion of school costs born by the state decreased, and that decreasing share of costs was prioritized to urban districts with less capacity to absorb the reduced state aid share.

With the change in the tax cap communities are no longer able to step up and absorb a decreasing state aid share, meaning that budgets are more dependent on state aid.  The same statute that describes the tax cap also commits the state to “aggressively” increase its share of education costs, currently less than 40%, to 50%.  While that will not equate to a 50% share for South Kingstown, a proportional increase would equate to 5% per year over the implementation of the tax cap.  Consequently, this budget assumes a 5% state aid increase consistent with the General Assembly’s aggressive commitment as stated in the tax cap legislation.  The budget impact of a lesser aid increase is reviewed in the next section of this document.

The 5% increase assumption was adopted by the School Committee based on information available at the time.  However, recent news on the state budget has not been positive, as a deficit looms in both the current year and next year, which includes this budget.  Consequently, a reassessment of the 5% assumption should be undertaken in the budget review process.  In the following section is a listing of the dollar cuts necessary should lesser aid be received.  Assumption of flat state aid (no increase) would require all but the direst reductions listed in the last section.  This question should be addressed with care, especially given current handshake language with the town.  An unnecessarily low estimate of state aid could place the school department in the position of having made unnecessary budget reductions given its commitment not to spend additional funds.

 

Revenue Assumptions

This budget is based on previously described assumptions that may or may not materialize.  A school department budget includes elements, especially in revenue, outside of its control, and this year is no exception.  Following is a listing of revenue assumptions that will impact the final budget and their scope and description.

·       State Aid is determined annually by the General Assembly and the Governor as included in the state budget.  If the 5% increase planned for does not occur the school department must reduce its budget to match available funds.  Should state aid exceed the budgeted amount the school department reserved the additional funds to go into its undesignated fund.  State aid increases less that 5% will require the following aid levels and reductions:

Taken together, the total value of the above described revenue assumptions is in the table below.  In their entirety, they compromise approximately 3.7% of the school department budget.  The state approved revenues (state and local approval is required of the cap exception) of just over $1 million equates to 1.7% of the budget.  The reductions required to bring the budget into alignment with these reduced revenues are described in the next section.

Item

Maximum Risk Value

State Aid

$521,435

Group Home Aid

$176,000

Group Home Cap Exception

$305,440

Subtotal State Revenue

$1,002,875

Property Tax Revenue

$2,276,006

Grand Total

$3,278,881

 

Budget Reductions

If projected revenues are not available, it will be necessary to make reductions to the operating budget.  The table below outlines reductions in categories -- materials, services to students, and staffing.  This categorization is for descriptive purposes and it is understood that there is overlap between the categories, for example, staffing items also provide services to students.  This is not a prioritized list.  Prioritization would have to occur when the scope of any possible reduction is identified.  Staffing cuts are estimates and include assumption of unemployment costs.  Staffing cuts were developed to impact every personnel area of the district, administration, teaching, and support staff.

CATEGORY

ITEM

REDUCTION

IMPACT

Materials

P-accounts

$50,000

A 6% across the board reduction in all school supply and equipment accounts.  Lesser or greater cuts to this account would have a proportional impact.

Materials

MS Science

$30,000

Since the establishment of the middle schools we had not had consistent science materials and programs in the two schools.  Work is complete on curriculum standards and these materials were planned to implement.  The cut means we retain current materials.

Services

Educational Programs

$60,000

In the budget is $180,762 to support service programs.  These include SMILE; grades 6, 7, and 8 summer school; CARES; Family Advocacy; and the two prevention counselors.  Lesser or greater cuts to this account would have a proportional impact.

Services

Middle School Athletics

$60,000

Interscholastic athletics in the middle schools was at risk in the budget reductions of 2004-05.  Intramural athletics would be retained, but competition between schools eliminated.

Staffing

Administrator (1)

$75,000

A realignment of administrative assignments and responsibilities would occur, resulting in the elimination of one position.

Staffing

Clerical (2)

$40,000

Clerical services would be reduced in the district through the elimination of two positions.

Staffing

HS electives (1)

$50,000

One teaching position would result in the elimination of five elective classes at the high school.

Staffing

Custodial

$20,000

The elimination of one custodial position from district staffing.

Staffing

Special Education (2)

$100,000

The reassignment of our combined middle and elementary special education teaching positions to reduce 2 FTE’s.

Staffing

BRMS allied art (1)

$50,000

Currently, a parallel elective staffing pattern for allied arts exists in the two middle schools.  This program will be assessed and redesigned for the 2008-09 year when the middle schools collapse by two teams.  However, the lower population at BRMS would permit the elimination of one position next year.  The impact of this cut is that the BRMS program loses its coherence and the program and schedule must be redesigned in two consecutive years.  We can remember the early years of the middle schools when they lacked consistent schedules and allied arts programs.  This would be a return to that status.

Staffing

MS Team

$200,000

This reduction would be harmful to the district.  It should only be considered in the direst circumstances and avoided if at all possible.  Our plan is to contract one team in each middle school in 2008-09. At that time the population in both schools will be small enough to restructure in a planned, organized manner.  However, the population at BRMS alone will be marginally small enough to contract next year.  This would require a hastily planned and prepared reduction of one team for September.

Staffing

Full Day K

$350,000

This reduction would be harmful to the district.  It should only be considered in the direst circumstances and avoided if at all possible.  Simply put, it would return the school district to a half-day kindergarten program and be a substantive setback for student outcomes, community service, and program.

 

TOTAL

$1,085,000