Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-02-AC-min-attDear Julie, Dave, and company, I’m sorry for the late heads up, but I heard from Glenn Parker that you will be joining the Appropriation Committee meeting this Thursday evening. To help guide the discussion, at least initially, here are some points that we can discuss, just in the unlikely case you have a free minute or two before the meeting. 1) The only budget document I have found in the January 3 Superintendent’s recommended budget. I believe the LPS recommended budget was increased by about $360,000 subsequent to Jan. 3. Is there a more recent description of the budget or can you summarize the changes? As of January 30, 2023 – for the “White Book” 3.89% $4.984M increase As of Monday 2/27/2023 5.21% $6.687M increase 2) Do you expect that there will be any turn-back at the end of the current fiscal year (FY2023)? Yes, we are at the mid point of the year, and it appears that there should be some turnback in this fiscal year. We are engaged in a tough round of negotiations and trying to settle a contract, so we are unsure exactly where we will land. 3) The most basic question is to ask you to describe the rationale behind the addition of 13.43 FTEs, what the 3.89% increase doesn’t cover, and what the biggest risks are in the budget. Staffing is always a complicated matter, and it is impossible to fund all staffing requests. Each year we scrutinize position requests and fund only the requests that are legally-mandated and absolutely necessary. In addition, we have to find a way to pay for the related “non- discretionary” expenses that are associated with the additional staffing to meet legal mandates. For FY 2024 there were 22.5 FTE positions requested; of those requests, we were able to fund about half of the requests or 13.43 FTEs. Approximately 9 FTEs, mostly fractional FTEs being added to existing staff, were not funded. The 13.43 added positions were primarily for special education programs driven by classroom caseload, individual student mandates/requirements, and related service provider needs, such as occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech language pathologists. The other added positions were in general education, physical education/wellness and school nursing. These were positions that were requested and vetted during our annual 400-plus hours of budget meetings in the fall and eventually included in the Superintendent’s budget recommendation. To add those positions, the district needed to make some hard choices and take some calculated risks, such as: increase turnover savings, move staff off either partially or completely to grant or revolving funds, and reduce expense lines. The latter can be accomplished by reducing inflationary rates used in the calculation, using greater amounts from special revenue, revolving or grant funds. Biggest Risks: Prior to the most recent addition of $1.7M in Chapter 70/Local Aid funds in the Governor’s House 1 Budget Proposal, the biggest risks were the following: • Increase Salary Turnover Savings by $300K. This is a calculated risk, but we have been experiencing greater turnover savings than the $750K to $850K that we have taken in the recent past. We have been faced with the need to fund the existing base, supplemental, and new positions to address the sharp upturn in student needs across the district, so this was a risk worth taking. While understanding this action would reduce the level of turnback that we have produced and that may have an impact on FY 2025 and beyond, the choice to increase salary turnover savings looks to be a relatively low-risk option in order to provide the services students need, maintain flexibility, and remain under budget. • Use a zero inflation factor to expense lines: Based on the inflation index this yielded up to $327.5K savings with the BLS 6% inflation rate. Again, this is a calculated risk because the schools are significant purchasers of a host of consumable items that are subject to an inflationary factor. However, we were comfortable in taking what appears to be a moderate risk after examining recent spending patterns, understanding procurement options where the district may save money, and knowing that these accounts are already significantly resourced. • Each year we receive a significant number of requests beyond what is identified on the items that make their way into the budget presentations. This year, that list was significantly winnowed down to a smaller list of requests to identify what will not be funded in the budget. If we listed all initial requests, the number likely would be around 50-100 additional FTE each year. o .10 FTE for 504 Counseling LHS – we are seeing an increase as more students/parents are requesting 504 plan accommodations. o 1.5 FTE SpEd Reading K-5 – Special Education indicated that while these positions are valuable to the repertoire of special education services, there are other positions that held a higher priority given the 3.89% budget. o .60 FTE LHS Social Studies – Enrollment at LHS is growing, but it was determined that this request could be held back until next budget season, pending enrollment and student class scheduling. o 1.5 FTE LHS Campus Monitoring/Traffic Control – The high school population is growing, and we have more cars, bikes, buses, vans and students walking than ever, so traffic safety is a concern. In addition, LHS was built for 1,850 fewer students and just under 2,400 students occupy it now. The management of students inside the building is becoming a more intensive job. However, given the overall size of the staff at LHS, it was determined that other options, such as exploring staggered scheduling, be more thoroughly reviewed before adding more staff in this area. 4) The circuit breaker exposition in the revenue offsets section does not show any turn back of circuit breaker funds. The total expended line includes any turnback for account balance purposes, but we can add a note or a separate line to identify turnbacks from expended amounts. 5) Does the budget take the 14% OOD tuition increase for FY2024 into account? Yes, the tuition increase is included in the calculation of tuition projections. For FY 2024, we are fortunate to have a significant increase in the number of “age-outs” (students reaching age 22). We also have over $700K additional in offsets available (Circuit Breaker and grants) to apply against the tuition line. We anticipate that we would see a greater impact from the 14% tuition hike in the FY 2025 budget and beyond. 6) We have heard that there have been significant changes in the estimated salary differential item, and would like to hear about it from your perspective. Every year we experience varying levels of staff turnover and through it salary churn between the end of school year and the opening of the new year. In the past few budgets, we have targeted this number at $750K to $850K against the salary line. In FY 2018 it was $1M. In reality the number has been higher, more in the $1.3M to $1.4M range. Because the district had to address immediate and significant student needs, we increased the savings target to add the flexibility to hire the necessary staff. We recognize that this impacts potential turnback funds which could impact FY 2025, but the immediate legally-mandated needs of the students are paramount. In addition, we have experienced a significant increase in vacancies during the school year, which is simultaneously yielding additional turnback funds. These vacancy savings have been approximately $400K to $500K per year pre-pandemic to about twice that amount in the last couple of fiscal years. Given these indicators, it would appear to be a lower-risk option than opening ourselves us to possible legal challenges, cutting a program, expense line, or existing staff. 7) The term “revenue offset” can be interpreted several ways. Clarify please. For our purposes, revenue offsets are revenue generated from departmental activities, such as athletic fees, bus fees, and circuit breaker reimbursements that reduce the district’s expenses funded by the operating budget allocation. 8) This may be nit-picking, so please let me know if it is. The table on expenses on Expenses pp.2-3 doesn’t use the latest enrollment data. Not at all; if there are inaccuracies in the information that we provide, we want to know. We believe that is that we received from the Data Team, and we are constantly refining enrollment numbers during the process. It also is possible that it might have been a typographical error. It looks like the numbers used in the Expense Table are off by approximately 10 students. When we ran the numbers using 10 students at the elementary level, the resulting difference was under $2,500.