november 7, 2016 school finance strategic planning...2016/11/07 · savings a few bucks can have...
Post on 22-Sep-2020
5 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
NOVEMBER 7, 2016
SCHOOL FINANCE
PLUS:
FOOD SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
TECHNOLOGY
Quiz
https://goo.gl/Kl9Fdd
Early Key Events Two Weeks (aka, We’re the Government
and We’re Here to Serve You) June Appointments with the Chief You Get What You Pay For Phone Call to Virginia The Wheels Within the Wheel The Sheet The Big “S”
Two Weeks
Stakeholders deserve: Timely responses to inquiries Information that makes sense, or an offer to
explain the information
The Chief
It makes zero sense to: Drive bad spending decisions Reward bad spending decisions Punish good spending decisions
The Low Bid Blues
Savings a few bucks can have long-term negative consequences
Low bid auditor missed basic expenditure related to July/Aug teacher fringe benefits
June 30, 1992 deficit Fund Balance of $240,000 was adjusted down to $732,000
June 30, 1993 deficit was reduced to $319,000
Meritorious Budget Award SLCS one of only a few dozen districts in the
country to participate in first year of the program (1995-96) and first in Michigan
Became Reviewer Became Executive Board Member (Chair in
2003), Board responsible for setting and amending award criteria
Provided training at ASBO International Annual Conference
The Wheels Within the Wheel
Tied wages to state funding (1997) Implemented benefit cap (1997) Retirement cost containment (1997) The Sheet
“The Sheet”
Simply, an Excel workbook that provides long term financial planning (5 years minimum)
All major financial decisions are run through the Sheet
Allows SLCS to budget very tightly since approximately 85% of costs are tied to either a fixed ceiling or the State’s per pupil allocation
Stability
The stability that this District has had over the past 25 years I believe is one of the largest contributing factor for our success
From board members, to custodians, to bus drivers, to teachers, to clerical staff, etc., many people have chosen to spend their career in SLCS
District Funds
General Fund (main fund, day to day operations) Special Revenues Funds (food service,
community education) Debt Funds (taxes collected to pay for voter
approved bond debt payments) Capital Project Funds (Bond issues related
construction, General Fund funded expenditures for bus purchases, smaller capital projects, and major technology purchases)
General Fund
Revenues
By the Numbers
2005-06 2014-15
SLCS Per Pupil Foundation $6,931 $7,126
Avg. State “ “ $7,387 $7,497
Avg. Oakland County “ “ $8,308 $8,432
SLCS Per Pupil Total Revenues $8,043 $9,151
Avg. State “ “ “ $8,917 $9,457
Avg. Oakland County “ “ “ $10,403 $11,279
# of Districts 768 841
Students Statewide 1,712,133 1,516,358
SLCS Official Enrollment 6,949 7,659
Teachers / Non-Teachers 380/277 413/261*
Source: michigan.gov bulletin 1014 Oakland Schools Summaries and Surveys *475/272 in 2016-17
Proposal A
Approved by voters in March of 1994, Proposal A:
Eliminated the use of local property taxes as the main source of school funding and created a new state education tax- School districts began to get per-pupil payments from the state
The state sales tax increased from 4 cents to 6 cents on the dollar- The extra two cents was to go to the school aid fund, the state budget for schools
Required the state’s lowest-funded school districts to receive a basic level of education funding, which raised the amount they received and significantly closed the gap between low-funded schools and others
Proposal A
Was Proposal A Successful: Yes and No
Property taxes were significantly reduced statewide
The really poor districts were brought up to a minimal level
The gap between poor and rich has been reduced, but is still significant
The amount a district received in 1994-95 was directly correlated with their 1993-94 spending and were locked into a pecking order forever (you could theoretically catch up to the next district, but can never pass them)
If a district’s spending in 1993-94 was at a level that was above the maximum per pupil amount under Proposal A, that district was allowed to ask voters for a local millage to keep their higher spending
this option was not available to other districts*
* Some exceptions for county wide millages, sinking funds, or recreational millages
Proposal A vs. Old Model
Total SLCS 2016-17 Revenues under Proposal A $62,995,000
Total SLCS estimated revenues using old model of state equalized values multiplied by the local millage rate (34.58 in 1993-94) $86,460,000 (2,500,289,370/1000 x 34.58)
Proposal A Funding Gap Revenues: Compared to Other Districts
District
2014-15 Per Student
Base Foundation
Additional Per Pupil Dollars based on South Lyon Student
Count of 7,637
Southfield $ 10,901 $ 28,829,675
Farmington $ 9,975 $ 21,757,813
Novi $ 8,409 $ 9,798,271
County Avg. $ 8,432 $ 9,973,922
State Avg.* $ 7,497 $ 2,833,327
South Lyon $ 7,126 $ 0
* Estimate
Oakland County – Total Revenues Per Student 2014-15*
DISTRICT Revenues Rank DISTRICT Revenues Rank DISTRICT Revenues Rank
Pontiac $16,243 34 West Blmfield $10,910 127 Lake Orion $10,309 183
Bloomfield $15,373 37 Troy $10,804 133 Ferndale $10,208 195
Birmingham $14,146 40 Holly $10,765 135 Avondale $10,059 224
Southfield $13,763 49 Rochester $10,753 136 Brandon $10,030 231
Farmington $13,185 62 Hazel Park $10,741 139 Berkley $9,837 277
Clawson $12,736 67 Clarenceville $10,667 144 Huron Valley $9,585 334
Waterford $11,196 107 Oak Park $10,535 154 South Lyon $9,151 499
Royal Oak $11,114 110 Walled Lake $10,513 159 Oxford $9,058 543
Lamphere $11,046 116 Clarkston $10,351 174
Novi $10,965 123 Madison $10,325 181
* From State of Michigan Bulletin 1014 Total of 841 Public and Charter Schools
2016-17 Recommended Budget General Fund Sources of Revenues
State versus Local Control
State 91%
Local/Other 2%
ISD 4%
Federal 3%
Revenues Per Pupil versus Enrollment
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Enrollment 7.1% 4.2% 4.7% 6.4% 3.7% 1.5% 2.9% 3.8% 1.9% 2.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.5% 0.3% 0.2% -0.1% 0.0% 4.1% 1.1% 2.8% 4.8% 5.0%Per Pupil 2.9% 2.9% 2.7% 0.0% 4.1% 5.0% 4.8% 3.1% -1.1% 1.1% 2.6% 3.4% 1.3% 1.9% -2.2% 0.0% -3.0% 0.8% 2.4% 2.0% 0.3% 1.6%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
* Budgeted
2015-16 Special Education Sources of Funding
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mill
ions
General FundPA 18 CountyState Extra
2003-04 through 2016-17 Student Enrollment
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Avg. 1.7% Avg. 0.1% Avg. 3.3%
2016-17 Recommended Budget Revenues: State Aid Formula
Fall 2016 Est. Student Count 8,428 Winter 2015 Student Count 8,021 Weighted Avg. Student Count (90%/10%) 8,387
2016-17 Total Per Pupil Allocation $7,511
2016-17 Total Foundation Revenues $62,994,757
2016-17 Recommended Budget Revenues: State Aid Formula
2016-17 Total Foundation Revenues $ 62,994,757 Less: 18 Mills Levied on Non-Homesteads $ 8,788,000 State Portion of Foundation Allowance $ 54,206,757
18 Mills Levied on Non-Homesteads $ 8,788,000 Less: Delinquencies (0.50%) -$ 43,940 Amount of Local Taxes $ 8,744,060
General Fund Expenditures
2016-17 Recommended Budget General Fund Expenditures
Salaries 51%
Cap. Outlay 0%
Purchased Serv. 7%
Supplies 5%
Benefits 34%
Other 3%
2016-17 Recommended Budget Expenditures: Compensation
Salaries: 62.5% of Per Pupil Increase of 1.62% = 1.01%
Exception is minimum of 1% for top step teachers and administrators (not applicable)
Fringe Benefits: Includes impact of PA 152
Cap increased by Medical CPI (2.5%) Difference paid by employee
2016-17 Recommended Budget Expenditures: Compensation
Retirement:
24.94% Avg. Retirement Rate (SLCS pays) 11.70% MPSERS Stabilization (State pays) 36.64% Total Rate
2016-17 Recommended Budget Staffing Changes (FTE*)
Position 2016-17
R. Budget Elementary Teachers 14.0
Middle School Teachers 5.6
High School Teachers 7.2
Elective Teachers 5.6
Special Education Teachers 4.9
Spec. Ed. Speech, SW, Psy 4.4
Special Ed. Para Pros 3.0
Contracted Special Ed. 1.4
Custodians 1.0
Bus Drivers 3.0
TOTALS 50.1
* Full Time Equivalent
Instructional vs. Support Costs
Instruction is defined as direct classroom costs Does not include costs such as guidance counselors, media specialists,
social workers, nurses, PT and OT
Budget adjustments have been focused on non-instructional areas
In 2008-09 $7.2 million more spent on instructional costs versus support costs
For 2016-17 Recommended Budget, gap increases by 283% to $20.4 million
Instructional vs. Support Costs
$32.17 $32.81 $32.91 $35.12
$36.86 $38.68
$41.63
$44.75
$48.78
$24.90 $23.15
$21.74 $21.41 $23.37
$25.36 $26.21 $26.94 $28.38
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16* 2016-17*
Mill
ions
Instructional Support *Budgeted
Employee Contracts
SLAA Contract (Administrators) expires June 2020
SLEA Contract (Teachers) expires August 2020
Teamsters Contract expires June of 2018
MESPA Contract expires June of 2019
Budget Process
Combination of Models
Per Pupil Allocation for School Building Budgets (Through SIP Process)
Zero Based Budgeting for Departments Staffing wage costs are dictated by contracts Hiring is based on class size targets, special
education caseloads, and support needs
Budget Process
Revenue Consensus Meeting - January Building allocations and other budget
request forms sent in early February Budgets due late March April – Preliminary Budget May – Recommended Budget June – Budget Adoption Throughout – District Finance Committee
SLCS Spending
2016-17 Spending
51% increase since 2003-04 $72.4 million versus $47.9 million
So shouldn’t we have enough money for what we need to do?
What have we done with all that “extra” money?
2003-04 through 2016-17 General Fund Operating Expenditures
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mill
ions
Does not include transfers and Section 147c * Budget
2003-04 through 2016-17 GF Operating Expenditures Adj for Inflation (CPI)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mill
ions
Does not include transfers and Section 147c * Budget
2003-04 through 2016-17 GF Operating Expenditures Per Pupil
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Does not include transfers and Section 147c * Budget
2003-04 through 2016-17 GF Operating Expenditures Per Pupil (CPI)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Does not include transfers and Section 147c * Budget
Instructional Time Hours Per School Year
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
PPI K-5 6-8 9-12
2003-04 through 2016-17 GF Operating Exp. Per Pupil, Per Instruct. Hr.
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
Does not include transfers and Section 147c * Budget
2003-04 through 2016-17 GF Oper. Exp. Per Pupil, Per Instruct. Hr. (CPI)
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
Does not include transfers and Section 147c * Budget
General Fund
Financial Performance
1990-91 through 2016-17 General Fund Revenues
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mill
ions
1990-91 through 2016-17 General Fund Expenditures
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mill
ions
1990-91 through 2016-17 General Fund Annual Surplus (Shortfall)
-1,000
-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Thou
sand
s
1990-91 through 2016-17 Annual Fund Balance (Rainy Day Fund)
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Mill
ions
1990-91 through 2016-17 Annual Fund Balance (Rainy Day Fund) % of Expenditures
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Bond Issues and
Debt Millage
Debt Millage
Is similar to a home mortgage which is paid back over 20-30 years Since annual payments are fixed based on a debt payment
schedule, the “burden” is spread throughout a community based on taxable value
Generally: When total taxable value grows, debt millage rates go down, since debt
payment schedule is fixed When total taxable value declines, debt millage rates must go up, since debt
payment schedule is fixed
Non payment of taxes and Tax Tribunal Decisions can have further negatively impact
2016-17 Recommended Budget Taxable Value History
Fiscal Year Taxable Value % Increase 2016-17 2,042,469,464 6.32% 2015-16 1,921,006,556 6.32% 2014-15 1,806,876,140 5.58% 2013-14 1,711,440,797 2.92% 2012-13 1,662,784,156 0.20% 2011-12 1,660,022,452 -2.97% 2010-11 1,710,914,103 -9.54% 2009-10 1,891,389,877 -3.32% 2008-09 1,956,327,421 1.14% 2007-08 1,934,214,536 6.69% 2006-07 1,812,848,754 7.60%
Debt Millage Slow Recovery
After nine years, the total taxable value of the
District now finally exceeds what it was in 2008-09
Isolating the existing tax base (not including adds and losses), the current total taxable value is 17.9% lower
The overall taxable value is 31% lower in 2016-17 than we thought it would be when projecting in 2006
Total Taxable Change Existing Tax Base Versus Adds/Deletions
7.3% 8.0% 7.2% 7.6% 6.7%
1.1%
-3.3%
-9.5%
-3.0%
0.2%
2.9%
5.6% 6.3% 6.3%
3.2% 3.3% 3.0%
3.9% 3.2%
-1.5%
-5.3%
-10.4%
-4.9%
-2.5%
-0.6%
1.2% 1.6% 1.4%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
Taxa
ble
Val
ue %
Cha
nge
Bond Principle and Interest Payments
$16.58 $16.66 $17.06
$17.83 $18.37
$18.66
$17.28 $17.25
$18.54
$20.39 $20.40
$19.60
$10.0
$12.0
$14.0
$16.0
$18.0
$20.0
$22.0
Tota
l Pay
men
ts (M
illio
ns)
Debt Millage Rates Projected versus Actual
8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50
10.50 10.85 10.85 10.70
9.70 9.70 9.60
$0.0
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
$10.0
$12.0
Est. TV increase for 15-16 = 5.0%
Debt Millage Factors
Districts with more affordable housing and/or less
commercial and industrial properties tend to have higher debt millages
For example in 2013-14, the taxable value per student in SLCS was $242,869, compared to $302,984 for Novi, $449,608 for Royal Oak, and $565,524 for Bloomfield Hills
Additionally, districts with newer or upgraded facilities also tend to have higher debt millage rates
Voter Approved Bond Issues
$29.0
$10.0 $3.5 $4.1
$39.9
$67.9
$98.9
$64.4
$0.0
$20.0
$40.0
$60.0
$80.0
$100.0
$120.0
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Socio-Economic
Free and Reduced Student Meals
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15SLCS 12.1% 13.0% 16.4% 19.9% 19.4% 17.6% 18.9% 19.3% 17.1%State 35.5% 36.9% 41.0% 45.9% 46.4% 47.8% 47.9% 48.2% 46.6%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Student
Performance
Student Performance How “Productive” a District is (i.e. student results
versus available resources) can be difficult to determine due to many factors (Poverty, Students with Special Needs, etc.)
However, SLCS does very well when examining student results, and then also applying available resources
Student Performance When taking into account total revenues
per student versus M-Step test scores, SLCS ranked #3 out of the 95 districts in the five county area in 2014-15
Student Performance
Ranking
Top 20 districts In 5 counties Rank in Funding Rank in Scoring
$ of effort for $100 of results
1 Northville 66 1 $ 39.54 2 Brighton 94 10 $ 40.24 3 South Lyon 84 11 $ 43.23 4 Plymouth Canton 78 14 $ 44.47 5 Dexter 60 6 $ 44.92 6 Troy 26 3 $ 45.23 7 Novi 22 2 $ 45.65 8 Rochester 27 4 $ 46.16 9 Saline 40 13 $ 50.26
10 Oxford 80 20 $ 50.53 11 Chelsea 36 12 $ 50.78 12 Armada 90 22 $ 50.93 13 Berkley 56 16 $ 51.13 14 Hartland 81 21 $ 51.52 15 Howell 91 26 $ 52.20 16 Lake Orion 31 15 $ 53.14 17 Gross Ille 44 17 $ 55.45 18 Pinckney 93 34 $ 55.81 19 Huron Valley 72 25 $ 56.61 20 Clarkston 67 23 $ 56.63
Food Service
Food Service Department Facts
The Food Service Department is expected to be self sufficient financially
A Special Revenue Fund keeps the operations separate from the General Fund
SLCS is one of the few districts that still prepares food at each school building, versus a main kitchen with distribution to each site
Food Service Department Facts
The Food Service Department served approximately 320,000 lunches last year and 75,000 breakfasts The Department does receive some State
and Federal dollars in addition to the breakfast and lunch fees paid by the students
Food Service Department Facts
The Fund is also charged 6% of total expenditures as an indirect cost that is paid to the General Fund – This represents the District providing such things as utilities, cleaning, insurance, payroll services, benefit administration, general administration, maintenance, accounting, and auditing
Food costs account for 42%-45% of total expenditures These costs are “variable” in nature, since they change depending on
participation Adding the indirect cost of 6%, approximately 50% of all expenditures are
variable, meaning for each $100 of additional meal revenues, $50 is already spoken for
The remaining 50% are essentially “fixed” costs, since they don’t change with modest changes in participation
2014-15 Revenues
Direct Pay, $718,427 , 47%
State $, $74,018 , 5%
Federal $, $705,439 , 46%
Other, $25,411 , 2%
2014-15 Expenditures
Employee Costs,
$644,393 , 43% Food Costs, $658,339 , 44%
Other, $112,922 , 7%
Indirect Cost, $85,897 , 6%
Food Service Financial Performance 2010-11 through 2015-16
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16*
Mill
ions
Revenues
Expenditures
Environmental
Services
Environmental Services This includes the areas of building and
grounds maintenance, custodial, warehouse, delivery, and facility rental
Environmental Services SLCS has approximately 1,500,000 square
feet of school building space Total custodial and building engineer
staffs are about 20% lower than they were in 2004-05, despite the addition of South Lyon East High School and approximately 1,500 more students
Environmental Services A preventative work order system was
created by Charlie McGinnis, our previous manager of facilities, that later became a model used by the company School Dude and is in operations in school districts throughout the nation
Technology
District Tech Support
Staff: 7 full time employees Student Interns
Tech Infrastructure Fiber optic network across 14 buildings. Over 65 miles of fiber optic
cable. 10 Gigabit Internet Connection through Oakland County ISD 20 Servers
Application Network and workstation management User and shared directory space Internet filtering
2066 Workstations 3700+ mobile devices (Chromebooks, Laptops, ipads, tablets, cell
phones, etc) 3500 User accounts 200 software titles
District Tech Support
Building Security System Lenel security ID badge and electronic access High Definition security cameras at each entrance 30+ days of video retention Emergency lockdown activation
Wireless Network Infrastructure
Access point coverage to 99% of total building space. 100% of academic instructional space
Gmail access Grade 2 to 12 All full time staff
District Tech Support
IT staff to workstation ratio can vary depending on the complexity/variety of systems being supported with many variables constituting a ratio.
For a typical enterprise wide network the average IT staff ratio is 1 technician to every 150 to 200 workstations.
Our District ratio is closer to 1 staff member to every 752 devices.
This does not account for IT support for phone or network backbone and general IT infrastructure responsibilities.
Pre-Bond Student Devices
Chromebooks Computers Total Devices Number of
Students Ratio Students to Computers
Bartlett 110 77 187 408 2.18
Brummer 143 86 229 582 2.54
Dolsen 108 89 197 490 2.49
Hardy 176 106 282 573 2.03
Kent Lake 137 91 228 580 2.54
Salem 110 97 207 387 1.87
Elementary Average Ratio:
Sayre 143 110 253 587 2.32 2.25
Centennial 202 316 518 928 1.79
Middle School Average Ratio:
Millennium 201 322 523 856 1.64 1.72
East High School 115 502 617 931 1.51
High School Average Ratio:
South Lyon High School 183 688 871 1256 1.44 1.48
Current Student Devices Chromebooks Computers Total Devices
Number of Students
Ratio Students to Computers
Bartlett 254 42 296 406 1.37
Brummer 346 44 390 663 1.70
Dolsen 300 49 349 568 1.63
Hardy 359 64 423 708 1.67
Kent Lake 329 54 383 641 1.67
Salem 271 41 312 443 1.42
Elementary Average Ratio:
Sayre 342 53 395 606 1.53 1.57
Centennial 309 283 592 1030 1.74
Middle School Average Ratio:
Millennium 341 278 619 959 1.55 1.64
East High School 368 491 859 985 1.15
High School Average Ratio:
South Lyon High School 256 667 923 1270 1.38 1.26
District Technology
Infrastructure
District Technology
Infrastructure
Network and servers
District Technology
Infrastructure
Network and servers
CITA software and technology
The technology necessary to deliver our curriculum is provided by the District to all teachers, all students.
District Technology with SIP and PTO Additions
Infrastructure
Network and servers
CITA software and technology
Building SIPS and PTOs
District Technology with SIP and PTO Additions
Building SIPS and PTOs
Infrastructure
Network and servers
CITA software and technology
District Technology with SIP and PTO Additions
Building SIPS and PTOs
Infrastructure
Network and servers
CITA software and technology
District Technology with SIP and PTO Additions
Evolution of Curriculum Technology
Punch cards & Programming
Graphing Calculator
PCs/Macs, Mice, Word Processing & Spreadsheets
Cell Phones, Laptops, iPods Internet
1950s 1980s 1990s 2000s +2010s
Tablets, Smartphones, Chrome Books
Evolution of Curriculum Technology
15 years ago, chose software that reinforced benchmarks. We had 3rd grade math software, 4th grade math software, etc., as supplemental materials to enhance and extend our curriculum
Curriculum and assessments changed The constructivist approach: tools for students to
construct their own knowledge. Software changed The flexible apps approach
Evolution of Curriculum Technology
Curriculum technology is determined by the SAC process, by teachers and administrators for teachers and students
Bond purchasing will happen over a 4 year period. Technology is changing so fast we don’t know what it
will look like four years from now But we have a process in place to figure this out. Software before hardware: We have always looked for
good content, then figured out the best devices to deliver this
Questions?
top related