Emporia's board of education gropes way toward budget in a year of confusion
By Bobbi Mlynar
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
School district officials and board of education members spent more than three hours in a study session Tuesday evening trying to prepare for a budget that will have to be completed long before they have the information they need.
The budget malaise has been complicated by several factors. Among them are:
F Tyson Food’s elimination of 1,700 to 1,800 jobs from its Emporia plant.
F No reliable estimates of how many students from Tyson families will return to the Emporia schools for the 2008-09 school year.
F Failure of the Kansas legislature to provide a 2 percent “floor” that would prevent a significant and immediate loss of state aid that is based on enrollment. Local legislators are confident, however, that the bill providing that will be passed after the legislature reconvenes later this month.
F Property valuations that, in combination with student enrollment, could cause a drop in state aid.
Administrators did find some good news in the district’s financial outlook, however.
Other than routine maintenance, when current construction and remodeling projects are completed, the district buildings should not need other major repairs or additions.
Student aid
“This year, the Legislature said it would add another $59 on the base,” Assistant Superintendent of Finance Susan Hernandez said.
The basic state aid per-pupil would rise from this year’s $4,374 to $4,443 in 2008-09, $4,492 in 2009-2010, and $4,551 in 2010-11.
Weighting also will change for students from families that qualify for at-risk weighting.
“They get a weight of .378 in addition to what they count for their (full-time equivalency),” she said. “We know that next year, this is a given, the third year of the three-year plan, that that weight is going to change pretty significantly. It will change to 0.456” in addition to the FTE.
Academically at-risk students also will bring additional funds through weighting.
Almost half of the district’s students receive free lunches.
“We were like 26 students away from going over the 50 percent mark,” Hernandez said. “Once a district goes over that 50 percent mark, weight, you get almost 50 percent more.”
Additional money also is anticipated for special education students.
However, as Hernandez’s budget projections progressed through the 2010-2011 school year, the gap in the number of students and the loss of funds widened to about $2,000,000, again depending on the number of students.
By then, the student population may have stabilized and budgeting may become more straightforward.
For the next several years, however, the budget could create challenges for the school board and the taxpayers.
“You build your budget for the summer on a number that you guess at in September, that gets audited in about February, and that comes back in March. ...” Hernandez said.
“And you don’t get your final distribution until June,” Heim added.
“Actually, you don’t get it until July 1,” Hernandez responded.
In the short term, much rests on the legislature.
“No matter what scenario we have, if this 2 percent floor passes, next year we won’t be down as much as we could have been,” she said.
Board member Mike Helbert said he was concerned that up to 50 percent of the Tyson and Tyson-related students could move out-of-district.
“And it may be worse,” he said. “… Who knows what the spin-off effect is going to be, and they’re not just labor jobs.”
He said he had spoken on Tuesday with people who had worked there “and all of them were either management or professionals, and they’re gone. When you lose people with that kind of income, there’s always a spin-off.”
Board members suggested Hernandez make her projections presentation to the public at the Eggs and Issues meeting on April 26 in the Mary Herbert Learning Center. Staffing
Theresa Davidson, director of personnel, told board members that she was somewhat apprehensive of the figures given to her, though she had been assured they were “good numbers.”
Based on enrollment-loss estimates from building principals, Davidson said it appeared that most of the teaching positions lost would be at the elementary level: five fewer teachers would be needed at kindergarten through fourth grade, one at the intermediate level, two from middle school, one and a half from high school, one from English as a Second Language, and the equivalent of one teacher for special education.
Because there are approximately 35 teacher openings now, only 25 of those will be filled and no current teachers will have to be released. Two strategists could be added into the faculty, making only eight cuts necessary.
The district has until May 1 to notify teachers if they will not be needed, making it necessary for the board to make budget decisions at its April 30 meeting.
“We’re going to have to make a decision on some of those employees because they can file for unemployment,” Heim said.
Performance Based Budgeting
Committees made up of educators, staff, and community members earlier this year made recommendations where cuts and enhancements were needed for the individual schools and for the district, and presented it to another PBB committee that combined the information and winnowed it down to priority lists.
Maintaining the District Improvement Plan, necessitated by the No Child Left Behind Act, was a top priority for the PBB, as were step increases and pay raises for teachers, staff and substitute teachers, as well as incentive pay for hard-to-fill positions.
Administrators listed five parameters recommended to be followed in the decision-making process:
F Err on the side of having too many staff members.
F Not all buildings/programs will be affected equally by enrollment loss.
F Follow PBB recommendations for staff reductions.
F Staff with the goal of providing the greatest flexibility for the future.
F Centralize decision-making process for budget and personnel.