Emporia school board members are working on a budget muddied by decreases and changes in state financing, a drop in local property values, and a projected enrollment loss of about 100 students.
On the positive side of the ledger, district officials were able to hold the proposed mill levy increase to 1.77 mills, which would add a total of $6,147 to the budget to be split among taxpayers within the Emporia school district.
The district last year estimated it would need 49.201 mills, or $8,361,149 from property taxes; this year, it estimates a need for 50.973 mills, which will generate $8,367,296, which is $6,147 more than levied from local property taxes last year.
Superintendent John Heim said this morning that the property tax situation is a contrast to the past seven years, when property valuations have gone up and local school levies have remained approximately flat.
“Now the opposite has happened and people are confused,” Heim said. “The ratio works both ways. If your valuation goes down and your mill levy goes up, you’re going to raise about the same amount of taxes.
“What we’ve had is just 180 degrees this year from what we had ... It’s not surprising that people are having trouble understanding this.”
Assistant Superintendent of Business Rob Scheib presented details of two budget options to board members at a budget workshop held in the new addition at Village School.
The estimated budget, after the district receives all state allotments, is $30,740,784. That figure is $30,442 less than the previous year’s budget of $30,771,226, which was based on the 98 percent “floor” the legislature guaranteed the district after layoffs at Tyson Fresh Meats made student enrollment predictions impossible.
The district last fiscal year received approximately $2 million more than anticipated, primarily because of the number of at-risk students, as reflected by free lunches, the number of English language learners attending classes in Emporia schools, and other special categories that bring in extra, or “weighted,” funds.
About $400,000 of the additional $2 million was used to give another 1.5 percent salary increase to district employees. The original raises were set at 1.5 percent, with the provision that a second 1.5 percent would be added if more money became available.
The district had eliminated 11.5 teaching positions that fiscal year in preparation for a lean budget.
“The planning that was started at that point has carried us to where we are now,” Scheib said.
The state legislature and governor this year instituted a number of policy changes that have already been implemented or will be implemented for the 2009-2010 school year.
Among those described by Scheib and Heim were:
• Lowering per-pupil state aid from $4,433 at the beginning of last school year, compounded by a second cut to $4,400 retroactively near the end of the school year, and an additional cut to $4,218 per-pupil state aid for the coming school year.
• Removing “virtual” students — such those who study online at home — from the categories that received weighted funds. Virtual students now are added in below the traditional student figures, and are allowed a 105 percent payment, rather than weighted payments.
• Paying 90 percent of the state aid for the supplemental general fund Assessed Valuation Per Pupil ( AVPP) instead of 100 percent.
• Paying less state aid as district test scores rise.
• Eliminating state AVPP for the capital outlay fund.
Officials estimate a loss of approximately 100 students for the coming school year, which translates to a reduction in budget authority.
And, they said, as the poverty rate continues its upward trend, students need additional support from the school district.
Among the changes by the state and within the district that worked in favor of the Emporia district were:
• The ability to use a three-year average full-time equivalency enrollment figure that will give the district time to plan ahead for next year, when the district may not be able to gain funds by using the three-year average FTE enrollment.
• More than 50 percent of district students qualify for free lunches, which brings added weighting funds to Emporia.
• Additional state funds derived from the addition at Village School.
Scheib and Heim both emphasized that allocations expected from the state may not materialize and that budgeted figures may change, as they did last year when the additional $2 million arrived. Neither man is expecting additional funds this year, though they do predict additional needs throughout the district.
“The needs of the kids continue to increase, and we’ve got to stay cognizant of that,” Scheib said.
The state legislature’s elimination of equalization aid for the capital outlay fund, which had been mandated by the Kansas Supreme Court, potentially has created a significant problem for the district. Capital outlay monies can be used only for buildings and tangible equipment.
Scheib illustrated the constraints on capital outlay funds.
“You can buy computers but you can’t repair computers out of capital outlay,” he said.
School officials suggested in their recommended budget option that the district’s usual 4 mill capital outlay levy be changed to zero this year. That would bring no funds directly into capital outlay.
However, by levying slightly less than 4 mills for the supplemental general fund, the district could bring in $687,227 to cover general fund expenditures, as well as gain 55.7 percent, or $382,785 in state aid on local revenue. The state continues to pay allocations for that fund.
The recommendation then would be to budget a $687,227 transfer from the general fund into the capital outlay fund later in the year, if no emergency needs arose.
The supplemental general fund does not carry the spending restrictions inherent in the capital outlay fund.
The proposed funds transfer later in the year would help replenish the capital outlay fund, which is smaller this year because of the cost of the Village addition and Lowther renovations.
If there an emergency, however, the district would be able to use the money in the supplemental general fund because its use is not restricted only to building or equipment purchases.
Board member Mike Helbert said he understood the reasoning behind the budgeting, but he would prefer being able to levy directly for capital outlay, for transparency’s sake.
Heim told the board that the district’s property valuation is in the lowest 25 percent of all Kansas school districts.
The board will consider approving publication of the budget at its action meeting Wednesday evening at 7 p.m. in the Mary Herbert Learning Center.
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
John Heim,
I think maybe you are the one who is confused.
The average Joe,Jane in Emporia are not confused, they are fed up. They are fed up with constant remodeling and construction, when enrollment is dropping. They are tired of funding programs such as EDA that have shown no results.
They are tired of older school properties sitting mostly empty until some not for profit moves in or a new program is funded to fill them up, while our tax dollars pay for utilities and maintanance.
And most of all, they are tired of someone making $100,000.00 plus a year telling them they are confused and don't know how things work.
We get it. Boy do we get it!
July 21, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
I didn't make it to the forums much yesterday and I totally missed this little gem of an article.
Well...........I did my part for the school district by having my income reduced, bringing us into qualification for the discounted lunches. That makes $ .10 a lunch savings for me which adds up to about $18.00 for the year. I lost a lot more than that a week, but whatever. The school now gets additional funding for my "at risk" child and I can't remember from our Site council what that number is, but it was a bit more than $18.00.
Now I find out that even though my income and our property value and even our lunch fees went down, our taxes won't because the school district is kind enough to keep that level for me. No, I'm not confused. I understand this new math perfectly. Proportion (ratio) is no longer in the equation and I see it so clearly here:
"...as the poverty rate continues its upward trend, students need additional support from the school district."
I would have thought that as the poverty trend continues, parents need access to their incomes to feed and house their families, but I guess not. I thought the schools were supposed to be there to simply teach our kids how to read, write and do math, but I guess I missed something. I guess they're some sort of caretaker now---even of the household income.
July 22, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Don't forget breakfast and lunch are now provided also.
Some free, most at reduced cost.
Kids used to walk or ride bikes to school, and the occasional "fat Kid" was truly few and far between. There were No vending machines in any school, (including high school). If you look at the number of parents in private cars and all the buses, it makes you wonder if any child walks to school anymore? No wonder we are an obese nation. Let's cut back on the bus service to just rural students, like before and let the parents teach their kids the "joy" of physical exercise, (walking). Put a toll booth near every school pick up and drop off site and you would see a lot more little tykes running or biking to school. Lets sell off any older school buildings that are not filled with students learning. Lets quit funding all the feel good programs that make us feel good but show no increase in student learning.
EDA!
July 23, 2009 at 4:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Yeah, it kind of gets to me the way that at enrollment, if you come over the income level for reduced fee lunches, you are given this " If anything in your income changes, fill out another application to see if you qualify ."
At site council meetings the reduced lunch program is encouraged also. I understand that it seems like a way to get better funding without these local mill levy increases, but I am smart enough to know that I still pay for it...just more indirectly. It's one more way we are taught to abuse social programs and then to become absolutely reliant on the government. I am actually not past considering re-applying for the lunches to say that our income is higher just to offset all the applications that are falsified (with encouragement) in the other direction.
When I said that I lost some of my income, I need to clarify that it was more like giving it up, and was done to be more available to my family. I walk my son to school and back eight of the ten trips. My husband goes the other two times. My son takes his own lunch about half of the time. He is much less "at risk" than most kids with two college educated parents with careers. There is so much backward stereotyping in this system.........................
Have I ever mentioned the part where 1/3 of his actual learning comes home as homework for me to teach him and I spend approximately six hours a week (that equals a sixth school day, btw) teaching him? I may have talked about that before..............seems familiar. But they do a better job than I do in knowing my kid's needs and so can tax me and then tell me what to do? Remind me, why do we want things socialized?
July 23, 2009 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wirewatt (Ken Bazil) says...
What is wrong with a zero tax increase, my income has dropped fifty percent? Where is a brain storming session on the problems ? I don't understand why we can't have the school day lengthened by about twenty minutes a day to save money on buses running and utilities. I am sure if you put a select group of business people on a committee they could find many ways to cut costs. I don't believe that they have worked very hard on this problem as its just to easy to raise the mill levy. I think our school board should put their staff to work, and demand some accountability.
July 23, 2009 at 9:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
As a former government worker who kept track of a multi-million dollar budget, (Navy Ship), I know all to well how government spending works. You give a certain department a fixed budget for a time period, (in my case it was quarterly), and if that department didn't spend it entirely, their next budget was reduced by the amount not spent. I witnessed department heads ordering thousands of dollars worth of rags just to zero out their budgets so they wouldn't get less in the next quarter. It seems that our local governments run much the same way.
July 23, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Total up the salaries of the three School Superintendents, the multiple Principals, Asst. Principals and Administrative staffs countywide, you'll start to understand why budgets and teachers salaries are strained. Yes, the school districts spend their budgets like described by Steve, all government agencies do that.
July 24, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )