BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICTfile/BSD FY16... · FY16 % BUDGET INCREASE vs. FY15 BASE BUDGET VARIATIONS AMOUNT ($) % INCREASE PROPOSED FY16 68,760,000 OPERATING FY15 66,215,369 3.84

BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

PROPOSED FY 16 BUDGET1/5/2015

NOTE OF CAUTIONNOTE OF CAUTIONNOTE OF CAUTIONNOTE OF CAUTION

This presentation represents another step in the FY16 budget development process. Board members, financial consultants, and our auditors have identified systemic budget problems that complicate this process. The following figures represent our best estimates, but are subject to change.

SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION & OVERALL GOALSCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION & OVERALL GOALSCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION & OVERALL GOALSCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION & OVERALL GOAL

The mission of the Burlington School District is to ensure that all students achieve their highest intellectual and personal potential, and are prepared to contribute as global citizens in the 21st Century.

Our goal is to prepare all students to succeed in higher education, careers and citizenship by providing challenging core academic instruction, enriched arts, math, sciences and wellness experiences, and 21st Century skill development opportunities.

FACTORS RELATED TO STUDENT NEEDSFACTORS RELATED TO STUDENT NEEDSFACTORS RELATED TO STUDENT NEEDSFACTORS RELATED TO STUDENT NEEDS

TOTAL ENROLLMENT APPROXIMATELY 4000 BURLINGTON VERMONT

FREE/REDUCED LUNCH 50.6% 40.8%

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 13.1% 1.9%

HOME LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH 48 NA

SPECIAL NEEDS LEARNERS 13.4% 15.6%

GR. 3-8 NECAP READING BELOW PROFICIENT 34% 27%

GR. 11 NECAP READING BELOW PROFICIENT 29% 26%

GR. 5 NECAP WRITING BELOW PROFICIENT 49% 49%

Gr. 8 NECAP WRITING BELOW PROFICIENT 72% 34%

Gr. 11 NECAP WRITING BELOW PROFICIENT 51% 54%

Gr. 3-8 NECAP MATH BELOW PROFICIENT 40% 34%

Gr. 11 NECAP MATH BELOW PROFICIENT 38% 38%

PROPOSED FY16 BUDGET vs. ORIGINAL & ADJUSTED FY15 BUDGETSPROPOSED FY16 BUDGET vs. ORIGINAL & ADJUSTED FY15 BUDGETSPROPOSED FY16 BUDGET vs. ORIGINAL & ADJUSTED FY15 BUDGETSPROPOSED FY16 BUDGET vs. ORIGINAL & ADJUSTED FY15 BUDGETS

15 Original 15 Adjusted 16 Proposed

Instructional 29,536,968 29,928,096 29,628,055

Special Education 12,363,786 12,135,732 12,450,851

CoCurricular 1,031,850 956,153 981,518

Student Supports 4,300,745 4,212,120 4,279,802

Instructional Supports 2,751,714 2,881,936 2,892,036

School Administration 3,033,027 2,776,389 2,853,320

Central Administration 3,587,506 4,402,806 4,264,812

Maintenance 6,217,183 7,080,228 7,257,490

Transportation 976,424 1,025,945 922,276

Debt Service 2,416,166 3,073,153 3,229,840

Operating Budget 66,215,369 68,472,558 68,760,000

Fund Balance Allocation 1,200,000 302,596 0

Grand Total 67,415,369 68,775,154 68,760,000

FY15 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTSFY15 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTSFY15 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTSFY15 BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS

FY15 Original Operating Budget $66,215,369

Bond Interest 780,000

Health Insurance 625,000

Sick Leave Buyout 336,000

Superintendent Buyout 245,000

Superintendent Vacancy Savings (46,000)

Busing 114,000

Tuition Reimbursement 95,000

Superintendent Search 40,000

Munis position control 35,000

Interest on Line of Credit 19,000

Audit Expenses 9,000

Finance Support Contract 5,189

FY15 Adjusted Operating Budget $68,472,558

FY16 % BUDGET INCREASE vs. FY15 BASE BUDGET VARIATIONSFY16 % BUDGET INCREASE vs. FY15 BASE BUDGET VARIATIONSFY16 % BUDGET INCREASE vs. FY15 BASE BUDGET VARIATIONSFY16 % BUDGET INCREASE vs. FY15 BASE BUDGET VARIATIONS

AMOUNT ($) % INCREASE

PROPOSED FY16 68,760,000

OPERATING FY15 66,215,369 3.84

APPROVED FY15 W/ FUND BALANCE 67,415,369 1.99

ADJUSTED FY15 68,472,558 0.42

ESTIMATED FY16 REVENUESESTIMATED FY16 REVENUESESTIMATED FY16 REVENUESESTIMATED FY16 REVENUES15 Original 15 Adjusted 16 Proposed

PILOT 1,400,000 1,400,000 0

Interest/Rebates 5,000 588,509 588,509

Rental 55,000 35,000 35,000

City Electrician 80,000 80,000 0

Sale of Murray St. 225,000 225,000 0

Grants – Indirect 100,000 0 0

Special Ed. State Grants 8,215,751 8,215,751 8,990,569

Transportation Aid 235,606 235,606 161,052

Tuition 166,273 108,450 15,600

All other revenues 858,568 930,720 818,568

Education Spending 56,074,171 56,074,171 58,150,702

Grand Total 67,415,369 67,893,207 68,760,000

FY15 Adjusted does not reflect $1.6m from Taft sale or $748k BED refund.

FY15 DEFICIT REDUCTION APPROACHFY15 DEFICIT REDUCTION APPROACHFY15 DEFICIT REDUCTION APPROACHFY15 DEFICIT REDUCTION APPROACH

Amount ($)

FY15 Adjusted Operating Budget 68,775,154 (including fund balance allocation)

FY15 Voted Budget 67,415,369

FY15 Potential Deficit 1,359,785

DEFICIT REDUCTION PLAN Amount ($)

UNBUDGETED REVENUES (net) 477,838

POTENTIAL SPENDING REDUCTIONS (e.g., deferred maintenance) 881,947

BURLINGTON ELECTRIC REIMBURSEMENT CONTINGENCY 748,304

SYSTEMIC UNBUDGETED/UNDERBUDGETED AREAS IMPACTING FY16 BUDGETSYSTEMIC UNBUDGETED/UNDERBUDGETED AREAS IMPACTING FY16 BUDGETSYSTEMIC UNBUDGETED/UNDERBUDGETED AREAS IMPACTING FY16 BUDGETSYSTEMIC UNBUDGETED/UNDERBUDGETED AREAS IMPACTING FY16 BUDGET

Amount ($)

Health Insurance 650,000

Sick Leave Buyout 120,000

Tuition Reimbursement 95,000

Bond Interest 55,000

Interest on Line of Credit 20,000

Total $940,000

FY16 BUDGET IMPACT OF PROGRAM & SERVICE RESOURCE REDESIGNFY16 BUDGET IMPACT OF PROGRAM & SERVICE RESOURCE REDESIGNFY16 BUDGET IMPACT OF PROGRAM & SERVICE RESOURCE REDESIGNFY16 BUDGET IMPACT OF PROGRAM & SERVICE RESOURCE REDESIGN

FY16 Expenditure Estimate 70,760,000 (before redesign)

Redesign & Retirement Savings (2,000,000)

FY16 Proposed Budget 68,760,000

NEEDSNEEDSNEEDSNEEDS----BASED BUDGET DRIVER QUESTIONSBASED BUDGET DRIVER QUESTIONSBASED BUDGET DRIVER QUESTIONSBASED BUDGET DRIVER QUESTIONS

• What are the needs of students and staff that should be addressed via a school budget?

• What kinds of resources are required to effectively promote student and staff success?

• What kinds of organizational structures are required to operate more efficiently?

RESOURCE ALLOCATION REDESIGN APPROACHESRESOURCE ALLOCATION REDESIGN APPROACHESRESOURCE ALLOCATION REDESIGN APPROACHESRESOURCE ALLOCATION REDESIGN APPROACHES

• An efficiency-oriented approach to allocating central office and district level staffing

• A productivity-oriented effort to consolidate (and in a few cases eliminate) smaller classes, resulting in some larger class sizes not to exceed 25 on average above grade 3

• An effort to maximize academic contact time for teachers with students at the middle school

• Reallocation of some special education and student support staffing for more flexible use in addressing the broad spectrum of student needs

ADMINISTRATIVE/NONADMINISTRATIVE/NONADMINISTRATIVE/NONADMINISTRATIVE/NON----INSTRUCTIONAL POSITIONSINSTRUCTIONAL POSITIONSINSTRUCTIONAL POSITIONSINSTRUCTIONAL POSITIONS

-1 Magnet School Coordinator Responsibilities redistributed

-1 Grants Director & Specialist Consolidation of roles

-1 District Office Clerical Consolidation of roles

-.5 District Truancy Clerical Responsibilities redistributed

-.5 HS Adm. Assist. Consolidation of roles

- 2 Maintenance Staff Consolidation of roles

+ 1 Business Office Staff Currently under-resourced

-5 Net Reduction

CONSOLIDATION/ELIMINATION OF UNDERCONSOLIDATION/ELIMINATION OF UNDERCONSOLIDATION/ELIMINATION OF UNDERCONSOLIDATION/ELIMINATION OF UNDER----ENROLLED CLASSESENROLLED CLASSESENROLLED CLASSESENROLLED CLASSES

-2 Elem. Teacher Positions Larger Gr. 4-5 classes in 2 schools

-1 High School Math Class sizes < avg of 25

-.8 Social Studies Class sizes < avg of 25

-.4 Business Consolidation/elimination

-.4 Art Consolidation/elimination

-.4 PE/Health Consolidation/elimination

-5 Net Reduction

PROGRAM ELIMINATION/INCREASE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL ACADEMIC TIMEPROGRAM ELIMINATION/INCREASE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL ACADEMIC TIMEPROGRAM ELIMINATION/INCREASE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL ACADEMIC TIMEPROGRAM ELIMINATION/INCREASE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL ACADEMIC TIME

-1 HS world language FTE Specific reduction to be determined

-2 Middle School Healthy Living Less common middle schl. program

-1 Middle School Phys. Ed. 2 PE classes per week

+1 Middle School Health Ed. Offered in place of Healthy Living

-.5 Grade 6 Foreign Language Foreign language begins in Gr. 7

-3.5 Net Reduction

SPECIALIZED TEACHER POSITIONSSPECIALIZED TEACHER POSITIONSSPECIALIZED TEACHER POSITIONSSPECIALIZED TEACHER POSITIONS

-11.7 Special Education Positions Reduced to state avg. density

-1 ONTOP Spec. Education Position Student:teacher ratio increased

+1 ONTOP Employ. Spec. Position Currently underserved need

-1 Speech/Language Position Staffing consolidation

+ 6 Literacy Specialists One specialist/building K-12

+4 Math Specialists .5 specialists/building K-8

-2.7 Net Reduction

TEACHER SUPPORT POSITIONSTEACHER SUPPORT POSITIONSTEACHER SUPPORT POSITIONSTEACHER SUPPORT POSITIONS

+1.5 Literacy Coach Positions 2 coaches assigned K-8

- .2 Math Coach Positions 2 coaches assigned K-8

+ .4 STEM Coach Position 1 STEM coach at Flynn Elem.

+1.7 Net Increase

STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICE POSITIONSSTUDENT SUPPORT SERVICE POSITIONSSTUDENT SUPPORT SERVICE POSITIONSSTUDENT SUPPORT SERVICE POSITIONS

+ .1 School Nurse 1/bldg. K-8, 2 HS

- .8 Guid. Counselor Positions 1/building K-8, existing 9-12

- 4.7 Soc. Wk. Positions (Howard Ctr.) .4/building K-5, 1/bldg. MS & HS

+ 4.5 School Psych. Positions 1/building K-8, .5/high school

- 1 PBIS Coord. Position Redistributed to new schl. psych.

- 1.9 Net Reduction

PARAPROFESSIONAL ROLE REDESIGNPARAPROFESSIONAL ROLE REDESIGNPARAPROFESSIONAL ROLE REDESIGNPARAPROFESSIONAL ROLE REDESIGN

-31 Special Education Paraprof. Reduced to state avg. density

- .5 HS Music Paraprof. Accompanist

+8 K-8 Literacy Paraprof. 1/building K-5, 2/bldg. middle sch.

+9 K-8 Math Paraprof. 1/building K-5, 2/bldg. middle sch.

+6 K-5 ELL Paraprof. 1 per building K-5

+ .2 STEM Paraprof. Flynn

-8.3 Net Change

NOTES ON OTHER BUDGET CATEGORIESNOTES ON OTHER BUDGET CATEGORIESNOTES ON OTHER BUDGET CATEGORIESNOTES ON OTHER BUDGET CATEGORIES

• Materials, supplies, equipment, textbooks frozen at this year’s level

• Some reduction in contracted services expense

• Co-curricular budget frozen at this year’s level

• Extended Learning Program budget frozen at this year’s level (reduced from FY14 level)

• Summer program funding reduced to support only the academic component of the program. (Alternative sources of funding will need to be identified for the more recreational components)

• Possible redesign of Family-School Partnerships Coordinator role to include the function of volunteer recruitment for kindergarten classroom management support

• No transportation expense to students living beyond the walking distances established by district policy

Finance Committee DirectionFinance Committee DirectionFinance Committee DirectionFinance Committee Direction

• Finance Committee requested that the above presentation be accompanied by a plan to reduce spending to an amount 1.5% above the FY15 voted budget.

• 1.5% spending target = $68,426,000

• Additional reductions to identify = $334,000

RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO FINANCE COMMITTEE DIRECTION FINANCE COMMITTEE DIRECTION FINANCE COMMITTEE DIRECTION FINANCE COMMITTEE DIRECTION TO REDUCE PROPOSED TO REDUCE PROPOSED TO REDUCE PROPOSED TO REDUCE PROPOSED BUDGET INCREASE TO 1.5%BUDGET INCREASE TO 1.5%BUDGET INCREASE TO 1.5%BUDGET INCREASE TO 1.5%

+ Under-budgeted retirement expense

+ .5 MS foreign language to ensure full Gr. 7-8 program

- 1 maintenance position

- .4 STEM Coach & .2 STEM Paraprofessional positions

Stipend expense reduction

Contracted service expense reduction

Shift in Medicaid revenue allocation

Tuition expense reduction

Consolidation of ELL Director, ELL Content, & Special Ed. Coach roles from 3.0 to 2.0 FTE positions

Reduction of 2 Pre-K paraprofessional positions

Pre-K transition funding reduced to $50,000 (fed. grant funded)

Use of 2 interns in place of 2 new school psychologist positions

1.5% FY16 BUDGET vs. FY15 BASE BUDGET VARIATIONS1.5% FY16 BUDGET vs. FY15 BASE BUDGET VARIATIONS1.5% FY16 BUDGET vs. FY15 BASE BUDGET VARIATIONS1.5% FY16 BUDGET vs. FY15 BASE BUDGET VARIATIONS

AMOUNT ($) % INCREASE

1.5% FY16 PROPOSED BUDGET 68,426,000

OPERATING FY15 66,215,369 3.34

APPROVED FY15 W/ FUND BALANCE 67,415,369 1.50

ADJUSTED FY15 68,472,558 -0.07

Quick Note About Other Funding & SpendingQuick Note About Other Funding & SpendingQuick Note About Other Funding & SpendingQuick Note About Other Funding & Spending

• This presentation has focused on “local” or “general” fund spending and revenue.

• Burlington Technical Center is supported in part by tuition and in part by state funds. The local costs associated with BTC are incorporated into spending estimates for both the 2% and 1.5% scenarios.

• Grant programs are self-funded. Revenues offset expenses and neither is reflected in the local fund budget.

Tax Estimates Subject to ChangeTax Estimates Subject to ChangeTax Estimates Subject to ChangeTax Estimates Subject to Change

• The base homestead tax rate and base education amount are subject to change by the Vermont General Assembly.

• Changes to either of these inputs will require revising of estimated tax impacts because these variables play a significant role calculating actual tax rates.

Estimated Tax Implications for 2% Spending IncreaseEstimated Tax Implications for 2% Spending IncreaseEstimated Tax Implications for 2% Spending IncreaseEstimated Tax Implications for 2% Spending Increase

Revenue Type Amount

Local Spending = $68,760,000 (spending less BTC, grants)

Local Revenues - $10,609,298

Education Spending = $58,150,702 Amount we need from Education Fund

Equalized Pupils ÷ 4,190 Increase of 86 equalized pupils from FY15

Spending Per Equalized Pupil = $13,877 Increase of $215 from FY15

Base Amount ÷ $9,459

District Spending Adjustment = 1.467

Base Homestead Rate X $1.00 Increase of $0.02 from FY15

Equalized Homestead Rate = $1.467

CLA Adjustment ÷ 87.37% Decrease if 0.88% from FY15

Actual Homestead Rate per $100 of value = $1.679 FY15 was $1.636

Increase v. FY15 = 2.6%

Figures do not sum exactly due to rounding

Estimated Tax Implications for 1.5% Spending IncreaseEstimated Tax Implications for 1.5% Spending IncreaseEstimated Tax Implications for 1.5% Spending IncreaseEstimated Tax Implications for 1.5% Spending Increase

Revenue Type Amount

Local Spending = $68,426,000 (spending less BTC, grants)

Local Revenues - $10,539,298 $70k less than 2% scenario

Education Spending = $57,886,702 Amount we need from Education Fund

Equalized Pupils ÷ 4,190 Increase of 86 equalized pupils from FY15

Spending Per Equalized Pupil = $13,814 Increase of $152 from FY15

Base Amount ÷ $9,459

District Spending Adjustment = 1.460

Base Homestead Rate X $1.00 Increase of $0.02 from FY15

Equalized Homestead Rate = $1.460

CLA Adjustment ÷ 87.37% Decrease if 0.88% from FY15

Actual Homestead Rate per $100 of value = $1.672 FY15 was $1.636

Increase v. FY15 = 2.2%

Figures do not sum exactly due to rounding

Hypothetical Tax ScenariosHypothetical Tax ScenariosHypothetical Tax ScenariosHypothetical Tax Scenarios

Property Payers 2% Spending Increase 1.5% Spending Increase

FY16 Estimated Rate (per $100 of value) $1.679 $1.672

Difference from FY15 ($1.636) $0.043 $0.036

Tax on $250,000 homestead $4,198 $4,180

Tax Difference from FY15 $108 $90

For education tax payers who pay based on income, the impact will be reflected on the fiscal year 2017 property tax bill. Existing

law provides additional property tax relief for households with incomes below $47,000. This is known as a “circuit breaker.” Once

a taxpayer qualifies for the circuit breaker, additional school district spending does not increase the taxpayer’s tax liability.

Income Payers 2% Spending Increase 1.5% Spending Increase

FY16 Income Cap Percentage 2.85% 2.83%

Difference from FY15 (2.85%) 0.00 -0.02

Tax on $50,000 household income $1,425 $1,415

Tax Difference from FY15 $0 $-10

Figures reflect rounding

THE WORK CONTINUESTHE WORK CONTINUESTHE WORK CONTINUESTHE WORK CONTINUES

• Work is continuing on both the FY15 and FY16 estimates, with priority being given to accurately capturing all likely FY16 expenditures.

• Staffing and other resources for all departments continue to be under review. The process for exploring further restructuring, budget reallocations and related staffing implications requires more time and thought than was possible prior to proposing the FY16 school budget.