In addition, the list of cuts and savings from that 05-06 minority report was the basis for the cuts and savings list for this year and additional cuts and savings were proposed by the Assistant Superintendent for Business, Dr. Gary Hoskins.  This was another positive development during this year’s session.  It also must be noted that some of the cuts and savings did not have to be voted on because they had already been implemented by the administration.  Therefore, this year’s process was much more balanced than in years past when all the team was asked to do was either cut or add programs.  Our organization applauds the superintendent for providing this balanced focus.

             However, as with any process, there is room for improvement.  Many of the restorations and augmentations of programs did not come attached to a cut or savings in the budget that would fund the added expense.  This balanced approach accomplishes two goals.  It protects the general fund from encroachment and it provides the advocates for  programs the opportunity to become familiar with more aspects of the budget and how their requests can impact other people.  As we all know in any budget, money spent on one “priority” reduces the funding for other “priorities”.   Many of the presenters produced elaborate justifications for why their priorities were crucial, but they failed to identify concurrent funding sources.  We all understand that there are not unlimited funds and therefore every restoration and/or augmentation that is approved without a current funding source must come from new revenue.  The only source of that new revenue that is not restricted is, of course, the general fund supplemented each year by the COLA increase from the state.  The general fund is the only revenue source for salaries and benefits.  It has been established through research time and time again that a qualified effective teacher in the classroom is the number one most important factor in student achievement.  Therefore protecting the general fund from encroachment should be the number one budget priority.   

            My vote was a “one” or lowest priority for any restorations or augmentations that did not provide a current funding source because not only was that the direction from the superintendent, but it also meant that the advocates for those positions did not identify any elements in the current budget that were less important to them than their proposals and therefore the proposals were not comparatively more important than any current budget items.  This has nothing to do with the “merits or benefits” of any proposed restorations/augmentations.  I’m sure there are many beneficial programs we could implement, if we had unlimited funds. 

            A major part of the responsibility of the Fiscal Policy Team, in my opinion, is to critically evaluate current programs for effectiveness and timeliness.  This is what PRPE did last year and how we constructed a list of 14 items that could be cut or provide budgetary savings.  This list, as I mentioned above, was also voted on and unlike the previous list there was no need to tie these items to any other priority.  This is obvious because the implementation of these recommendations provides money to the district, increasing its budgetary flexibility.  Frankly, after the introduction of the cuts and savings list on April 18 I was surprised that no advocates for restorations and/or augmentations linked their increases to the proposed cuts and/or savings in order to provide a funding source for their priorities.  This crucial linkage was, in fact, only advanced by Dr. Hoskins when he proposed his augmentations.

            We can examine both lists using the guidelines from above.

Restorations and Augmentations

 

 

Clerk Position at PRHS  cost:  $39,250    no funding source proposed

 

Additional Opportunity Class  cost:  $78,440  no funding source proposed 

Pay for student supervision  grades 6-12  cost:  approximately $55,000  This has already been implemented at PRHS but no information was given on the funding source. 

K-8 Reading Specialist –reduce site costs  cost:  $40,000  no funding source proposed 

Capital replacement fund  cost:  approximately $385,000  The funding source was identified by Dr. Hoskins as the savings generated through and increase in teacher/student ratios at PRHS, Liberty and Georgia Brown.  I still voted a “one” on this item because there was a large infusion of funds in this area this year due to one-time state money and not all of that will be spent this year and can be carried over to next year.  In addition there will be large capital improvement projects ongoing in the next few years related to the recently passed bond and matching state funding.

Custodial levels back to 01-02 levels cost:  $106,000  no funding source proposed 

Grounds addition  cost:  $40,000  no funding source proposed 

Additional HVAC Maintenance Person  cost:  $50,000 funding proposed by reducing current maintenance contracts. If this can be shown to have no negative effect on the general fund give support

Return of funding levels for Computer Techs  cost:  $22,000  no funding source proposed 

Additional funds for EL paraeducators at PRHS  cost:  $50,000  should be funded with increased EIA money 

Athletic budget 5% restoration  cost:  $16,300  no funding source proposed 

Increase clerical pay at K-5 to parity with 6-12  cost:  $56,475  no funding source proposed and this is a classified negotiable item 

Uniform PIP levels throughout K-5  cost:  $22,000  no funding source proposed 

AP Test payments for scores of 4 or 5  cost:  $12,000   no funding source proposed 

Special Ed Staffing  cost:  $350,000  no funding source proposed 

Greenworks  cost:  $29,000  funded by increased ADA recovered from “reluctant learners” however until the STRIVE program is moved there is no classroom space 

System Administrator cost:  $59,000  notes say funding from cut list but no specific cut identified and linked to proposal 

Tech Help Desk cost:  $53,000  see above

Cuts/ Savings 

Charge non free and reduced students for extra curricular transportation  savings: $30,000  This policy in place in many districts statewide. 

Endeavor Academy Support  savings:  $18,000  Cal Poly accepts many of these students for admission.  It is a technical program.  Cal Poly expects to partner with us for education services for its students and we should expect to partner with them for technical services for our students 

Eliminate the Custodial Supervisor  savings: $50,000  This will not be completely eliminated but there will be a restructuring in this area that will save approximately the same amount according to Dr. Hoskins

Contractual class sizes  savings:  $50,000  Examine the situation at Georgia Brown.  Raise class sizes at Liberty through the use of the STRIVE classrooms 

Fund 50% of the Elementary Counselor with categorical money  savings:  $35,000  It was explained that site budgets would be impacted by this.  It is always a question of priorities for the money available.  If this is crucial the site will fund it. 

Sell PRISC property  savings: unknown  The district is in discussions with the city about this. 

Collect rent for land under the municipal pool  savings:  $50,000  An agreement has been reached with the city on this to save the listed amount. 

Transportation using city busses  savings:  $67000  Dr. Hoskins said this may be a moot point because we do not have funding to replace current school busses.  Three have over 300,000 miles on them.

Pay as you go copies  savings:  Unknown   Being implemented this year. 

Block Grant transfer  savings:  $195,000  Special Ed and Transportation encroach greatly on the general fund now and since the state provides the flexibility to shift some of  that encroachment to other categorical programs that mitigation should be made. 

Increased student to teacher ratio a PRHS  savings: $350,000  Discussion centered around the master schedule and current class sizes.  This is open for discussion with PRPE during negotiations. 

Increased student teacher ratio at Liberty   savings:  $30,000  see above 

Standardize schedule at K-5 savings:  $60,000  work with K-5 principals to accomplish 

MAA revenue increase  savings:  $300,000 tie revenue to MAA supported services 

PRPE requests follow-up briefings by the administration concerning the implementation of any budget changes mentioned or not mentioned in this report in the future.

 Important Extra Information 

Because of the addition of longevity payments to administrators according to the second interim budget report the Salaries of Supervisors and Administrators increased 31% from the Board Approved Operating Budget of $229,956 to $301,189 (Object Code 1300) and could increase even more. 

In addition to the above administrators’ salary increases according to the superintendent’s search brochure there will be a superintendent salary increase of $30,000. 

There has been an increase of 39.1% the Travel and Conference budget from the approved Operating Budget of $151,681 to $210,919 (Object Code 5200) and is also subject to further increase. 

These increases total at least $160,000 and they were not discussed by the Fiscal Policy Team. 

The entire Fiscal Policy Team worked cooperatively and constructively together   to examine a variety of programs and begin the process of responsibly balancing requests for increased funds with concurrent budget reductions. Thank you to all of the people who participated in this complex process and to all of the staff members who facilitated its completion. 

                                                                        Respectfully Submitted, 

                                                                        Jim Lynett

                                                                        PRPE Fiscal Policy Representative