Agenda - Budget Study Committee 11.20 Study/No… · 5. May Revise Update Mr. Chheng reviewed the...
Transcript of Agenda - Budget Study Committee 11.20 Study/No… · 5. May Revise Update Mr. Chheng reviewed the...
BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE MEETING
November 20, 2015 3:00 ‐ 4:30 p.m.
Campbell Conference Room – 3rd Floor, North Building
AGENDA 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Superintendent Gundry 2. Setting the Agenda Mark Skvarna, Business Services 3. Review and Approval of Minutes – May 28, 2015 Mark Skvarna, Business Services 4. Refinancing Certificates of Participation Jason List, Isom Advisors Jeff Baratta, Piper Jaffray 5. 2015‐16 Board Approved Budget Enhancements/Program Augmentation Laurie Book, Internal Business 6. Districts’ Consolidation RFP All 7. Next Meeting – January 22, 2016 Superintendent Gundry 8. Adjourn Superintendent Gundry MEMBERS Jon R. Gundry, Superintendent/Committee Chair Darcie Green, Board Member Rosemary Kamei, Board Member Grace Mah, Board Member Mary Ann Dewan, Deputy Superintendent Philip Gordillo, Chief Human Resources Officer Del Mallory, SEIU Steve Olmos, Chief Schools Officer Angelica Ramsey, Associate Superintendent Lesbia Reclosado, SEIU Mark Skvarna, Interim Chief Business Officer Earl Thaxton, ACE/CTA Lisa Vieler, ACE/CTA David Wu, Chief Technology Officer RECORDER Theresa Martinez
1
1
BUDGET STUDY COMMITTEE
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MAY 28, 2015
1. Roll Call and Introductions
Superintendent Gundry called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.
Members Present Others Present Jon Gundry Laurie Book Darcie Green Don Bolce Phil Benfield Kolvira Chheng Rosemary Kamei Sandy Fakaosi Maribel Medina Ted O Micaela Ochoa Theresa Martinez (recorder) Angelica Ramsey
2. Setting the Agenda
Dr. Ramsey made a motion to accept the agenda as submitted; Board President Green seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously
3. Review and Approval of Minutes
Board President Green made a motion to approve the April 16, 2015 meeting minutes as submitted;
Dr. Ramsey seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
4. Hearing of Persons Desiring to Address the Committee on Issues Not on the Agenda
None
5. May Revise Update
Mr. Chheng reviewed the 2015‐16 Governor’s May Revision. Points of interest include:
‐ LCFF Gap funding percentage at 53.08% (up from 32.19%, January budget).
‐ One‐time discretionary funds of $601 per ADA for 2015‐16.
Dr. Ramsey asked what the effect will be with Early Childhood. Mr. Chheng replied if the program is
under the Prop 98 umbrella, it will come out of discretionary funds or the gap funding will be adjusted.
Ms. Ochoa shared that with questions rising about $601 per ADA, districts have already held hearings
and completed LCAP may not include the $601. Districts are being advised to be transparent about
additional revenue and to provide updates as necessary.
‐ Lower COLA of 1.02% frees up funds for LCFF (down from 1.58%, January budget).
‐ Additional $2.1 billion Prop 98 revenues, for a total of $6.1 billion.
Mr. Bolce asked if LCFF implementation is sustainable. Mr. Chheng replied that all new money is going
back to replace what was previously cut and will eventually even out. Other highlights include:
3
2
‐ K‐12 COLA is 1.02% and applied to the LCFF base grants for each grade span.
‐ Two grade span adjustments are applied as percentage increases against the adjusted base grant
and also receive a 1.02% COLA.
‐ Supplemental and concentration grants are calculated based on the percentage of a district’s
enrolled students (English learners, free and reduced‐price meal eligible or foster youth). Ms.
Ochoa clarified that Charter Schools are capped at the district they reside in, at that districts level.
‐ The May Revision proposes an LCFF gap funding percentage of 53.08%.
‐ LEAs may use either the gap percentage proposed at the May Revision or the gap funding
percentage contained in the enacted State Budget in establishing their class‐size reduction
enrollment target for a given year.
‐ Provides an increase of $2.4 billion in discretionary one‐time Prop 98 funding.
‐ The Governor proposes to fully extinguish the remaining $992 million in apportionment deferrals
in 2014‐15.
‐ COEs receive $40 million one‐time discretionary funds to assist school districts in meeting their
responsibilities under LCFF.
‐ COEs at LCFF funding target will receive a 1.02% COLA and workload‐related funding increases in
2015‐16.
‐ COEs above LCFF funding target will receive no increase in funding, other than workload‐related
changes.
‐ Proposed 1.02% COLA for categorical programs outside of LCFF.
‐ The CalPERS employer contribution rate increase is less than expected, increasing to 11.84%
instead of 12.6%
‐ The CalSTRS employer contribution rate statutorily increases to 10.73%.
‐ Prop 30 income tax increase will generate more than $8 billion annually, but funds will no longer
be available when it expires in 2018.
‐ No changes proposed for Prop 2, district reserves, if certain conditions are met: Prop 98
maintenance factor must be fully repaid; Prop 98 must be funded based on Test 1; a deposit must
be made into the Prop 98 reserve when capital gains revenues exceeds 8% of General Fund
reserves.
‐ According to the May Revision, it is projected that the maintenance factor will not be fully repaid
and Prop 98 will be funded based on Test 3, not Test 1.
‐ A future recession is not forecast in any of the state’s revenue projections.
Mr. Chheng reviewed charts showing available reserve percentages for SCC state funded elementary,
high and unified, and Basic Aid elementary, Basic Aid high and unified. The charts show what districts
are reporting and only capture reserves in the general fund. Mr. Chheng explained the difference in
percentages could be a result of varying board policies districts have that indicate where they need
to maintain reserve levels and how they choose to report. The new cap requirement will help ensure
consistent reporting.
6. LAO Report on Ongoing State Aide
Ms. Ochoa reported on the Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended modifications to COE funding,
including:
‐ Recommend recognizing that many Basic Aid Districts are already funded at their LCFF targets.
‐ Recommend amending statute to avoid creating new funding disparities among COEs.
There was discussion of the one‐time funds.
4
3
7. Resolution and Loan for School Districts
There was discussion regarding updating Resolution 2114‐2 to continue to provide temporary loans
to school districts experiencing budget and cash flow issues. Ms. Ochoa shared that some district
CBOs feel this is no longer necessary; others are cautious and still want the option if needed to meet
their commitments.
Members identified reasons to continue to budget for loans and the likelihood of districts asking for
temporary loans.
Districts would be obligated to repay the SCCOE fully with a prorated daily interest rate equivalent to
the rate that would be accrued by funds held in the county treasury.
Ms. Ochoa recommended adopting an updated resolution to keep the amount budgeted for another
year, and then revisit again next year. Both Board President Green and Board Member Kamei agreed
that continuing the resolution is important to support districts. Superintendent Gundry also felt that
updating the resolution would be in everybody’s best interest to support the districts’ if needed. Ms.
Medina remarked that a positive press release highlighting the resolution and how the SCCOE is
continuing to support districts would be good.
Ms. Ochoa will prepare the transmittal to update the resolution for the June 3, 2015 Board meeting.
8. Future Agenda Items/Adjournment
Board Member Kamei expressed that it would be beneficial to have a running list of what items Board
Members have requested to understand the priorities going forward.
Board President Green made a motion to adjourn; Dr. Ramsey seconded the motion. The meeting
adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
5
3111 N. Tustin St, Ste. 120 - Orange, CA 92865
Certificates of Participation –Refunding Analysis
by
Isom Advisors,a Division of Urban Futures, Inc.&Piper Jaffray & Co.
November 20, 2015
Overview of Firms
3
Meeting your financial challenges and saving you money
Company Overview
Isom Advisors is a full service planning, campaign, and financial advisory firm that serves California school districts
The leading financial advisor to school districts for 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015
We are independent with no conflicts of interest
Our staff has over 50 years experience providing honest advice and the highest level of service
Strong references from our clients
County school district experience includes: Campaigns
Strong References
#1 K-12 Financial Advisor
Independence
50 Years Experience
“Isom Advisors brought to me an innovative plan that would upgrade and renovate our facilities as well as improve the general fund. They implemented the plan to perfection and we won handily.”
Tim Baird, Superintendent Encinitas Union School District
“Isom Advisors brought to me an innovative plan that would upgrade and renovate our facilities as well as improve the general fund. They implemented the plan to perfection and we won handily.”
Tim Baird, Superintendent Encinitas Union School District
Campbell HSD Franklin-McKinley ESD
Gilroy USD Morgan Hill USD
4
More K-12 bonds sold since 2011 than any FA firm
A Leader in the Industry
Isom Advisors has been the leading Financial Advisor to California school districts in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015
Isom Advisors is in the market managing bond sales more frequently than any other F.A. firm; this frequency provides our clients unparalleled experience in assessing bond structures and determining appropriate interest rates
Source: California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission and Thompson Reuters* Does not include TRANs or CFDs
2012 Ranking of Top 7 K-12 CA Financial Advisors# of District Bond Sales
Financial Advisor DistrictsIsom Advisors, Urban Futures Inc. 31Keygent 30Kelling Northcross Nobriga 27Caldwell Flores Winters 18Dale Scott & Co. 18Government Financial Strategies 14Dolinka Group 13
Total 151
2013 Ranking of Top 7 K-12 CA Financial Advisors# of District Bond Sales
Financial Advisor Districts
Isom Advisors, Urban Futures Inc. 55Keygent 41Dale Scott & Co. 29Fieldman Rolapp 29Caldwell Flores Winters 28Kelling Northcross Nobriga 25Dolinka Group 25
Total 232
2011 Ranking of Top 7 K-12 CA Financial Advisors# of District Bond Sales
Financial Advisor DistrictsIsom Advisors, Urban Futures Inc. 37Dale Scott & Co. 35Kelling Northcross Nobriga 28Caldwell Flores Winters 25Keygent 14Government Financial Strategies 14Dolinka Group 12
Total 165
2014 Ranking of Top 7 K-12 CA Financial Advisors # of District Bond Sales
Financial Advisor DistrictsIsom Advisors, Urban Futures Inc. 48Keygent 37Dale Scott & Co. 17Caldwell Flores Winters 15Fieldman Rolapp 11Government Financial Strategies 11Dolinka Group 10
Total 149
2015 Ranking of Top 7 K-12 CA Financial Advisors# of District Bond Sales to date 8/25/15
Financial Advisor DistrictsIsom Advisors, Urban Futures Inc. 61Dale Scott & Co. 23Government Financial Strategies 18Caldwell Flores Winters 16Keygent 16Kelling Northcross Nobriga 15Fieldman Rolapp 15
Total 164
5
Leading California Education Underwriter
Overview of Piper Jaffray
Piper Jaffray is a full-service middle market investment bank with a leading Public Finance practice
Piper Jaffray has some of the most experienced bankers in the industry having focused exclusively on the financing needs of California education issuers for over 21 years
Our senior bankers have a history of dedicated board service with education groups such as Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), California Association of School Business Officials (CASBO), Californians for School Facilities (CSF), among others
Piper Jaffray is a perennial leader in both General Obligation and Certificate of Participation issuances for Education issuers
San FranciscoUnderwriting
Desk/Sales & Public Finance Office
SacramentoPublic Finance Office
Orange CountyPublic Finance Office
El Segundo(Los Angeles Area)Public Finance Office
6
Piper Jaffray’s Municipal Sales Force
Piper Jaffray’s Underwriting Expertise
Piper Jaffray’s San Francisco-based trading desk provides real-time feedback regarding investor preferences and sentiment for California education credits
Our continuous commitment to California Education provides a high level of communication between our underwriting desk and the investors interested in purchasing the County Office of Education’s Certificates
Our experienced municipal sales force provides the County Office of Education with a wide array of investors to maximize the demand for the Certificates and provide the County Office of Education with the lowest borrowing rates
Piper also has a dedicated Bank Qualified underwriting and sales force bringing another layer of expertise to the transaction
100 200 300 400 500 600
Morgan Stanley
George K Baum
RBC Capital Markets
Piper Jaffray & Co
Stifel Nicolaus
# of Issues
California EducationGeneral Obligation Issuances
2010-2015 (YTD)
10 20 30 40 50 60
George K Baum
Southwest Securities
RBC Capital Markets
Piper Jaffray & Co
Stifel Nicolaus
# of Issues
California EducationCertificate of Participation Issuances
2010-2015 (YTD)
Refunding Analysis
8
2016 Refunding OverviewExecutive summary
In April of 1995, the County Office of Education issued a $16,165,000 Certificate of Participation (“1995 COPs”) for the purposes of acquiring the land and improving/constructing the COE
The term of the 1995 COP was 30 years with payments through 2025
In June of 2002, the County Office of Education refunded the 1995 COPs by issuing a $15,895,000 Certificate of Participation (“2002 Refunding COPs) to reduce debt service
The financing was an advance refunding as it was completed a year prior to the first redemption date
The term of the 2002 Refunding COP is the same as it’s original until 2025 Total debt service savings equaled $764,947
Opportunity to refund the 2002 Refunding COPs, to lower the debt service (principal and interest) payments, and save the COE additional dollars
Potential savings of approximately $1.26 million
9
Interest Rate EnvironmentLow Interest Rate Environment
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
5.50%
6.00%
1/1/
014/
1/01
7/1/
0110
/1/0
11/
1/02
4/1/
027/
1/02
10/1
/02
1/1/
034/
1/03
7/1/
0310
/1/0
31/
1/04
4/1/
047/
1/04
10/1
/04
1/1/
054/
1/05
7/1/
0510
/1/0
51/
1/06
4/1/
067/
1/06
10/1
/06
1/1/
074/
1/07
7/1/
0710
/1/0
71/
1/08
4/1/
087/
1/08
10/1
/08
1/1/
094/
1/09
7/1/
0910
/1/0
91/
1/10
4/1/
107/
1/10
10/1
/10
1/1/
114/
1/11
7/1/
1110
/1/1
11/
1/12
4/1/
127/
1/12
10/1
/12
1/1/
134/
1/13
7/1/
1310
/1/1
31/
1/14
4/1/
147/
1/14
10/1
/14
1/1/
154/
1/15
7/1/
1510
/1/1
5
Bond Buyer 20 Bond Index(January 1, 2001 to present)
High: 6.01% (10/16/08)Low: 3.27% (12/6/12)
Average: 4.47%Current: 3.74% (11/12/15)
10
Yields on the 2002 Refunding COPs range between 4.60% to 5.15%
Yields on the 2015 refunding COPs are estimated to range between 0.45% to 2.77%
This spread in interest rates is what generates the savings to the District
Yield Comparison
0.40%0.90%1.40%1.90%2.40%2.90%3.40%3.90%4.40%4.90%5.40%
Current Interest Rates Old Interest Rates
Comparing Interest RatesCurrent rates are lower than 2002 rates
11
Tax Rate Savings New Tax Rate Old Tax Rate
Tax Rate Savings New Tax Rate Old Tax Rate
Tax Rate Savings New Tax Rate Old Tax Rate
Deferred savings shortens the maturity of thebonds so that debt service savings are realizedin the final years. Interest cost is the lowest ofthe three options, but the savings are notrealized until later years.
Level Savings
Deferred Savings
Upfront Savings
Debt service savings are approximately level ineach year. Most common refunding structure.
Upfront savings provides near term debtservice savings by deferring principalamortization. Interest cost is the highest of thethree options, but the savings are immediate.
Tax Rate ($)
Years
Tax Rate ($)
Tax Rate ($)
Years
Years
The options below illustrate the three most commonrefunding structures:
1
2
3
Refunding structuring options
2016 Refunding
12
Series 2016 Refunding Savings
2016 Refunding Savings
Based on current interest rates, COE savings would equal approximately $1.26 million in total savings by refunding the 2002 Refunding COPs
Annual savings to the COE would be approximately $154,500 through 2024.
The industry accepted threshold for present value savings is a minimum of 3.00%. Based on current interest rates, the refunding would generate present value savings of nearly 12.78%
*Assumes The 2002 Refunding COP Reserve fund will be used to fully defease the 2025 maturity, and a portion of the 2024 maturity.
Date Prior Debt Service Prior Receipts Flow Refunding Debt Service Savings
4/1/2016 $945,488 $0 $945,488 $918,982 $26,5054/1/2017 1,168,350 - 1,168,350 1,011,350 157,000 4/1/2018 1,163,200 - 1,163,200 1,009,600 153,600 4/1/2019 1,165,675 - 1,165,675 1,012,250 153,425 4/1/2020 1,171,250 - 1,171,250 1,016,450 154,800 4/1/2021 1,167,500 - 1,167,500 1,014,250 153,250 4/1/2022 1,166,750 - 1,166,750 1,012,500 154,250 4/1/2023 1,163,750 - 1,163,750 1,008,750 155,000
*4/1/2024 1,168,500 5,815 1,162,685 1,008,000 154,685 *4/1/2025 1,165,500 1,165,500 - - -
Total $11,445,963 $1,171,315 $10,274,647 $9,012,132 $1,262,515
13
TimelineRefunding Schedule
Task Responsible Party Date
Initial discussion of refunding opportunity COE/FA/Underwriter September
Special Counsel delivers draft of legal documents for review Special Counsel October
Request State approval of financing Special Counsel October
Receive State approval Special Counsel November
Rating agency meeting COE/FA/Underwriter November 5
Budget Committee meeting to discuss financing FA/Underwriter November 20
Receive rating from S&P FA December 2
COE Board approves resolution authorizing refunding and supporting legal documents for the 2016 COP Refunding COE December 9
Price Certificates COE/Finance Team January 14
Closing of 2016 COP Refunding COE/Finance Team January 27
Budget Study Committee MeetingInternal Business ServicesBusiness Services Branch
November 20,2015
2015‐16 State Budget Act
On June 25th, 2015 Governor Jerry Brown signed the 2015‐16 State Budget Act. At this time we received confirmation for approval of pending funding for $5.1 M in state aid.
Branch Chiefs and program managers submitted requests with justifications to use a portion of this funding for program enhancements and augmentations to existing programs.
All program additions and augmentations support the goals of the SCCOE by providing services to:
1. Improve student equity and reduce access discrepancies to high quality education
2. Provide support to districts, communities, schools and students
3. Be a premier employer
4. Improve organizational effectiveness and efficiency
2
7
SCCOE Program Enhancements
• On June 17th, 2015, the SCCBOE approved $3.2 M for new programs and augmentations to existing programs
• The slides to follow are categorized by branch, program name and the amount of funding requested
• Corresponding numbers , 1 through 4, are notated in red at the end of each program name to identify the corresponding SCCOE goals
• The program summary descriptions are included on the excel handouts provided
3
Educational Services Branch
4
$1,246,276
Categorical and Special Projects “ Trainings for ELAC, SSC, DAL, LCAP/LCFF to districts”; 1, 2
53,363
Project Working on Refining our Destiny (WORD); 1, 2
49,750
Greene Scholars Program (GSP); 1, 2 2,300
Summer Institute @ TeenForce & Bullis; 1, 2 136,000
African American Student Day; 1, 2 5,000
Brother and Sister Roundtables; 1, 2 36,900
Beyond Mentoring Day; 1, 2 40,000
Parent University; 2 42,000
Teacher on Special Assignment (TOSA) / Instructional Coaches Institute; 1, 2
11,275
Aspiring Administrator Institute; 2 22,500
8
Educational Services Branch Cont’d
5
Central Office Institute; 2, 4 8,000
School Climate; 2, 4 183,909
College Day; 1, 2 5,000
Santa Clara County Asian PacificIslander Educators and Administrators; 1, 2
20,000
Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics (STEAM) Symposium; 2
29,400
San Jose/Silicon Valley (SJSV2020) Symposium; 1, 2 13,000
San Jose/Silicon Valley (SJSV2020) Symposium; 1, 2 29,049
Superintendent’s Speakers; 2, 4 47,680
Sobrato Early Academic Language (SEAL) Project; 1, 2
165,400
Educational Services Branch Cont’d
6
The Jose Valdes Math Institute – Professional Development for Teachers; 1, 2 49,750
History/Social Sciences/Civics – Professional Consultants for CCSS; 1, 2 50,000
Ed Leader 21 – Professional Development for District Leaders; 2 96,000
Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley’s Family College Success Center; 1, 2 100,000
San Jose / Silicon Valley (SJSV2020) Educational Support‐Teacher Pipeline Study; 2 50,000
9
Human Resources
7
$122,000
Extra Coverage for SCCOE Events (i.e. Teacher Recruitment, Classified Recruitment); 2, 3, 4
8,000
Addition to HR2 as requested by School Districts; 2, 3, 4 15,000
Support to Wellness Program; 3 75,000
Online Software for Performance Evaluation Management; 3, 4
12,000
Software for Monitoring and Maintaining Data Relevant to the Affordable Care Act; 3
12,000
Office of the Superintendent
8
$224,021
Internal Audit Budget for 2015‐16 unplanned of unexpected projects; 4
51,000
Strong Start Director I Position; 4 173,021
10
Student Services Branch
9
$1,318,344
Meetings with Stakeholders to cover Travel, Food, Materials and Guest Speakers; 2
10,000
Professional Services to Conduct Program Review for Sp. Ed and Guest Speaker; 2, 4
95,000
Peer Assistance Review Teachers and Panel Members; 2
33,622
Reduction of Indirect for Migrant Ed to 8%; 2, 4 112,000
Reduction of Indirect for Headstart to 8.5%; 2, 4 358,000
Technology Support for Migrant Ed; 2 89,722
Inclusion Collaborative – Manager to Director; 4 20,000
Online High School Project Planning & Start‐Up; 1, 2 350,000
Student Services Branch Cont’d
10
Additional, TBD Special Education FacilitiesUpgrades; 1, 2 150,000
Special Education Facilities Analysis (consultant or staff and materials); 3, 4
100,000
11
Technology Services Branch
11
$340,783
Funding for Educational Technology ServicesAcademic Technology Specialist and Operational Expenses; 4
210,783
Database Administrator to support Migrant Education; 2
130,000
Additional SCCOE Program Enhancements
• Throughout the fiscal year, Program Addition Forms are submitted to the Superintendent with justification for additional funding from unrestricted reserves
• These forms are signed by the requestor, Branch Chief, Chief Business Officer and approved by the Superintendent
• The slides to follow are categorized by branch, program name and the amount of funding requested
• Corresponding numbers , 1 through 4, are notated in red at the end of each program name to identify the corresponding SCCOE goals
• The program summary descriptions are included on the excel handouts provided
12
12
Educational Services Branch
13
$267,177
White House Initiative on Asian American & Pacific Islanders; 1, 2
18,228
Learning Multimedia Center / Book Academy; 2 2,500
Associate Superintendent Travel; 2 25,000
Learning Multimedia Center / Silicon Valley Reads; 2 23,000
Additional Ed Leader 21 (SJSV2020)‐reimbursement to Districts; 2, 4
3,000
American Leadership Forum (ALF) Board Training; 4 12,500
Sobrato Early Academic Language (SEAL) Project; 1, 2 86,600
USC Urban Superintendent Academy; 4 30,000
C&I Multilingual Education Services (2015‐16) 11 FTE – Coordinator – 2 years only (2016‐17 ‐ $88,465)
66,349
Office of the Superintendent
14
$91,408
Media & Communications – Contract with Communication Resources to Schools (Thomas DeLapp) – Walden West Matters; 2, 4
58,908
Media & Communications (Contract extension with Communication Resources for WW Matters and Superintendent Projects; 2, 4
32,500
13
Student Services Branch
15
$1,086,379
Improvements at Walden West (Deferred Maintenance Fund Balance); 2, 4
870,000
Online Registration System for Teachers ‐ EducationPreparation for Inclusion Classroom/Local Education Agency Planning (EPIC/LEAP); 2, 4
61,200
Foster Youth Services‐Funding for Emerging Scholars, Summer School Credit Recovery, Facilitation Services, Dental Mobile Van; 1, 2
155,179
Programs Supported by the SCCBOE for Ongoing or Multi‐Year Additional Funding
• Alternative Education to include the new Opportunity Youth Academy‐OYA,Contributions as of 10/31/15:
– Community Schools $1,183,372
– Opportunity Youth Academy $1,075,466
– Juvenile Court Schools $ 547,950
– The contributions fluctuate based on changes in ADA estimates during the year with the final actual ADA calculated on P‐annual
• ROP transition funding 2015‐16 through 2017‐18 $5,560,792
• Educare of SV, 2015‐16 and 2016‐17, for salaries and benefits for staff to augment Early Learning/Head Start services ($750k per year) $1,500,000
• 1% of CSSF expenditures (for calculation) to our Facilities Fund after 4% reserve requirement is met and funding is available (assigned) $2,286,312
• Reduction of Indirect for Walden West from 10.47% to 5% (1 X) $ 142,195
16
14
Technology Services Branch (TSB) Funding History For Contributions for Internal Services
• Prior to 2008‐09, object code 5710‐19 was used to transfer direct costs (expenditures) to programs, and a corresponding credit was booked to reduce expenditures in TSB
• TSB was reimbursed using this object code for services provided to programs such as:
– Maintain/Upgrade Installation for all computers, printers, laptops, servers, lab PC’s,phone, SCCOE maintenance and Internet data communication
– Processing services for accounting, payroll, human Resources and DBAS
– Site support for AED, Headstart, Special Ed, State Preschool, Walden West and a Database Administrator for Migrant Education
• This process of charging individual programs for uniform services provided was extremely tedious and time consuming. Since the majority of the services provided benefited all programs, it was viewed as overhead, therefore covered by indirect
• It was also agreed that due to the indirect rate for the student services programs increasing by 1% each year (not to exceed the SCCOE standard rate of 10.47%), this would generate additional income to Fund 800, so a kickback to TSB for the site support noted above was provided
17
Technology Services Branch (TSB) Funding History For Contributions for Internal Services
18
• Therefore, in 2008‐09, a decision was made to eliminate the use of the 5710‐19 direct charge process and contribute from reserves an amount based on an itemized revenue estimate for the items noted on the prior slide (contribution object code 8980‐89)
• The only time 5710‐19 object code is used is for program specific requests that do not benefit all SCCOE programs
• 2009‐10, Technology Services (at that time known as Regional Technology Center‐RTC), reorganized and became the Technology Services Branch. Previously RTC was part of the Business Services Branch, the name change actually occurred in 2010‐11
• The reorganization continued in 2010‐11 and several of the technology related programs in Fund 800 were moved to TSB with the agreement Fund 800 would contribute the amount of the original expenditure cost for these programs using object code 8980‐90
• TSB also receives revenues from external resources for services to districts
• The revenue and expenditures for internal and external services are tracked separately to maintain a record of fund balance generated from both resources
15
Technology Services Branch Funding From Contributions for Internal Services
• Technology Services; Internal Revenue
– Direct costs for Transfers of Service (8980‐89) $ 3,436,967
– Reorganization Contribution (8980‐90) 775,846
– 901 School Districts (8980‐06) 58,443
Total Internal Revenue Contribution $ 4,271,256
19
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Santa Clara County Office of Ed
ucation
Internal Business Services
2015‐16 $1.4 M
Additional Program
Enhan
cements from Reserves
As of October 31, 2015
Program
Impact Justification
Requested By
Branch
Amount
Requested
Budgeted
White House initiative on Asian
American
and Pacific Islanders provides support
for Asian
Americans and Pacific Islander studen
ts and educators‐COE to offer
workshops
Yee Wan
Educational
Services Branch
$18,228
Learning Multim
edia Cen
ter‐Book Academ
yBeth
Olshew
sky
Educational
Services Branch
$2,500
ESB Support Services‐travel expen
ses for Associate Superintenden
t due to
increased duties
Angelica
Ram
sey, Ed.D.
Educational
Services Branch
$25,000
Learning Multim
edia Cen
ter‐Silicon Valley Reads financial support
Beth
Olshew
sky
Educational
Services Branch
$23,000
Additional Ed Leader21‐reimbursem
ent to Districts for even
t in Dallas
Angelica
Ram
sey, Ed.D.
Educational
Services Branch
$3,000
ALF (American
Leadership Forum) Board Training‐support for Luther Burbank SD
Angelica
Ram
sey, Ed.D.
Educational
Services Branch
$12,500
SEAL (Sobrato Early Academ
ic Language) M
odel‐coverage for subs for SEAL
training, and m
aterials
Angelica
Ram
sey, Ed.D.
Educational
Services Branch
$86,600
USC
Urban
Superintenden
t Academ
y‐reim
burse 5 peo
ple for travel costs accepted
to program
Angelica
Ram
sey, Ed.D.
Educational
Services Branch
$30,000
C&I M
ultilingual Education Services (2015‐16)
1 FTE ‐ Coordinator ‐ 2 years only (2016‐17 ‐ $88,465)
Angelica
Ram
sey, Ed.D.
Educational
Services Branch
$66,349
Educational Service Branch Total
$267,177 Page 1 of 2
29
Santa Clara County Office of Ed
ucation
Internal Business Services
2015‐16 $1.4 M
Additional Program
Enhan
cements from Reserves
As of October 31, 2015
Program
Impact Justification
Requested By
Branch
Amount
Requested
Budgeted
One Time addition of $67,500 for contract with Communication Resources of
Schools to assist with communications assistance related
to W
alden
West matter.
Ken
Blackstone
Office of the
Superintenden
t$58,908
Contract extension with communication resources for schools to continue with
assistance and advertisem
ent related to the Walden
West matter and other
projects designated
by the Superintenden
t
Ken
Blackstone
Office of the
Superintenden
t$32,500
Office of the Superintendent To
tal
$91,408
Improvemen
ts at Walden
West
Mary Ann
Dew
anStuden
t Services
$870,000
EPIC (Educ Prep for Incl Classroom) / LEAP (Leaders in Educational Administration
Program
)Janice Battaglia
Studen
t Services
$61,200
Foster Youth Services
Sonja House
Studen
t Services
$155,179
Student Services Branch Total
$1,086,379
Grand Total for One‐tim
e Costs
$1,444,964
Page 2 of 2
30