Referendum discussion session

School Board Study SessionJuly 27 2010July 27, 2010

Fall 2010 OperatingFall 2010 Operating Referendum Discussion

School Funding Sourcesg For every dollar received:

Other: 16¢

Local: 19¢

Federal: 3¢

St t 6 ¢

9

State: 62¢

* Figures based on 2010‐11 budget

General Fund Expenditures

Di t i t & District

For every dollar spent:


District & Building Admin.

6¢

Support Services: 4¢

Building Operations:

¢

Operations: 13 ¢

Instruction and Student Support: 77¢Support: 77¢

General Fund Expenditures For every dollar spent:


Utilities &

Supplies:4¢

Other Expenses:

3¢

For every dollar spent:

Utilities & Contracted Services:

13¢

3¢

Salaries59¢

Benefits:21¢

General Fund Expenditures-pSalaries• For every dollar spent on Salaries:

Clerical: 4¢Support:

4¢Other: 5¢

• For every dollar spent on Salaries:

Administrators:

Maintenance: 4¢

Paras: 8 ¢

6 ¢

Teachers: 69 ¢

District General Fund Financial Forecast

Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal FiscalYear Year Year Year Year

10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15

Recurring Revenue $129.3M $128.4M $131.2M $134.8M $138.8M

Recurring Expenditures $129 8M $135 5M $137 6M $140 7M $144 4MRecurring Expenditures $129.8M $135.5M $137.6M $140.7M $144.4M

Difference .5M $7.1M $6.4M $5.9M $5.6MReductions to MaintainReductions to Maintain $3.0 M Rev/Exp Variance $4.1M $3.3M $2.9M $3.5MReductions to Maintain 6% Unappropriated Fund Balance $6.0M $7.2M $2.9M

6

State of MinnesotaState of MinnesotaBudget Forecastg

$5.8 Billion deficit projected for the 2012 – 2013 biennium

Area legislators are indicating that education funding will likely be reduced in the next bienniumlikely be reduced in the next biennium

A 10% reduction in the basic funding formula would be g$512.40 per pupil unit, or approximately $9.5 million per year in lost revenue (this is not factored into the long range financial forecast)range financial forecast)

B d t R d tiBudget Reductions2009-2013

‐$9.3 M ‐$4.5 M ‐$5.0 M ‐$3.3 M

2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13

$

Existing Operating Referendum Renewal of expiring referendum passed in 2006

$440.84 per pupil ($452.44 for FY11, $462.98 for FY12)FY12)

Generates approximately $9.3 million per year (FY12) Includes increases for inflation Includes increases for inflation Applicable for nine years Expires after taxes payable in 2016 (FY17)p p y ( )

Request for additional $200 per pupil failed

Comparative Referendum DataComparative Referendum Data Statewide

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

# of School Districts 337 337 337

Districts with Op. Ref. 303 302 296

Rochester Rank in $ per 238 245 238$ pRMCPU 238 245 238

Ave Ref $ per RMCPU (Only District with a Ref) $795.18 $838.00 $835.00(Only District with a Ref)

Rochester Ref $ per RMCPU $442.87 $452.44 $462.98

ff f $ $ $Difference from Average $352.31 $385.56 $372.02

Comparative Referendum DataComparative Referendum Data Largest 13 School Districts

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012Highest Ref $ per RMCPU

(Bloomington) $1,503.11 $1,535.58 $1,571.36(Bloomington)Ave Ref $ per RMCPU $1,023.69 $1,039.24 $1,019.56Rochester Ref $ per

RMCPU $442.87 $452.44 $462.98RMCPU $442.87 $452.44 $462.98

Difference from Highest $1,060.24 $1,083.14 $1,108.38Difference from Average $580 82 $586 80 $556 58Difference from Average $580.82 $586.80 $556.58Rochester Rank in Ref $ per RMCPU (out of 13) 13 13 13

Taxpayer Impact of Add’lReferendum (out of 13) 7 7 7

Largest 13 School DistrictsgFY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Minneapolis $1,200.00 $1,225.92 $1,254.48St. Paul $604.19 $617.24 $631.62

Anoka-Hennepin $1,121.26 $1,175.61 $1,203.00Rosemount $1,042.39 $1,042.39 $1,042.39ose ou $ ,0 39 $ ,0 39 $ ,0 39

Osseo $1,154.29 $1,179.22 $1,206.70S. Washington County $929.44 $929.44 $929.44

Rochester $442 87 $452 44 $462 98Rochester $442.87 $452.44 $462.98Robbinsdale $1,479.81 $1,509.19 $1,541.57

Elk River $697.81 $697.81 $501.90N. St. Paul - Maplewood $833.02 $833.02 $833.02

Lakeville $823.63 $836.02 $599.67Bloomington $1,503.11 $1,535.58 $1,571.36g $ , $ , $ ,

Burnsville $1,476.20 $1,476.20 $1,476.20

Comparative Referendum DataComparative Referendum Data Big Nine Conf. School Districts


(Winona) $1,550.00 $1,550.00 $1,550.00(Winona) $ , $ , $ ,

Ave Ref $ per RMCPU $770.49 $776.81 $721.16Rochester Ref $ per $442 87 $452 44 $462 98RMCPU $442.87 $452.44 $462.98

Difference from Highest $1,107.13 $1,097.56 $1,087.02Difference from Average $327 62 $324 37 $258 18Difference from Average $327.62 $324.37 $258.18Rochester Rank in Ref $

per RMCPU (out of 7) 6 6 6

Taxpayer Impact of Add’lReferendum (out of 7) 5 5 5

Big Nine ConferencegFY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

Rochester $442.87 $452.44 $462.98

Mankato $642.61 $656.49 $671.79

O t $691 04 $691 04 $691 04Owatonna $691.04 $691.04 $691.04

Austin $719.53 $719.53 $666.18

Faribault $385.00 $385.00 $0.00

Winona $1,550.00 $1,550.00 $1,550.00

Albert Lea $962.41 $983.20 $1,006.11

Comparative Referendum DataComparative Referendum Data Southeast MN School Districts


(Winona) $1,550.00 $1,550.00 $1,550.00(Winona) $ , $ , $ ,

Ave Ref $ per RMCPU $677.69 $694.03 $685.77Rochester Ref $ per $442 87 $452 44 $462 98RMCPU $442.87 $452.44 $462.98

Difference from Highest $1,107.13 $1,097.56 $1,087.02

Difference from Average $234.82 $241.59 $222.79

Rochester Rank in Ref $ per RMCPU (out of 41) 28 28 28per RMCPU (out of 41)

Referendum StatisticsReferendum Statistics

Recent Referendum Election TotalsYear # Attempt # Success % Success2004 89 44 49.4%2005 106 78 73.6%2006 86 33 38.4%2007 132 76 57.6%2008 68 30 44.1%2009 78 49 62.8%

2009 Referendum ElectionsTotal # questions presented to voters 78Total # questions passed 49Portion of questions passed 62.8%

Total # of 2nd/3rd questions on ballot 19Total # of 2nd/3rd questions passed 7Total # of 2nd/3rd questions passed 7

Portion of 2nd/3rd questions passed 36.8%

Total # questions failed 29

Total # questions passed - Renewal Only 16

Total # questions passed - Increase 32P ti f ti ti i hi hPortion of questions requesting an increase which passed 52.5%

Average $ Increase Passed $389.29Portion of questions passed which included approve and revoke language (17 of 26) 65.4%

2009 Referendum Elections2009 Referendum ElectionsTotal # districts making requests: 59g q

Total # districts with at least 1 success: 42

Portion of districts with at least 1 success 71.2%Portion of districts with at least 1 success

$63 173 516Revenue requested for 2010-11 $63,173,516

Revenue granted for 2010-11 $34,691,760

Portion of revenue granted 54.9%

2009 Referendum Elections2009 Referendum Elections# Questions # Passing % Passingg g

Total metro: 12 10 83.3%

Total nonmetro: 66 39 59 1%Total nonmetro: 66 39 59.1%

All questions: 78 49 62.8%

With inflation adjustment 21 10 47.6%

Without inflation adjustment 57 39 68.4%

All questions: 78 49 62.8%

2009 Referendum Elections2009 Referendum Elections# Questions # Passing % Passing

Effective for 1 year: 0 0 n/aEffective for 2 years: 1 0 0.0%Eff ti f 3 3 1 33 3%Effective for 3 years: 3 1 33.3%Effective for 4 years: 0 0 n/aEffective for 5 years: 20 11 55 0%Effective for 5 years: 20 11 55.0%Effective for 6 years: 6 3 50.0%Effective for 7 years: 6 5 83.3%ect e o yea s 6 5 83 3%Effective for 8 years: 4 4 100.0%Effective for 9 years: 1 1 100.0%Effective for 10 years: 37 24 64.9%

2009 Referendum Elections2009 Referendum Elections# Questions # Pass % Pass

Net increase <$100.00 5 5 100.0%

Net increase $100.00 - $199.99 11 8 72.7%

N t i $200 00 $299 99 19 8 42 1%Net increase $200.00 - $299.99 19 8 42.1%

Net increase $300.00 - $399.99 13 5 38.5%

Net increase $400 00 $499 99 5 3 60 0%Net increase $400.00 - $499.99 5 3 60.0%

Net increase $500.00 - $599.99 8 7 87.5%

Net increase $600.00 - $699.99 3 3 100.0%Net increase $600.00 $699.99 3 3 100.0%

Net increase $700.00 - $799.99 3 3 100.0%

Net increase $800.00 - $899.99 2 1 50.0%

Net increase >= $900.00 9 6 66.7%

Operating Referendum p gRecommendation

Two Ballot Questions

Q i # 1 Addi i l F d b l h Question # 1: Additional Funds necessary to balance the General Fund Budget through 2013 – 2014 *

Question # 2: Additional Funds necessary to balance the General Fund Budget through 2014 – 2015 *

* Based upon current State funding formulas


Question # 1: Additional Funds necessary to balance the General Fund Budget through 2013-2014

$686 per RMCPU for 10 years, in addition to existing referendum

Generates approximately $13,271,000 additional revenue annually (based upon current projection of FY14 RMCPU)


Question #2: Additional Funds beyond the amount requested in Question #1 necessary to balance the General Fund budget through 2014-2015.g g

Conditional upon the passage of Question #1

$123 per RMCPU for 10 years

Generates approximately $2,422,000 additional revenue annually (based upon current projection of FY15 RMCPU)RMCPU)

Revenue Impact of 2% annualRevenue Impact of 2% annual formula allowance increase

Fiscal Year Actual / Projected * Allowance

Allowance if 2% Annual Increase

Received from State

Additional Revenue per

Pupil UnitAllowance Received from State Pupil Unit

2007-2008 $5,074 $5,074 $02008-2009 $5,124 $5,175 $51$ , $ , $2009-2010 $5,124 $5,279 $2062010-2011 $5,124 $5,385 $2612011-2012 $5,124 * $5,492 $3682012-2013 $5,124 * $5,602 $4782013 2014 $5 124 * $5 714 $5902013-2014 $5,124 * $5,714 $5902014-2015 $5,124 * $5,828 $704

Ballot RecommendationBallot Recommendation Question #1:

$1 149 per RMCPU ($12 810 million new $ for FY12) $1,149 per RMCPU ($12.810 million new $ for FY12) 10 Years Include inflationary increase Revoke Existing levy authority (net incr. of $686 per

RMCPU) Effective for taxes payable in 2011Effective for taxes payable in 2011

Question #2: Contingent upon passage of question #1 $123 per RMCPU ($2.300 million new $ for FY12) 10 years Include inflationary increase Include inflationary increase Effective for taxes payable in 2011

Tax ImpactQuestion 1Question 1

Ref. Market ValueLevy Revocation

($462.98)New Levy $1,148.98 Est. Total Increase

(6 8) 66 8 75,000 (67.08) 166.48 99.40 100,000 (89.45) 221.98 132.53 120,000 (107.33) 266.37 159.04 140 000 (125 22) 310 77 185 55 140,000 (125.22) 310.77 185.55 160,000 (143.11) 355.17 212.05 180,000 (161.00) 399.56 238.56 200,000 (178.89) 443.96 265.06 200,000 (178.89) 443.96 265.06 220,000 (196.78) 488.35 291.57 250,000 (223.61) 554.95 331.33 300,000 (268.34) 665.93 397.60 3 3 5 93 39350,000 (313.06) 776.92 463.86 400,000 (357.78) 887.91 530.13 450,000 (402.51) 998.90 596.40

( )500,000 (447.23) 1,109.89 662.66 750,000 (670.84) 1,664.84 993.99

1,000,000 (894.46) 2,219.78 1,325.32

Tax ImpactQuestion 1 Question 2Question 1 Question 2

ReferendumMarket Value

New Levy $686.00

New Levy $123

Total EstimatedImpact

75,000 99.40 17.82 117.22,100,000 132.53 23.76 156.30120,000 159.04 28.52 187.55140,000 185.55 33.27 218.81160,000 212.05 38.02 250.07180,000 238.56 42.77 281.33200,000 265.06 47.53 312.59220 000 291 57 52 28 343 85220,000 291.57 52.28 343.85250,000 331.33 59.41 390.74300,000 397.60 71.29 468.89350 000 463 86 83 17 547 03350,000 463.86 83.17 547.03400,000 530.13 95.05 625.18450,000 596.40 106.93 703.33500,000 662.66 118.82 781.48500,000 662.66 118.82 781.48750,000 993.99 178.22 1,172.22

1,000,000 1,325.32 237.63 1,562.95

How America’s Public Schools Continue to Feel the Impact of

the Economic Downturnthe Economic Downturn

1,479 Districts ,479In 48 States

Personnel-Related Budget CutsPersonnel Related Budget Cuts

08 09 09 10 10 11

Other Districts(Anticipated)

Furloughs 4% 12% 34%

L ff 12% 33% 60%

08‐09 09‐10 10‐11RPS 09‐11

Lay‐offs 12% 33% 60%

Freezing professional 7% 24% 52% service contracts

Reduced support personnel 11% 39% 62%

Reduced outside consultants 10% 34% 54%

Reduced non‐inst. hiring 12% 40% 61%

Reduced benefits/health 5% 12% 46%

Reduced benefits/pension .7% 3% 20%

Curriculum-Related Budget CutsgOther Districts

(Anticipated)

Increased class size 9% 26% 62%Delayed/eliminated instructional strategies 9% 22% 50%

08‐09 09‐10 10‐11RPS 09‐11( p )

Delayed/eliminated instructional strategies 9% 22% 50%Reduced non‐academic programs 8% 24% 50%Reduced academic programs 5% 20% 46%Id if i id d 8% % %Identifying non‐resident students 8% 14% 21%Reduced elective courses 6% 16% 51%

not required for graduationDelayed textbook purchases 14% 32% 52%Reduced high‐cost course offerings 4% 12% 39%Reduced instructional materials 13% * 53%3 53Reduced field trips 11% 24% 51%

* Not Available

Operations-Related Budget Cutsp gOther Districts

(Anticipated)

4‐day work week during the summer 12% 14% 27%4‐day school week 2% 2% 13%

08‐09 09‐10 10‐11RPS 09‐11( p )

4 day school week 2% 2% 13%Cut summer school 8% 14% 34%Reduced transportation costs 10% 20% 38%E i l i i i 8% 8% %Extracurricular activities cuts 8% 18% 52%Reduced consumable supplies 18% 37% 58%Delayed technology purchases 13% 29% 57%Cut non‐essential travel 20% 45% 57%Purchasing co‐ops 35% 35% 46%Reduced collaboration time 5% 11% 30% Reduced collaboration time 5% 11% 30%

within the school day

Information gathered for future budget reductions

PERSONNEL‐Related Budget CutsAASA Survey Reduction Areas # of Explore # of AASA Survey Reduction Areas this area

further √Circled √

1) Furloughs (temporary non-paid leave of absence, can be one or more days)

208 102one or more days)2) Lay-offs (permanent reduction in work force) 34 143) Freeze Professional Service Contracts (negotiated 335 160contracts to provide professional support services, i.e. legal and auditing services)

335 160

4) Reduce Support Personnel (non-teaching professional t l)

85 28support personnel)5) Reduce Outside Consultants (staff development) 617 4126) Reduce Staff-level Hiring (not filling vacant non- 218 846) educe Sta e e g ( ot g aca t oinstructional positions)

218 84

7) Reduce Benefits/Health (changes in benefit coverage and direct costs to the employee)

36 12

8) Reduce Benefits/Pension (reduction in retirement contributions)

23 7

PERSONNEL‐Related Budget CutsPERSONNEL‐Related Budget CutsAreas That Were Previously Considered by RPS Budget Reduction Committees, But Were Not Implemented

# of Explore this area

# of Circled √Reduction Committees, But Were Not Implemented

further √

9) Reduce District and/or Building Administration 383 22610) Reduce Contracted Days 232 11210) Reduce Contracted Days 232 11211) Reduce Support Staff (non-teaching professional support personnel)

94 28

12) Reduce Reading Staffing 54 1913) Pay Freeze 152 5514) Reduce Professional Service Contracts 354 164

Totals 2825 1423A erage 201 101Average 201 101

OPERATIONS‐Related Budget CutsAASA Survey Reduction Areas # of Explore

thi # of

Circled √AASA Survey Reduction Areas this area further √

Circled √

1) 4‐Day Work Week during the Summer (4 ten hour days) 541 280) D S h l W k ( li i t d l th th i i f ) 400 2212) 4‐Day School Week (eliminate one day, lengthen the remaining four) 400 221

3) Cut Summer School (primarily funded through ALC funds, therefore, minimal impact on the general fund for RPS)

162 34

) R d T t ti C t ( h th lk b d i d i 362 1324) Reduce Transportation Costs (change the walk boundaries, reducing routes and availability)

362 132

5) Extra Curricular Activities Cuts (sports and activities) 294 1076) R d C bl S li ( li d h d t i l th t 204 446) Reduce Consumable Supplies (supplies and purchased materials that are consumed during the year)

204 44

7) Delay Technology Purchases (funded through the operating capital budget, no impact on the general fund in RPS)

183 37g p g

8) Cut Non‐Essential Travel (travel that is not mandatory or absolutely necessary)

675 317

9) Purchasing Co‐ops (cooperative opportunities with other districts to i b i d d )

415 124increase buying power and reduce costs)

10) Reduce Collaboration Time within the School Day (common time for teacher teams to meet)

209 43

OPERATIONS‐Related Budget CutsOPERATIONS‐Related Budget CutsAreas That Were Previously Considered by RPS Budget Reduction Committees, But Were Not Implemented



further √

11) Close Buildings 191 10012) Reduce the Undesignated Fund Balance (one 108 3412) Reduce the Undesignated Fund Balance (one-time source of funds)

108 34

13) Reduce Transportation Costs 344 13014) Reduce Athletic, Co-Curricular, and Extra-Curricular Activities

278 107

15) Four-Day Work Week 393 155) y 393 15516) Reduce Supply Budgets 157 48

Totals 4856 1913Average 303 119

CURRICULUM‐Related Budget CutgAASA Survey Reduction Areas # of Explore

this area further √

# of Circled √

1) Increased Class Size (reduced teaching staff) 54 272) Delay/Eliminate Inst. Strategies (delay new purchases or eliminate current programs)

198 923) Reduce Non-Academic Programs (after school and Saturday enrichment programs, no impact on the general fund in RPS)

159 604) Identifying Non-Resident Students (RPS currently receives funds for non resident students so there is no negative impact on the

104 50for non-resident students, so there is no negative impact on the general fund)5) Reduce Elective Courses (reduce courses not required for graduation)

169 696) Delay Textbook Purchase (funded through operating capital budget, no impact on the general fund in RPS)

217 977) Reduce High-Cost Course Offerings 284 1148) Reduce Instructional Materials (supporting materials for student instruction)

68 159) Reduce Field Trips 325 128

CURRICULUM‐Related Budget CutCURRICULUM‐Related Budget CutAreas That Were Previously Considered by RPS Budget Reduction Committees, But Were Not Implemented



further √

10) Reduce and/or Eliminate Curricular Programs 76 2411) Implement Alternate Secondary Schedule 217 12011) Implement Alternate Secondary Schedule 217 12012) Reduce Graduation Credit Requirements 116 5513) Implement Alternate Kindergarten Schedule 255 13613) Implement Alternate Kindergarten Schedule 255 13614) Reduce and/or Eliminate Newly Added Programs 204 7315) Reduce Inter-School Transportation for Academic 350 175) pPurposes

350 175

Totals 2796 1235A erage 186 82Average 186 82

T Ch iTop Choices

PERSONNEL‐Related Budget CutsPERSONNEL‐Related Budget Cuts

AASA Survey Reduction Areas # of Explore this area further √

# of Circled

√

1) Furloughs (temporary non paid leave 208 1021) Furloughs (temporary non-paid leave of absence, can be one or more days)

208 102

2) Freeze Professional Service 335 160)Contracts (negotiated contracts to provide professional support services, i e legal and auditing services)

335 160

i.e. legal and auditing services)3) Reduce Outside Consultants (staff development)

617 412)

PERSONNEL‐Related Budget CutsPERSONNEL‐Related Budget Cuts

h lAreas That Were Previously Considered by RPS Budget

Reduction Committees But Were # f E l # of Reduction Committees, But Were Not Implemented

# of Explore this area further √

# of Circled

√

4) Reduce District and/or Building 383 2264) Reduce District and/or Building Administration

383 226

5) R d C t t d D 232 1125) Reduce Contracted Days 232 112

OPERATIONS‐Related Budget Cuts

AASA Survey Reduction Areas # of Explore this area further √

# of Circled

√

1) 4-Day Work Week during the Summer (4 ten hour days)

541 280( y )

2) 4-Day School Week (eliminate one day, lengthen the remaining four)

400 221y, g g )

3) Reduce Transportation Costs (change the walk boundaries, reducing routes and

362 132, g

availability)

4) Cut Non-Essential Travel (travel that is 675 3174) Cut Non Essential Travel (travel that is not mandatory or absolutely necessary)

675 317

CURRICULUM‐Related Budget Cutg

AASA S R d ti A # of Explore # of AASA Survey Reduction Areas # of Explore this area further √

# of Circled

√

1) Delay/Eliminate Inst. Strategies (delay 198 92) y g ( ynew purchases or eliminate current programs)

198 92

2) D l T tb k P h (f d d 217 972) Delay Textbook Purchase (funded through operating capital budget, no impact on the general fund in RPS)

217 97

p g )3) Reduce High-Cost Course Offerings 284 1144) Reduce Field Trips 325 128)

CURRICULUM‐Related Budget CutCURRICULUM‐Related Budget Cut

A Th t W P i l Areas That Were Previously Considered by RPS Budget Reduction Committees, But

# of Explore # of Reduction Committees, But

Were Not ImplementedExplore this area further √

Circled √

5) Implement Alternate Secondary 217 120) p ySchedule

217 120

6) Implement Alternate Kindergarten S h d l

255 136Schedule7) Reduce Inter-School Transportation for Academic Purposes

350 175for Academic Purposes

Referendum discussion session

News & Politics

Transcript of Referendum discussion session