Fiscal advisory council report 2013

Fiscal Advisory Council Annual Report

The Fiscal Advisory Council’s recommendations for development of the 2013-14 budget

June 2013

2

OverviewCommitment and charge

District’s commitment to community processDuring the last decade, state and federal funding failed to keep pace with increasing K-12 operational costs. Additionally, federal and state funds for K-12 schools have been deeply cut, and in some cases, eliminated. In the face of continual funding cuts, Everett Public Schools has reduced expenses for the last eight years. In 2009, the district was forced to make the largest reduction in recent history – $9 million to prepare for school year 2009-10. On the heels of that $9 million reduction, the district again reduced expenses for 2010-11 by $3.8 million. In 2011-12, the cuts totaled $4.1 million. Each time, the district sought to protect classrooms, teachers, instructional programs, instructional support and class size, and to ensure that students are able to learn in safe, clean and nurturing schools. In fall 2009, the superintendent convened an ongoing Fiscal Advisory Council (FAC) to give perspective and advice to prepare budget reductions for the superintendent to consider before presenting his recommendations to the school board.

The FAC’s charge – what the superintendent asked us to do

The FAC’s work is integral to the district’s annual budget development process. For the last five years, the FAC has helped make difficult recommendations about cuts of nearly $17 million worth of educational programs. The FAC process incorporates public engagement to ensure that its decisions consider public expectations for schools. The superintendent has defined the FAC “charge” as the following directives:

• Focus on student achievement – Balance district programs to support each student’s unique achievement needs. Student achievement depends on both academic programs tailored to each student’s success and on extracurricular activities, adequate supervision and student safety, and learning in clean and supportive schools. The council must acknowledge that classroom support is an educational necessity, and that such support ranges from maintenance and personnel to curriculum and assessment.

• Commit to big-picture thinking – The General Fund is supported by a multitude of state, federal and local revenue sources with a variety of specific, legally-defined spending and reporting requirements. Equally complex are the regulatory requirements associated with education.

• Evaluate the need for program reductions – In the development of the 2013-14 operating budget, the FAC should present to the superintendent recommendations that: fully consider the impact of past reductions made in 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011; respect the parameters used by prior budget advisory committees and FAC groups, and; engage in active discussions, and request additional data as necessary to make informed recommendations for future action.

• Develop an annual work plan – Aligned with the annual budget development cycle, the work plan should identify key milestones for critical information and decisions necessary to develop a list of recommendations by early May 2013.

• Commit to ongoing participation through 2014 – The council will continue to meet as needed to support final 2013-14 budget development and to provide fiscal recommendations that respond to legislative outcomes, significant shifts in available resources and significant shifts in expenditures.

• Focus on student achievement

• Commit to big-picture thinking

• Evaluate the need for program reductions

• Develop an annual work plan

• Commit to on-going participation

3Fiscal Advisory Council Report - June 2013

Composition of the FACThe FAC is a group that reviews district instructional and operational programs and makes recommendations to the superintendent annually to support fiscal budget adoption.

The FAC includes community members students, and key staff representation to integrate a range of education and community input essential to successful fiscal planning. The FAC is designed to retain a number of members each year, while rotating in new members annually, thus expanding the level of expertise among community and staff and broadening knowledge about school finance.

FAC recommendations are advisory; they are written as a priority set of budget restorations and enhancements that district leadership and the superintendent could consider presenting to the school board. Historically, the superintendent has fully considered and highly valued the recommendations of all district advisory councils.

OverviewComposition and fiscal outlook

Fiscal Advisory Council MembersJamell Carroll Community Member Everett Church of Christ

Lori Kloes Community Member Providence General Foundation

Caroline Mason Community Member Motion Marketing

Angie Sievers Community Member Parent

Eric Sprink Community Member Coastal Community Bank

Ted Wenta Community Member YMCA Snohomish County

Liz Colling Student Sequoia High School

Allison Hatloe Student Everett High School

Bria Jeanice Student Cascade High School

Sri Nimmagadda Student HM Jackson High School

Kim Mead Representative Everett Education Association

Patty Ann Toomey Representative Classified Staff

Kert Lenseigne Principal View Ridge Elementary School

Mary O’Brien Principal North Middle School

Cathy Woods Principal Cascade High School

Peter Scott Assistant Superintendent K-12 Education - South

Catherine Matthews Interim Associate Superintendent Curriculum Alignment & Implementation

Lynn Evans Executive Director Human Resources

Mike Gunn Executive Director Facilities and Operations

Kris McDowell Executive Director Special Services

Jeff Moore Chair -- Executive Director Finance and Operations

Fiscal outlook

State overviewState and federal cuts over the past several years have had a negative impact on student achievement for students in Washington. The Washington Supreme Court filed its decision in the case of McCleary v. State on January 5, 2012. The Court concluded that the State of Washington has not complied with its duty, under article IX, section 1, of the Washington Constitution, to make ample provision for the education of all children in the State. While the 2013 legislative session is underway and response to McCleary is prevalent in debate, the deadline for full compliance is 2018.

Sequestration The focus of federal funding is on our most vulnerable students. Without question, even the smallest reduction will result in lost opportunities for countless children across our state and country. (Appendix A)

4

FAC’s recommendations to the superintendent

Given the legislative decisions to date, the legal requirements of the McCleary decision, the economic outlook and the district’s financial management and oversight strengths, the FAC makes the following recommendations to the superintendent:

• Ensure that any restoration or enhancement of programs focus on the strategic plan, because ... with a history of nearly $17 million in reductions over the last three years, there may be pressure, to restore exactly what has been cut. Thoughtful consideration of student learning needs, strategic targets, and efficiencies gained will better lead student success.

• Enhance student learning by focusing investments in the classroom, because ... with previous cuts over the years, class sizes have risen and classroom support systems have been diminished.

• Preserve the organization’s fiscal stability, because ... the economic outlook, while less dire than in recent years, is slow to progress. The House and Senate budgets propose some new funding but are far from the full funding of basic education for all students in Washington state that the McCleary decision calls for. The Supreme Court provided the Legislature until 2018 to comply with the Joint Task Force full funding model and new funds proposed by the House and Senate budgets are minimal in comparison.

• Align restorations and enhancements with priorities identified in the 2013-14 budget priority matrix (chart on next page), because ... to complete the prioritization process, the FAC organized defined restoration and enhancements in groups of $500,000 increments, totaling $3 million of possible additions in support of strategic targets and operational needs. The lack of legislative progress combined with the statutory requirements to make a preliminary budget available prior to July 10 of each year, necessitates the FAC to complete the final report prior to the end of the special session. Since a second session is likely, the FAC has prioritized their recommendations so they can be swiftly enacted upon final legislative outcomes.

• Reconvene the FAC if legislative actions between now and the end of the special session negatively impact district finances, because ... five years of FAC work and collaboration have created a resource of knowledge and district-wide perspective that can help district leaders react quickly to support informed decisions that minimize impact to district progress.

RecommendationsIncremental restoration and enhancmentFiscal Advisory Council’s consensus statement

The members acknowledge our role as an advisory committee with the purpose of offering recommendations to district leadership and superintendent regarding future fiscal priorities, operational efficiencies and potential program reductions. Each council member is representative of a larger group with its own purpose, role and perspective within the school district and greater Everett community. Our diversity is one of our strengths. We reach recommendations based upon a deliberate process and foundation of education, discussion, and public input. Although any one individual recommendation herein may not represent, or meet with, universal or unanimous approval, we do attest as a group that the recommendations as a whole are the result of a thoughtful process that led to an overall consensus in an environment in which each individual member’s perspective was shared and heard. These recommendations are offered in a spirit of collaboration and represent our best efforts to reach a balanced proposal while honoring the district’s mission of educating each child to high standards.


RecommendationsBudget priority matrix for restorations/enhancements

A word of appreciationThe FAC commends the superintendent and board for engaging representatives of our community, employee groups, students, and administrators in this highly collaborative process. We appreciate the commitment of time, energy, and talent to develop an open and transparent process to support informed decision making.

Respectfully, The Fiscal Advisory Council

Program Resotrations/Enhancements Strategic Target

1 Five middle school math teaching positions 1.2.b Increased rigor in curriculum and course offerings

2One high school world language teacher 1.2.a Equitable access to courses

High school Advanced Placement SpringBoard program 1.2.b Increased rigor in curriculum and course offerings

Teacher Principal Evaluation Process (TPEP) support (partial) 3.4.a Objective standards-based staff assessment system

3

Middle school WA State history sections 1.1.a 100% of students graduate

K-3 literacy support training 1.2.c Common content and outcomes are provided

Elementary tutorial and enrichment paraeducators 1.5.a Meet state and federal yearly progress requirements

Teacher Principal Evaluation Process (TPEP) support (additional) 3.4.a Objective standards-based staff assessment system

One elementary assistant principal 4.1.a Student learning priorities drive planning

Special education safety net staffing model 4.2.a Long and Short-term funding opportunities are identified annually

4

High school world language and advanced placement teachers 1.1.d Graduation requires 21st century skills

One math instructional facilitator 1.3.a Rigorous and engaging instruction is demonstrated

Human resources employment support 3.4.a Objective standards-based staff assessment system

One custodial supervisor 3.4.b High performing workforce

School materials, supplies, and operating costs (MSOC) (partial) 4.1.a Student learning priorities drive planning

Elementary school supervision paraeducators 4.1.a Student learning priorities drive planning

5

Activities and athletic stipends (partial) 1.3.b Students are engaged and successful learners

Curriculum software support staffing models 2.3.c Improved access to technology

Health room assistant hours 3.5.a Organizational effectiveness measures developed

Office support at large schools 3.5.a Organizational effectiveness measures developed

Substitute custodian for high schools 3.5.a Organizational effectiveness measures developed

Elementary custodian hours 3.5.a Organizational effectiveness measures developed

Office support for departments and programs 3.5.a Organizational effectiveness measures developed

6

Activities and athletic stipends (additional) 1.3.b Students are engaged and successful learners

Department/program materials, supplies, and operating costs 3.5.a Organizational effectiveness measures developed

One purchasing buyer position 3.5.a Organizational effectiveness measures developed

Secondary counseling 1.3.b Students are engaged and successful learners

One maintenance mechanic position 3.5.a Organizational effectiveness measures developed

School materials, supplies, and operating costs (MSOC) 3.5.a Organizational effectiveness measures developed

OPER

ATIO

NS

AREA

OF FO

CUS S

HIFT

S IN

STRU

CTIO

N

6

Development ProcessOctober through February

FAC’s work timeline

Each spring, the annual operating budget is developed as a plan for how the district will use its resources to support student learning in the next school year. While that budget is being drafted and even after it is approved, several outside factors impact that process and require continual monitoring and adjustments. Developing the 2013-14 budget began in October 2012.

The FAC reconvened in October 2012 to assess and prioritize all district programs based upon Strategic Plan Goal 4.1, “Resources are aligned to student learning, and allocation is based upon long-term, broad, cross-boundary needs and goals.” The FAC worked to respond to what might be negative impacts of the regular 2013 60-day legislative session, and to the timing required to write a 2013-14 school year budget. The budget status and fiscal outlook were presented to the board at the October 9 regular board meeting.

In November and December 2012, the FAC reviewed prior reductions and continued monitoring legislative activities, aware that the 2013 legislative session must address their constitutional obligation to fully fund K-12 education as defined in ESHB 2261 by 2018. To support this process, the board discussed, at the November 13 board meeting, the district’s legislative priorities for the legislative session.

In January 2013, the FAC met to review the outgoing governor’s budget and the time line for the new governor’s budget, House and Senate budgets, and to discuss the opportunities and challenges that could lie ahead regarding federal sequestration on March 1.

At a board study session on February 5, 2013, the board was updated on a number of topics to support the budget development process. The potential landscape at both the state and federal level, combined with the sluggish economic recovery, created a wide range of possible outcomes. In the second phase of a five-phase process, the board was presented with Part I of the budget development to convey the broad range of potential outcomes, establish deep understanding of how the operating budget supports district program commitments, to review the cumulative effect of past reductions and the limited options for additional cuts, to consider to what extent past cuts are sustainable, and to better prepare the board to make difficult program choices in support of the strategic plan.

The five phases of the annual budget development cycle:

Phase one--October-DecemberState revenue forecast, issuance of governor’s budget, and financial forecasting

Phase two--January-MayFAC continual assessment of district programs and further engagement of board in guiding strategic direction

Phase three--June/JulyFormal development of the operating budget, budget hearing, and adoption

Phase four--July/AugustMaking all operational adjustments to align with formal budget adoption

Phase five--SeptemberComplex, eight-day, school by school assessment of staffing based on student enrollment, making adjustments as necessary

http://www.everett.k12.wa.us/finance/Budget


Development ProcessMarch through April

In March 2013, the Superintendent’s Leadership Team (SLT) and the FAC both participated in an exercise to begin mapping the strategic priorities of the district. Using a matrix of increasing urgency and increasing priority, members were asked to place stickers labeled with key strategic target areas on the map based on each area’s priority and urgency. Results of both groups were compiled and put into a graph format to visualize which key strategic areas had the highest priority and urgency levels.

The board was provided a fiscal update on March 26, 2013, which indicated that the 2013 legislative session continued to demonstrate a significant level of unpredictability in comparison to prior sessions. The McCleary decision weighed heavily on both the House and Senate, although there was a disagreement in how to respond to this unprecedented Supreme Court decision. This suggested a wide range of possible outcomes that would influence our state and local revenues for the next biennium. School districts prepared to make further cuts, while concurrently planning for the possibility of adding or enhancing instructional programs. In addition, districts were preparing for varying levels of impact from federal sequestration. Accordingly, most waited for more specific state and federal information before developing 2013-14 operating budgets.

The 2013 105-day legislative session adjourned on April 28, with major unfinished business. The McCleary decision continued to weigh heavily on the legislature as demonstrated by the down payment on education of $1.16 billion by the House and $1.0 billion by the Senate. While the total investment amount from each legislative body was similar, many differences remained. Governor Inslee announced a 30-day special session, scheduled to begin on May 13, 2013. While a second 30-day session is possible, most believed that an agreement could be reached by early June. Both House and Senate budgets identify enough additional revenues for the district that further program cuts appear unlikely.

To prepare for potential additional district funding, in April 2013 the superintendent’s cabinet and the FAC both participated in an exercise to begin mapping the district’s strategic priorities once again. This time the groups used a matrix of increasing funding and increasing urgency. Members were asked to place stickers labeled with restoration or enhancements of key strategic target areas on the map based on each area’s urgency and funding needs. Results were mapped to help determine strategic areas with the highest need for funding and urgency. (Appendix B)

8

Development ProcessMay 8, 2013

On May 8, 2013, the board was presented with Part II of the budget development and were provided with legislative updates, which at that time, there was positive news that the House and Senate budgets both proposed increased transportation and MSOC funding and proposed state levy limits to increase access to voter-approved funds.

Using the results of prior exercises by the FAC, SLT, and superintendent’s cabinet, a funding matrix was developed. Using the funding matrix, the board participated in a budget workshop to identify board preferences for areas to consider for further reduction, funding maintenance, restoration or enhancement. Board members were asked to use Post-It notes to identify questions or make comments about the matrix and use colored dots to identify their top two preferences within each funding priority level.

Board

members

participate

in guiding

strategic

direction

May 8, 2013Special board meeting budget workshop

Annual

Budget

Development

Cycle

Phase 2

http://www.everett.k12.wa.us/finance/Budget


Development ProcessMay 22, 2013

In late May 2013, the superintendent’s cabinet and FAC both participated in an exercise to help further prioritize funding for key strategic target areas.

In a scenario providing funds in $500,000 increments, members were given coupons printed with key target areas and pre-selected dollar values assigned to them. Members were asked to place $500,000 in coupons of most importance into the first bucket labeled $0 to $500,000.

Next, a scenario that would provide an additional $500,000 in funding (for a total of $1,000,000), members were asked to place another $500,000 in coupons (of those remaining) into the second bucket labeled $500,000 to $1,000,000.

This exercise was repeated two more times, in $500,000 increments, up to additional funding in the amount of $2,000,000.

May 22, 2013FAC exercise to determine budget priorities for restorations/enhancements

10

The legislative divide and the state’s inaction has stalled the budget development process, delaying the first reading of the 2013-14 budget to July 2 and the final adoption to August 27, 2013.

Both House and Senate budgets identify additional funding for maintenance, supplies, and operational costs (MSOC) as well as additional funding for transportation. (source OSPI)

There are concerns, however, that legislators disagree on how to fund budget proposals and that some legislative budget proposals require local levy contributions.

Based upon current information, our conservative estimate for funding next year’s budget would result in a “break-even” situation. Legislature could shift current MSOC and transporation funding to more prescriptive programs. The House and Senate disagree on other discretionary funding, but both rely heavily on new, unidentified revenue. The conference budget could come in late June 11; however, it now appears a second special session is likely.

Development ProcessJune through August

http://www.k12.wa.us/SAFS/13budprp.asp


School districts operations (general fund) have three sources of revenue(Appendix C)

LOCALLocal revenues equal approximately one third of the general fund income. The majority of this is from local property taxes. Other non tax local resources include lunch fees, fines, summer school, tuition-based all day kindergarten, rental income, interest earnings, and donations.

STATEThe largest source of general fund revenue, 64 percent, comes from the state in two areas: state general purpose funds, called “state apportionment,” and state special purpose funds, called “categorical program funding.” The amount each district receives is based upon the annual average number of students enrolled in the district and a series of formulas that consider base set salaries, the collective education and experience of teachers, employee benefits and materials, as well as supplies and operating cost allocations. These formulas are set by the state legislature. State special purpose funds support programs such as special education, student transportation, transitional bilingual, and learning assistance. Most of this money is designated for specific programs and cannot be used for other purposes.

FEDERALFederal funds are the smallest source of revenue for the district and equal only about seven percent of the district’s budget. Federal funds support specialized programs that are designated to support school improvement (Title II), disadvantaged students (Title I), and students with limited English proficiency (Title III). In addition, federal funds provide free and reduced price lunch programs as well as supplemental funds for special education. Federal funds are very restrictive and can only be used for specifically designated programs.

Revenues are designated to five separate funds:(Appendix C)

School districts in Washington state have five separate funds to conduct district business. State and federal laws specify how these funds can be used. The five state-mandated funds are:

General fund, the operating budget which guides our day to day activities; Capital projects fund, which covers our long-term school construction and repair needs and cannot be spent on school operations; Debt service fund, which we use to pay the principal and interest on bonds we issue to finance school construction and renovation;Associated student body fund (ASB), which accounts for each middle and high school’s extracurricular activities; andTransportation vehicle fund, which provides for the purchase of school buses.

For more in-depth and detailed discussion, financial information, and other data, please see the district’s award winning, “Comprehensive Annual Financial Report” (CAFR) which is available online, with other pertinent financial information, on the “Everett Public Schools: Departments: Finance” page.

Public School FundingEverett Public Schools budget

http://docushare.everett.k12.wa.us/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-44483/Everett%2520Public%2520Schools%2520CAFR%25202011-2012.pdf

http://www.everett.k12.wa.us/finance/

12

Consistent local voter support has stabilized district finances and made continuous student achievement possible. As state and federal revenues decline, local support is even more important because $1 out of every $5 comes from the local Educational Programs and Operations Levy.

The district’s 2010-16 Technology Action Plan (TAP) goals are designed to improve access to technology, improve technology literacy of students, and integrate the skills and proficiency of staff. The first two years of TAP rollouts so far include new computers, printers, projectors, laptops and school multi-media kits that include iPads, NOOKs, digital cameras, MOBI View tablets and e-Instruction clickers. TAP funding is possible because of voter approval of the 2010 Building Repair and Technology Levy.

Also paramount to individual school operations is the backing of numerous school support organizations including Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) and booster organizations that support academics, club activities, and athletics.

The Everett Public Schools Foundation is a nonprofit organization solely dedicated to support Everett Public Schools students. Each year, the Foundation provides dozens of classroom grants to enrich learning and scholarships for all day kindergarten and summer school for families needing that help.

The district is also fortunate to have a dedicated group of community and student volunteers who carry out a multitude of support activities.

Public School FundingLocal community support is important

Community

Investment:

Everett Public

Schools has a

strong history

of local support

for educational

program and

operation levies,

capital levies,

and bonds.

Jefferson

Elementary School

2012-13 Green Team

For example, each day, elementary school “Green Teams” help collect and sort food items for compost and sort recycling items from trash. Their work is not only making the world a better place, it is saving money the district used to spend to haul trash.

Jefferson Elementary School’s Green Team is nearly 100 members strong. Student teams rotate weekly, sorting through trash and pulling out recyclables, including the metallic juice pouches which are sent to Terra Cycle for cash. Their last shipment totaled 18 pounds and earned $50 cash which was donated to the Jefferson Elementary PTA. The PTA provides the Green Team with gloves, shirts, and other items to make it a positive experience.

http://www.everett.k12.wa.us/help/Home


OSPI compiles financial information about every school district in the state and publishes financial data on the OSPI website. Using that information, it is possible to compare how districts spend money in various categories. The chart below shows that Everett Public Schools compares favorably to the state’s other similarly sized districts with student populations between 10,000 and 20,000 students.

Public School FundingHow Everett Public Schools compares to others

More details for each category above, including the comparison districts of our size, the rank of each district in those categories, and a visual comparison can be found in the charts in Appendix D.

This chart is a representation of specific categories of spending and does not represent all areas of measurement. These categories and others may be found at the following link: Source: OSPI website http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/FIN/1112/fs.asp

Spending Category What is included in this category

% of general fund spent by Everett

Public Schools

Average % spent by similarly

sized districts

What this says about Everett Public Schools

Teaching and classroom support

Teachers, paraeducators, supplies, coaches, activity advisors, librarians, counselors, student security, psychologists, speech, and health services

72.3 % 69.6 % Everett Public Schools spends more on teaching and classrooms than 15 of the districts of the state’s 21 school districts of comparable size.

Just classroom support

Librarians, counseling, student security, recess supervision, psychologists, speech and health services

12.0 % 10.3 % Everett spends a larger percentage in this area than 15 of the districts of the state’s 21 school districts of comparable size.

Special education

Staffing, services, equipment, materials and transportation

13.3 % 12.5 % Everett spends more to support special education programs than 12 and less than 8 comparably-sized school districts.

School and central staff support

School and district administrators, technical and clerical staff, their supplies and materials

11.6 % 12.3 % Everett spends less than 14 of the 21 comparably sized districts in this area.

Support services

School board, superintendent, human resources, finance, information systems, communications, maintenance

12.1 % 14.2 % Everett spends less in this category than 16 comparably-sized districts.

Maintenance and operations

Maintenance of schools and grounds, school custodians, utilities and school security

7.0 % 8.3 % Everett spends less in this category than all other peer districts but one.

2011-12 Data

http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/FIN/1112/fs.asp

14

Appendix ASequestration

Everett Public Schools April 30, 2013

Federal Sequestration – 2013-14 Impacts State overview State and federal cuts over the past several years have had a significant impact on advancing student achievement for all students in Washington. The Washington Supreme Court filed its decision in the case of McCleary v. State on January 5, 2012. The Court concluded that the State of Washington has not complied with its duty, under article IX, section 1, of the Washington Constitution, to make ample provision for the education of all children in the State. While the 2013 legislative session is underway and response to McCleary is prevalent in debate, the deadline for full compliance is 2018.

SequestrationThe focus of federal funding is on our most vulnerable of students. Without question, even the smallest reduction will result in lost opportunities for countless children across our state and country.The Office of Management and Budget provides aggregate information to Congress in billions.

In contrast, the following information is the local impact for the students of the Everett Public Schools:

Title I – Grants to Local Education Agencies – $175,000 Elimination of English Language Learners coach position Reduction in literacy specialist hours Reduction in extended day and summer school programs Reduction in math specialist support Reduction in parent involvement support

Title II – Improving Teacher Quality – $36,000 Reduction in staff professional development

Title III – English Language Acquisition State Grants – $17,000 Reduction in staff professional development

IDEA – Special Education Grants to States – $189,000 Elimination of two special education teaching positions

Career and Technical Basic Grants to States - $8,000 Reduction in STEM program development support

Build America Bond tax credits - $28,000 Debt service impact transferred to local tax payers

Contact information Dr. Gary Cohn, Superintendent, [email protected], 425-385-4016 Jeff Moore, Executive Director, Finance and Operations, [email protected], 425-385-4150 Mary Waggoner, Director of Communications, [email protected], 425-385-4040


Appendix BStrategic priorities--funding/urgency

ENHANCEMENT / RESTORATION ACTIVITYSUMMARIZATION April 24, 2013

URG

ENCY

Pretty SoonSlight Fund Increase

Pretty SoonMaintain Funding

LaterSlight Fund Increase

LaterMaintain Funding

Late

r So

on

Now

Pretty SoonFull Funding

Pretty SoonSizeable Fund Increase

LaterFull Funding

LaterSizeable Fund Increase

NowFull Funding

Now Sizeable Fund Increase

NowSlight Fund Increase

NowMaintain Funding

Very SoonFull Funding

Very SoonSizeable Fund Increase

Very SoonSlight Fund Increase

Very SoonMaintain Funding

Maintain Increase Fully Funded

ENHANCE:2 - Teacher Collaboration Time 1 - Extended Day Programs1 - On-Time Graduation1 - Professional Development1 - TPEP

RESTORE:1 - School Security

ENHANCE:1 - All Day Kindergarten1 - Create Partnership Offi ce1 - Extended Day Programs1 - High School AP Courses1 - On-Time Graduation

RESTORE:1 - Elementary Assistant Principals1 - Instructional Para Eds1 - Mid & High School Counseling

ENHANCE:1 - Pre-K

RESTORE:2 - Instructional Facilitators

ENHANCE:1 - K-3 Class Size Reduction

RESTORE:2 - Class Size Reduction

FUNDING

BUDGET DEVELOPMENTSTRATEGIC MAPPING SUMMARY

Q1Q2

Q3Q4

ENHANCE:1 - STEM Support

ENHANCE:1 - Music & Arts Program1 - Pre-K1 - Professional Development

RESTORE:1 - Maintenance/Custodial1 - Student MSOC1 - Supervisory Para Eds

ENHANCE:1 - All Day Kindergarten1 - High School AP Courses1 - STEM Support

RESTORE:1 - Elementary Assistant Principals1 - Student MSOC

RESTORE:1 - School Security

RESTORE:1 - Department MSOC1 - Health Services Staff 1 - Maintenance/Custodial1 - Mid & High School Counseling

RESTORE:1 - Health Services Staff 1 - School Offi ce Staff

ENHANCE:1 - Create Partnership Offi ce

RESTORE:2 - Communications/Comm. Srvcs.1 - Activities/Athletics Stipends1 - Department MSOC1 - Elem. Student Transportation1 - HR/Finance Staffi ng1 - Instructional Para Eds

ENHANCE:1 - Music & Arts Program

RESTORE:1 - Activities/Athletics Stipends1 - Elem. Student Transportation1 - HR/Finance Staffi ng1 - School Offi ce Staff

ENHANCE:1 - K-3 Class Size Reduction

16

Appendix CBudget--five funds and sources of revenue

23%

6%

51%

13%

<1%

7%

Sources of RevenueGeneral Fund

2012-13

Local tax

Local non-tax

State general purpose

State special purpose

Federal general purpose

Federal special purpose

Federalgeneralpurpose

71%

17%

11%

1.27% 0.13%

Five Funds of the Budget2012-13

General Fund

Capital Projects

Debt Service

Associated Student Body

Transportation Vehicle Fund


Appendix D-1How we compare--teaching and support/classroom support

How do we compare?

Percentage of total expendituresSchool districts with 10,000 to 20,000 studentsSource: OSPI website http://www.k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/FIN/1112/fs.asp 2011-12 Data

% spent on classroom teaching and supportTeachers, paraeducators, supplies, coaches, advisors, librarians, counselors, psychologists, security, speech and health services

74.3%

72.3%

65.4%

60%

62%

64%

66%

68%

70%

72%

74%

76%

Edmon

ds

North

shore

Kennew

ick

Mukilt

eo

Yakim

a

Everet

t

Bellev

ue

Aubu

rn

Belling

ham

Issaqu

ah

Renton

North

Thurs

ton

Marys

ville

Centra

l Valley

Centra

l Kitsa

p

Highlin

e

Pasco

Clover

Park

Bethel

Battle

Groun

d

Richla

nd

Stateaverageis 69.6%

23%

6%

51%

13%

<1%

7%

Sources of RevenueGeneral Fund

2012-13

Local tax

Local non-tax

State general purpose

State special purpose

Federal general purpose

Federal special purpose

Federalgeneralpurpose

How do we compare?


% spent on classroom supportLibrary, counseling, security, recess supervision and psychology, speech and health services

15.4%

12.0%

8.5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

North

Thurs

ton

Edmon

ds

Clover

Park

Bethel

Yakim

a

Everet

t

Highlin

e

Kennew

ick

North

shore

Aubu

rn

Pasco

Belling

ham

Bellev

ue

Centra

l Valley

Marys

ville

Renton

Centra

l Kitsa

p

Issaqu

ah

Richla

nd

Mukilt

eo

Battle

Groun

d


18

Appendix D-2How we compare--special education/school and central support

How do we compare?


% spent on special education programsStaffi ng, services, equipment, materials and transportation

16.6%

13.3%

9.7%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Centra

l Kitsa

p

North

shore

Renton

Edmon

ds

Centra

l Valley

North

Thurs

ton

Clover

Park

Bethe

l

Everet

t

Marys

ville

Bellin

gham

Mukilt

eo

Yakim

a

Kennew

ick

Aubu

rn

Battle

Grou

nd

Highli

ne

Bellev

ue

Pasco

Issaqu

ah

Richla

nd

Stateaverage12.5%

How do we compare?


% spent on school and central staff supportSchool and district administrators, technical staff, clerical staff and their supplies and materials

13.1%

11.6%

9.2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Battle

Groun

d

Clover

Park

Belling

ham

Marys

ville

Richla

nd

Highlin

e

North

Thurs

ton

Bethel Pasco

Renton

Centra

l Valley

Aubur

n

Yakim

a

Centra

l Kitsa

p

Everet

t

North

shore

Edmond

s

Bellev

ue

Kennew

ick

Mukilt

eo

Issaqua

h



Appendix D-3How we compare--support services/maintenance and operations

How do we compare?


% spent on support servicesBoard, superintendent, human resources, fi nance, information systems, communications and maintenance

19.6%

12.1%11.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Richla

nd

Clover

Park

Pasco

Highli

ne

Bellin

gham

Centra

l Kitsa

p

North

Thurs

ton

Battle

Groun

d

Bellev

ue

Centra

l Valley

Bethel

Renton

Marys

ville

Yakim

a

Issaqu

ah

Mukilt

eo

Everet

t

North

shore

Aubu

rn

Edmon

ds

Kennew

ick


How do we compare?


% spent on maintenance and operationsGrounds, maintenance, custodians, utilities and building security

10.1%

7.0%6.7%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Richla

nd

Pasco

Clover

Park

Battle

Groun

d

Highlin

e

Bellev

ue

Issaqu

ah

Centra

l Valley

Renton

Aubu

rn

Belling

ham

Centra

l Kitsa

p

Marys

ville

North

Thurs

ton

Yakim

a

Edmond

s

Bethel

Mukilt

eo

North

shore

Everet

t

Kennew

ickState

averageis 8.3%

Fiscal Advisory Council Report - June 2013

BOARD OF DIRECTORSJeff Russell, PresidentCarol Andrews, Vice PresidentPam LeSesne, Legislative RepresentativeJessica Olson, Board MemberEd Petersen, Board Member

SUPERINTENDENTDr. Gary Cohn

Designated to handle inquiries about nondiscrimination policies are:

Affirmative Action OfficerCarol Stolz3715 Oakes Ave.Everett, WA 98201425-385-4106

Title IX OfficerRandi Seaberg3715 Oakes Ave.Everett, WA 98201425-385-4104

ADA Coordinator and Section 504 CoordinatorKristine McDowell4730 Colby Ave.Everett, WA 98203425-385-5250

Email address for each is:[email protected]

Everett Public Schools does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation including gender expression or identity, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability in its programs and activities and provides equal access to the Boy Scouts and other designated youth groups.

Documents

Fiscal advisory council report 2013