Scarsdale proposed school budget

7/30/2019 Scarsdale proposed school budget

1/160

Scarsdale Union Free School District

Scarsdale, New York

ProposedBudget

2013-14

For the Fiscal YearCommencing July 1, 2013

April 22, 2013


2/160


3/160


4/160

1

Please proceed to the next page


5/160


6/160


7/160

3 | P a g e

The proposed school budget results in a tax levy increase that exceeds the maximum allowable tax levy limit under the state-imposed tax cap. That meansthe budget will require a 60 percent vote to pass.

Community Participation

Throughout the budget process, the Board is seeking and listening to the community. There are many opportunities to learn how the budget process isprogressing, ask questions, and share your views. If you have comments on the proposed budget, please call us at 721-2410, write to the Board ofEducation office at 2 Brewster Rd., or e-mail us at [email protected]. The District is making a complete copy of the proposed budgetavailable at the Scarsdale Public Library, at the Board of Education office, and online at www.scarsdaleschools.org.

Please mark your calendars for the school budget vote on Tuesday, May 21, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Scarsdale Middle School. At that time, you

also will have the opportunity to vote to fill three School Board positions. If you need an absentee ballot, please call the District Clerk at 721-2410. Thankyou for your interest and participation.

SCARSDALE BOARD OF EDUCATION

Elizabeth M. Guggenheimer, President

Suzanne Seiden, Vice President

Mary Beth Gose

Lewis Leone, Jr.

Jonathan Lewis

Sunil Subbakrishna

Jill Spieler


8/160

1



9/160

i

Scarsdale Public Schools

Office of the Superintendent of Schools

April 22, 2013

The 2013-14 budget proposal has been designed to sustain a broad, deep and vibrant Scarsdale education and to enhance it modestly, consistentwith our Mission.

The proposal preserves class size and course offerings, a strong program of extracurricular activities, and healthy investment in research,evaluation and professional development, so we can continue to advance the quality of programs and teaching. It also funds well-maintainedfacilities and provides traditional student services such as transportation. In focus groups and at the voting booth, residents have consistently saidthey support these priorities.

The proposal also includes funding to provide more adequate technology staffing and to improve building security, among other efforts. And itallocates funds from a longstanding construction reserve to renovate space for the fitness/wellness center, which is currently overcrowded,

marginally unsafe, and unfriendly to female athletes.

At the same time, we all recognize the economic environment in which were working. Some desirable measures the extension of Mandarininstruction to the Middle School, for example, have been deferred until a more favorable time.

Decisions about this years budget require a sense of context.

The proposal projects growth of 2.47 percent and tax growth of 3.93 percent. Two main factors are responsible.

First, approximately 70 percent of budget growth is due to a State-mandated increase in retirement costs.

The retirement system funds its obligations through a combination of market investment, participant contribution, and charges to school districts.When markets are strong, districts typically contribute a smaller portion of the total cost; when they weaken, districts are required to pay more.Since average return over the past five years the period on which charges are based has been relatively low, districts have been required to pickup a larger portion of the total cost. Reforms in the retirement system will moderate the amount charged to localities in the future, but they willnot affect budgets in the short term.


10/160

ii

Second, $1.6 million (about one-third) of the projected tax levy growth is due to a local decision to reduce reliance on fund balance. The Districtsreserve funds have been drawn down substantially in an effort to reduce tax impact.

This decision was part of a long term strategy aimed at minimizing the Districts exposure to future fund balance shortfalls, as well as reducing theamount of taxpayer money held in anticipation of future needs. As a result, the budget includes $2.0 million less from surplus to reduce taxes in2013-14 than it did in 2012-13 (partially offset by an additional $660,000 taken from reserves.) That is why the percentage of tax rate growth ishigher than the percentage of budget growth.

It is important to recall that over the last four years, weve wrung what we could out of programs and services without having a significant impacton students. The 2012-13 budget for everything other than personnel and plant improvements is $2 million lower than it was in 2008-09. We alsohave 23 fewer staff than we did in that year.

These changes notwithstanding, Scarsdale has been able to weather the economic downturn more successfully than many school districts. Still,budget choices are becoming increasingly difficult.

Over the years, as I said, the public has demonstrated both its support for education and an interest in budget control. While different individualsand groups have seen value in different programs and services, residents have broadly trusted that the Board of Educations proposals reflected acarefully considered overview of the challenges, opportunities and issues facing both schools and community. This time-tested process hasresulted in long term investment that has produced a superior education.

As we go forward, residents will consider these matters thoughtfully, as they always do. I am fully confident that the result will be a financial planconsistent with the communitys best vision of itself and of its future.

Sincerely,

Michael V. McGill

Superintendent of Schools


11/160

4

Total Budget and Tax Levy

2012-13 Adopted Budget

and

2013-14 Proposed Budget

2012-13 2013-14 $ Difference % Difference

Total Budget (See Page 18) 141,790,579$ 145,286,213$ 3,495,634$ 2.47%

Actual Tax Levy (See Page11) 127,045,773$ 132,037,363$ 4,991,590$ 3.93%

Tax Levy Per Tax Cap Calculation (See Page14)*** 127,045,773$ 131,336,096$ 4,290,323$ 3.38%

Tax Cap in Excess of Levy (See Page 14) ** -$ 701,267$ 701,267$ 0.55%

Note: The tax impact on an individual property will vary depending upon eligibility for the STAR rebate and changes in Districtwide assessments

between the date of this report and the actual finalization of the assessment roll - See Page 16 for the estimated tax rate changes.

** 2012-13 is the first year of compliance with the Property Tax Cap legislation.

*** The Prior Year Allowable Tax Cap level has been adjusted to the Prior Year Actual Tax Levy since the Prior Year Tax Levy was less.

1


12/160

52


13/160

6

Comparisons with Other Westchester / Putnam School Districts

The Scarsdale Public Schools constitute one of 46 school districts in the Westchester / Putnam region. The Clearinghouse of Educational Services,Putnam Northern Westchester BOCES, annually develops a comparative study of these 46 districts.

Per Pupil Expenditures AmongWestchester / Putnam Districts,2011-12 Actual Expenditures

Rank Order1 Highest

9 Scarsdale

median46 Lowest

Total Expend. Per Pupil$41,416$27,856

$25,114$17,916

True Tax Rates AmongWestchester / Putnam DistrictsUsing State Equalization Rates,2012-13 Actual

Rank Order1 Highestmedian

36 Scarsdale46 Lowest

True Tax Rate$37.20$19.08$16.24$8.88

Central Administrative & Board of Education

Costs Per Pupil Among Westchester / Putnam Districts,2011-12 Actual Expenditures

Rank Order

1 Highestmedian

34 Scarsdale46 Lowest

Admin.Costs Per Pupil

$1,916$637$506$268

Debt Service Per Pupil AmongWestchester / Putnam Districts,2011-12 Actual Expenditures

Rank Order1 Highest

12 Scarsdalemedian

46 Lowest

Debt Service Per Pupil$13,522$2,026$1,665

$0

Adjusted Gross Income per PupilWestchester / Putnam Districts,2010 NYS Adjusted Gross Income

Rank Order1 Highest (Scarsdale)

median46 Lowest

AGI Per Pupil$938,254$265,391$127,992

3


14/160

7

Enrollment Summary

The enrollment projection for the 2013-14 school year forecasts an increase in total pupil population of 42 pupils from 4,753 to 4,795 for an increaseof 0.9%.

The projected K-5 enrollment forecasts the continuation of a slight reduction at the elementary level from the current 2,132 pupils to 2,117 (inclusiveof special education pupils), which is a decline of 15 pupils, for a 0.7% decline.

The projected enrollment for grades 6 through 8 at the Middle School forecasts a reduction of 32 pupils for the 2013-14 school year, with ananticipated enrollment of 1,136 pupils as compared to the current years 1,168 pupils for a 2.7% decline.

The Senior High School enrollment is projected to increase by 89 pupils from the current 1,453 to 1,542 pupils. The 6.1% increase in studentpopulation is attributed to the large incoming 9th grade class.

See Appendix A for detailed pupil enrollment data.

4


15/160

85


16/160



17/160


18/160

7

The District also employs part-time paraprofessionals and bus drivers as described in Appendix F.


19/160

8


20/160

8



21/160

9


22/160


23/160

11


24/160

12


25/160



26/160

13

PROPERTY TAX LEVY CAP & FIVE YEAR BUDGET COMPARISON

Property Tax Levy Cap

The property tax cap law, enacted in Chapter 97 of the Laws of 2011, restricts tax levy

increases for local governments, most school districts and other smaller independent entities,

such as library, fire or water districts, to no more than 2 percent, or the rate of inflation,whichever is lower (prior to allowable adjustments). State law requires localities to calculate

their tax levy limits and report their computation information to the Comptrollers office before

they adopt annual budgets.

Most local governments can override the cap with a 60 percent vote by their governing body.

In the case of a school district, 60 percent of the voting public must approve the override.

For school districts, Education Law 2023-a specifies a cap of the lesser of 2 percent or

inflation (the tax levy limit), but not less than the prior years levy. This baseline cap is thenadjusted by several factors to produce a maximum allowable tax levy limit. This levy limit

can be higher than 2%.

The increase in the levy serves as a threshold or trigger for determining what percentage ofvoters will be required to approve the budget. Exclusions from the cap include pension cost

increases greater than 2 percent, certain large legal expenses (tort actions), and the local share

of capital expenditures.

If a district seeks an increase greater than the tax levy limit, approval by 60 percent of voters is

required. If the district requests an increase at or under the limit, approval by a simple majority

(50 percent plus one vote) suffices. Districts are permitted two chances to obtain voterapproval. If voters do not approve the budget in the second vote, the levy is capped at the prior

year levy.

This proposal calls for a tax levy increase in excess of the tax cap, which requires a 60 percent

approval in the current year.

See page 14 for the calculation of the current years tax cap.


27/160

14

Calculation of Current Year (CY) Tax C apNotes

1) Prior Year Tax Levy 127,045,773 Per 2012/13 Budget

TIMES x

2) 1.0095

Sub-Total 128,252,708

PLUS +

3) PY PILOTS -

M INUS -

4) PY Levy for Judgem ents over 5% of total tax levy -

-

-

PY Capital Tax Levy 8,694,618

$1,070,000 Capital Related Plant

Improvements, plus $9,667,813Debt Svc Budget, plus $276,000bus purchase budget, minus$11,078 Trans aid on capital, andminus $2 ,308,117 Bui lding Aid.

EQUALS =

PY TAX LEVY LIM IT 119,558,090

TIMES x

5) Allowable Levy Growth Factor (1 + inflation factor, up to 2% ) 1.02

Sub-Total 121,949,252

M INUS -

6) CY PILOTS -

PLUS +

7) A vailable Carryover -EQUALS =

121,949,252

PLUS +

8) CY Levy for Judgem ents over 5% of total tax levy -

CY Levy for excess increases to ERS -

CY Levy for excess increases to TRS 1,510,097

CY Capital Tax Levy 7,876,747

$325,000 C apital Related PlantImprovements, plus $9,578,152Debt Svc Budget, plus $183,083bus purchase budget, minus

$230,000 transfer from D ebtService Reserve, minus $11,078Trans aid on capital , and minus$2,175,410 Building Aid.

M INUS -

9) Erroneous levy plus interest from prior year -

EQUALS =

(A ) AL LO W ED TAX LE VY W IT H 50 % plu s 1 ap pr ov al 13 1,33 6,09 6

AL LO W AB LE % GR OW TH OF TA X LE VY 3.38 %

(B ) AC TU AL TA X LE VY (C ur re nt Ye ar Le vy is AB OVE Ta x Cap ) 13 2, 03 7,36 3 Pe r P ropo se d 20 13 /14 Bu dg et

(B)-(A) Proposed Levy in Excess of Tax Cap 701,267$

1 + Tax Base Growth Factor (provided by Com missioner of Tax &Finance by February 15th.)

CY TAX LEVY LIMIT (to be subm itted to State Comptrol ler,Com missioner of Tax & Finance and the Commissioner of Education byMarch 1st)

Ta

x

Ca


28/160

15


29/160


30/160


31/160

18


32/160


33/160


34/160

20


35/160



36/160

21

I. GENERAL SUPPORT

Board of Education

This budget provides for Board of Education activities. Included are supplies, a stipend for the District Clerk and Board Secretary, votingmachine rental and printing associated with the annual election, and board consultants and travel, where necessary. The budget has beenreduced by over 30% since 2007-08.


37/160

22


38/160


39/160

24


40/160


41/160

26

*The Plant Improvement budget for 2013-14 totals $1,535,000. This is $385,000 less than the prior year. An additional $325,000 from thisbudget is listed on page 18 as a transfer to the Capital Projects Fund. See page 30 for a detailed listing of all projects.


42/160


43/160


44/160

2013-14 continued:

A h Hi h S h l l h h i l d i l b il (VAT) b h $120 000 i d f b hi h i


45/160

30

At the High School, many classrooms have carpet that is glued to vinyl asbestos tile (VAT) beneath. $120,000 is requested for abatement, which issufficient for 6-8 rooms.

Funds are requested to expand the commons area at the High School - $40,000 to provide additional cafeteria seating. An additional appropriation of $325,000 is requested for the High School Fitness Center to renovate the large unfinished space under the new gymnasium.

This new location is approximately three times the size of the locker room formerly under consideration. This request also assumes that the $300,000allocated to the auto shop renovation will be transferred to this project.

$365,000 is requested for roof and masonry repairs on all seven buildings. We request $235,000 for the replacement of all classroom and office door locks. Occupants will be able to lock doors from the inside, but the lock sets

will still allow egress without having to locate a key, as required by New York State building codes. They will be installed with master key access toprevent inadvertent lockouts or pranks.


46/160

31

I. GENERAL SUPPORT (Continued)

Administrative Technology Budget

This budget line funds the Districts administrative technology services. The work of the Administrative Technology team is instrumental in

supporting District Goal #5 Develop and use data to support deep, rich learning. The budget includes salaries for the District Chief InformationOfficer, the computer center manager, database manager, and data analyst.

The Administrative Technology team manages the student information system (Infinite Campus), including census information, District-wideattendance reporting, student scheduling, health records, report cards, and parent portal. The team is also responsible for all state and federalreporting related to student data and teacher evaluation. The team also oversees the District-wide email system, as well as software that supports ofthe finance, food services, personnel, transportation and facilities departments. The team also provides desktop configuration and support,application support, and training for all administrators, administrative support staff, counselors, psychologists, nurses, and custodial staff.

The Administrative Technology team continues to implement new technology solutions and enhancements throughout the District. The departmenthas also integrated additional data reporting services, allowing the District to comply with the ever-growing state and federal student data reportingrequirements.

Exclusive of contractual obligations, this budget has been decreased over the last few years. This year, the budget will be increased to cover the costof hardware and software related to new initiatives (finance software, the installation of time clocks, etc.) as well as the renewal cost of softwaresubscriptions.


47/160

32

I. GENERAL SUPPORT (Continued)


48/160

33

Special Items

This section of the budget contains items that are District-wide in nature. They are, in effect, part of the cost of doing business inherent inany organization. These include liability insurance, District memberships, BOCES administrative assessments, and an allowance for tax

certiorari claims.

1. District InsuranceThis line provides for the purchase of District-wide liability insurance from the New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal, a not-for-profit consortiumowned by the component school districts. This includes general property and liability policies, flood insurance, board liability, surety bonds, and an

umbrella policy, as well as student accident insurance from a separate carrier. The budget shows and increase of $36,567, or 3.73%. The bulk ofthese funds provide for general liability, automobile liability, and Board liability policies.

2. District MembershipsThis line provides for District memberships in state, local and national school boards associations, and various curriculum-related organizations.

3. BOCES Administrative and Facilities FeesThis line represents a required assessment from the Southern Westchester BOCES for administrative costs, as well as rental fees for classroom spacein lower Westchester. It will increase by $20,704 compared to 2012-13. See Appendix D for a 10-year history of BOCES assessments.

4. Tax Certiorari AppropriationThe Certiorari Reserve balance as of June 30, 2012 was $2,066,443. There is no appropriation for paying refunds in the 2013-14 Budget. Claims

will be settled using the balances in the reserve fund. See Appendix E for a 10-year history of tax certiorari settlements.


49/160

34


50/160



51/160


52/160


53/160

37


54/160


55/160

39


56/160


57/160


58/160


59/160

43


60/160


61/160

45


62/160


63/160

46


64/160


65/160

48


66/160



67/160

49

IV. COMMUNITY SERVICES

Civic Activities and Census


68/160

50

This budget provides custodial supervision for community activities in the schools and District census information. The costs in the first

three categories below are for custodial overtime. Negotiations between the District and the custodial and secretarial unions for 2013-14 is

ongoing.

Funding for the Scarsdale Teen Center is also included here; the proposed budget recommends maintaining the current funding for the

Teen Center at $65,000. As a result, the total Community Services budget will remain level.

Recreation Department

This is custodial overtime related to use of school buildings by the Villages Recreation Department. The school is not reimbursed for these costsunless the activities take place on Sundays. We continue to work with the Recreation Department to limit and condense facility usage, particularlyduring vacation periods, to yield savings in custodial overtime and energy consumption.

Community Groups

This is custodial overtime related to use of school buildings by community groups other than the Recreation Department or by PTAs when they areusing buildings for fundraising purposes. The District is reimbursed for this overtime by the groups using the buildings.

School Functions

This is overtime related to use of buildings for school-related activities that take place after normal hours. There is no reimbursement for thisovertime.

Teen Center

This budget includes funding for the Scarsdale Teen Center at the same funding level as last year. Responsibility for the Teen Center has been sharedjointly by the Village and the School District.

Census

This line provides for continuation of the Districts census information function. It provides for a full-time clerical position that reports to theAssistant Superintendent for Personnel and Administrative Services, as well as for the Districts demographic services.


69/160

51


70/160


71/160

52


72/160


73/160

54

V. UNDISTRIBUTED COSTS (Continued)

Debt Service


74/160

55

This portion of the budget includes funds for the payment of principal and interest on the Districts outstanding bond issues and installment purchasearrangements.

In September 2008, the District refinanced the outstanding balances of the January 2000 and December 2000 debt, saving $544,000 over a sevenyear period or an average of $78,000 per year.

In October 2010, the District refinanced the outstanding balances of the June 2002 debt, saving $2.7M over a nine-year period or an average of$300,000 per year.

In September, 2011, the lease financing for the Energy Performance Contract was also refinanced, saving $958,000 over a twelve and a half yearperiod or an average of $77,000 per year.

In June 2012, the District refinanced the outstanding balances of the February 2004 debt, saving $1.0M over a seven-year period or an average of$147,000 per year.

The Business Office periodically reviews the remaining debt (only the 2004 issuance remains) to determine if it can be refinanced at a savings,

despite the existence of call provisions and other penalties attached to this more recent debt issue.

This category also includes installment purchase payments for the Districts long-range technology plan as noted on p.42. The District is planning topurchase $1,128,000 in computer equipment as a continuation of its long-range replacement plan, which represents the first increase in this area sincethe inception of the program. Both borrowing costs and the cost of equipment have decreased, which have increased purchasing power. SeeAppendix J, page 4.

In 2010-11, the District entered into a five-year lease offered on New York State contract to pay for 20 copiers District-wide. Please see Appendix

J, page 5.

See Appendix J for other Debt Service details.


75/160

56


76/160


77/160


78/160

59


79/160

APPENDIX - A


80/160

Appendix A, Page

1


81/160

Appendix A, Page

2


82/160

Appendix A, Page 3


83/160

Appendix A, Page 4


84/160

Appendix A, Page 5


85/160

Appendix A, Page 6


86/160

Appendix A, Page 7


87/160

Appendix A, Page 8


88/160

Appendix A, Page 9


89/160

Appendix A, Page 10


90/160

Appendix A, Page 11


91/160

Appendix A, Page 12


92/160



93/160


94/160

Appendix B, Page 1


95/160


96/160

Appendix B, Page 3


97/160

Appendix B, Page 4


98/160


99/160

Appendix B, Page 6


100/160

Appendix B, Page 7


101/160


102/160

Appendix B, Page 9


103/160

Appendix B, Page 10


104/160

Appendix B, Page 11


105/160


106/160


107/160

Appendix B, Page 14


108/160

Appendix B, Page 15


109/160

Appendix B, Page 16


110/160

Appendix B, Page 17


111/160

Appendix B, Page 18


112/160


113/160

APPENDIX - C


114/160

Appendix C, Page 1


115/160

Appendix C, Page 2


116/160


117/160

APPENDIX - D

BOCES Administrative & Facility Charges - 10 Year History

BOCES ADMINISTRATIVE AND FACILITY COSTS

ACTUAL EXPENDITURES 2002-03 THROUGH 2010-11,


118/160

Appendix D, Page 1

,

ADOPTED BUDGET 2011-12 AND PROPOSED BUDGET 2012-13

Total %

Administration Facility Charge Special Charges BOCES Charges Inc. (Dec.)

2003-2004 186,101 139,490 0 325,591 7.73%

2004-2005 201,240 139,389 0 340,629 4.62%

2005-2006 199,350 137,477 0 336,827 (1.12%)

2006-2007 227,716 144,505 0 336,827 0.00%

2007-2008 247,292 143,825 0 391,117 16.12%

2008-2009 256,345 143,250 0 399,595 2.17%

2009-2010 270,317 147,285 0 417,602 4.51%2010-2011 279,647 143,448 0 423,095 1.32%

2011-2012 286,471 139,342 0 425,813 0.64%

2012-2013 282,595 133,260 0 415,855 (2.34%)

2013-2014 299,441 137,118 0 436,559 4.98%


119/160

APPENDIX - E

Refund of Real Property Taxes (Tax Certioraris) 10 Year History

Funds have been provided in this section of the budget for refunds of property taxes for prior years. Listed below are the refunds that have been made for theperiod 2001-02 through December 2012; the Adopted Budget for 2012-13, and the proposed budget for 2013-14.

YEAR AMOUNT PROPERTY

2001-02 Actual $474,976 Sutton Hay Day - $79,821; Heathcote / Overhill Corp. - $365,430;

Six-Others $29,725

2002-03 Actual $39,248 Various $39,248.

2003 04 A t l $270 109 Q k Rid CC $131 926 S d l Sh i C t $105 776


120/160

Appendix E, Page 1

2003-04 Actual $270,109 Quaker Ridge CC - $131,926; Scarsdale Shopping Center - $105,776;Hanover Associates - $24,779; Others $7,628.

2004-05 Actual2005-06 Actual

2006-07 Actual

$0$0

$26,872

None in 2004-05None in 2005-06

Various $26,872

2007-08 Actual $308,752 Scarsdale Chateaux - $285,926; Three Others - $22,826.

2008-09 Actual

2009-10 Actual

$317,857

$52,010

Fenway Golf Course - $118,387; Winged Foot Golf Course - $136,088; SixOthers - $63,382.

Various $52,010.

2010-11 Actual $142,664 Holly Management - $40,764; Susan & Jeffrey Goldernberger - $27,576;Scarsdale Gasoline Corp. - $25,496; Twelve others - $48,828.

2011-12 Actual $433,283 Kiki Nicholas Resident Trust - $30,529; Leonard Caputo - $22,740;Heathcote Overhill Corp. - $337,050; Seven others - $42,964.

2012-13 Budget >>>>Actual to date = >>>>

$50,000$345,483 Chaseway LLC - $217,420; HSBC - $110,685; Santomero - $17,378.

2013-14 Proposed $0

In 1990-91, a certiorari reserve fund was established to provide funds for pending certiorari cases. The Certiorari Reserve balance as of June 30, 2012 was$2,066,443. In practice, we first use our budgeted appropriation. Certiorari settlements in excess of that amount are funded from the reserve. The current overageof $295,483 as well as any other refunds that occur during the year will be funded from the reserve. Interest income earned on the reserve is added back to thereserve. See page 58 for more information on reserves.


121/160


122/160


123/160

Appendix F, Page 2


124/160

Appendix F, Page 3


125/160

APPENDIX G


126/160


127/160

Appendix G, Page 2


128/160


129/160

Appendix G, Page 4


130/160


131/160

APPENDIX - H


132/160

Appendix H, Page 1


133/160


134/160

Appendix H, Page 3


135/160

APPENDIX I

UNDISTRIBUTED EXPENSE

TEACHERS RETIREMENT

This account represents the Board of Educations mandatory investment for the professional staff who are members of the New York StateTeachers Retirement System.

Retirement expense is based on an estimate of the salaries to be paid to professional staff members for the upcoming school year multipliedby the contribution rate. The TRS rate has increased significantly from the 0.36% rate charged in 2003-04 to the estimated 16.25% rate forthe 2013-14 budget.

Budget Year TRS % Total TRS Budget1993 94 8 00% 1 962 734


136/160

Appendix I, Page 1

1993-94 8.00% 1,962,7341994-95 8.41% 1,990,4001995-96 7.24% 1,885,105

1996-97 6.37% 2,088,7291997-98 3.75% 990,1981998-99 1.25% 363,9151999-00 1.42% 434,3612000-01 1.43% 466,0672001-02 0.43% 129,7252002-03 0.36% 123,3662003-04 0.36% 162,285

2004-05 5.63% 2,622,9722005-06 7.97% 3,673,3042006-07 8.60% 4,422,5382007-08 8.73% 5,645,4532008-09 7.63% 4,284,9022009-10 6.19% 3,786,8522010-11 8.62% 5,253,8252011-12 11.11% 6,720,440

2012-13 Adopted Bud 11.84% 9,541,077

2013-14 Proposed Bud 16.25% 11,615,994


137/160


HEALTH INSURANCE

The Board provides a health insurance program for all full-time District employees, their qualifying spouse and dependent(s). Prior to the 1988-89school year, the District participated in the New York State Empire Plan and an H.M.O. Plan (Kaiser Foundation). In 1988-89 the District withdrew

from the Empire Plan and formed a self-insured program (The Plan) monitored by a District Health Insurance Committee. Funds are provided inthe District budget and disbursed based on actual claims submitted through a third party administrator (POMCO). See Appendix I, Page 4 for acomparison of the Plans actual cost as compared to a corresponding Empire Plan cost.

Listed below are the actual expenditures for the years 1993-94 through 2011-12, the 2012-13 Adopted Budget, and the 2013-14 Proposed Budget.


138/160

Appendix I, Page 3

YEAR EXPENDITURES1993-94 2,958,0341994-95 3,505,8051995-96 3,505,8051996-97 3,953,4781997-98 3,938,7501998-99 4,801,7321999-00 5,056,5632000-01 5,948,6282001-02 6,323,8022002-03 7,796,2382003-04 8,673,3042004-05 9,102,8582005-06 9,766,6982006-07 9,906,5522007-08 9,455,3482008-09 10,336,035

2009-10 12,337,2912010-11 11,539,9472011-12 12,663,446

2012-13 13,800,361 BUDGET

2012-13 14,300,361 ESTIMATED ACTUAL

2013-14 14,625,388 PROPOSED BUDGET


139/160


140/160


Dental / Vision Plan

Funds for Dental & Vision Insurance are determined based on negotiations with all bargaining units.

FULL TIME & PART OTHERYEAR TIME TEACHERS EMPLOYEES EXPENDITURES

2003-04 581 Teach/Adm/Nurses/Secys/Cust @$1,486 863,366


141/160

Appendix I, Page 6






2009-10 612 Teach/Adm/Nurses/Secys/Cust @$1,647 1,007,964



2012-13 599 Teach/Adm/Nurses/Secys/Cust @$1,722 1,031,478**

601 Teach/Adm/Nurses/Secys/Cust @$1,756 1,055,356*

2013-14 603 Teach/Adm/Nurses/Secys/Cust @$1,722 $1,038,366***

* Adopted Budget** Estimated Actual*** Proposed Budget


142/160


143/160


144/160

Appendix J, Page 1


145/160


146/160


147/160


148/160


149/160


150/160


151/160

APPENDIX - L(Note: Pages 1 & 2 of Appendix L are prepared by the New York State Education Department)(This data is the most current data that is available)


152/160

Appendix L, Page 1


153/160


154/160

APPENDIX - M


155/160

Appendix M, Page 1


156/160


157/160



158/160


159/160


160/160

Appendix O, Page 2

Documents

Scarsdale proposed school budget