Marquette USD 400 Kansas

1. Letter to the Editor;
This letter was presented at the last regular School Board meeting and
given to the Clerk of the Board and the board members Andy Carlson,
Dwight Swisher, Chris Bauer, Todd Deterding, Karna Peterson, Karla
Pihl, and Sharon Schrag
To the Clerk of the USD 400 school board April 14th 2014
Please add the following to the record of minutes of this school board meeting.
After spending a number of years on the USD 400 School Board and working to improve
this Unified School District, I’ve been trying to understand the recent budget short fall
proposals.
Why did the board only vote on two options: Option 1, approved in February, closing MES
broke my Wolverine heart again and closed one of the newest and best buildings in the
district which bond obligations are still being paid on the building, and option 2, keeping
MES segregated by combining classes at Soderstrom, which was unfair to the Lindsborg
students that would be put in those crowded class rooms.
Why wasn’t a 3rd option presented, perhaps moving all the district’s 1st and 2nd graders to
Marquette and the entire district 3rd thru 4th to Soderstrom? This plan would have a lot of
synergies for the district; keeps Marquette in the Unified School District, removes
overcrowding at Soderstrom, keeps one of the newest and best buildings utilized, all
bussing would be reimbursed at 80%, the list could go on and on.
Was it truly about money! I was troubled by a comment made to me from a district patron
that the Superintendent told him he did not care if the patron's kids came to Lindsborg.
Looking in the School District’s web site, according to “The Budget at a Glance”
document, the total expenditures per student for 2012-2013 was $11,944 up 1.4% from the
previous year, which is almost a ¼ of a million dollars for every classroom of 20 children.
The average teacher salary was $50,647 or only 21.2% of the total budget for that
classroom. (If you use the 2013 FTE, $12,549 was spent for every child in the district,
which is $250,970 for every classroom of 20!).
So then the question begs, why? Why close MES and risk losing all those students to some
other district?

2. Checking the Kansas State High School Activities Association 2013-2014 Classifications
& Enrollment figures, Smoky Valley High School had 285 students, only 8 other schools
had fewer in class 4A. If Smoky Valley had 36 less students on September 20th 2013, they
would have been 3A and Haven 4A. Would this explain why there has been no effort to
keep this once Unified District together?
The State may have changed the law and allowed School Boards to close Schools pursuant
to K.S.A. 72-8213b with a simple majority vote of the Board, I just think it should be done
with the community involved. Not just four letters sent to community members, the
Superintendent calling one meeting to discuss the future of MES with three board members
and two concerned citizens on September 24th, with future meetings to be scheduled that
according to the board minutes never happened. Board of Education work session on
November 26th on budget concerns. Two notices in the Paper announcing the closure.
That all may be legal; I just don't think it is right! Then at the February 10th meeting, the
night the board adopted the resolution to close MES, the Superintendent stated “that this
was not done overnight and the board had had many meetings on MES”. I just don’t see
mention of those meetings in the board’s minutes! (the state changed the open meeting
laws several years ago and they no longer have to give notice of board meetings,
only notify anyone how asks to be notified, I’m now on that list)
I sat in your seats for many years and know it is difficult to make these hard decisions. In
light of the State providing additional funding for our district should the board revisit
closing the school? (Glen gave a presentation at the board meeting showing that the
district would lose money with the funding change, our state representative
questioned that and he thought there might be more new money next year!)
Is it too late for this Unified School District? I hope and pray not!
Desperately,
Terry M. Hopp
I’m not sure what I expected after presenting this letter, to date I
have not heard directly from any of the board members. I e-mailed the
district office asking them for the number of towns with more than
500 in population that do not have a public school attendance center in
the town. They did reply that they did not have that information and
they would try to get it from Jim Hays at Kansas School Board
Association. I did receive a spread sheet with a tab for the city

3. populations for Kansas and a tab with school attendance centers in
Kansas. I am working to combine them to find out if there are any
other towns in Kansas with 600+ population that does not have a public
school in their city limits, I would think this was crucial to know before
closing MES! How do all these other districts keep their small
attendance centers open?
I also received a string of emails from the Superintendent with
attached comments from Chris Bauer, “not understanding all the
conspiracy theories” and “that it was not our (school board’s) job to
keep their town viable, we are not a Chamber of Commerce or a City
Council. It is THEIR job to keep the town viable so the school stays
open…..not the other way around”. I might agree if there was some
representation for that town on the school board!
In my opinion every time you attempt to close a school you scare people
away. In the 90s MES was growing, increasing the district’s enrollment
even with home schooling pulling Soderstrom’s enrollment down.
It seems like any time in the past 12 years we have declining enrollment
we have to try to shut down schools and make the students and parents
feel the pain. I think that the $12,549 that we spend on each student
in our district, around $250,000 for a classroom of 20 students should
be more than enough money to run our schools. There were comments
about having to spend from our contingency reserve fund. I heard no
mention that in 2013 the state changed the max we can maintain in our
contingency reserve fund from 10% to 6% of the General Fund Budget,
so we had to spend $250,000 in that fund!

4. Before I close I would like to explore 2 points; 1st
that the school
budget has gone from $7,882,435 to $11,821,966 over 13 years, a
151.9% increase during the worst recession in 75 years (only 2010 had
a significant decrease). USD 400’s enrollment for the most part has
been in the 900s, how will it stay there if parents are voting with their
feet? The 2nd
point is that the administration closed MJH when our
contingency reserve was at 10% max, and now we close MES with it at
the 6% max, I do not understand?
I wonder what Smoky Valley would be like if in 1966 the Marquette
School Board had not listened to the Kansas State Department of
Education on unification. And the Lindsborg School Superintendent who
promised them “join us and keep your school at Marquette because it
would take a vote by the community to close the school”. Inman School
Board told the State that they would not unify with Buhler.
Maybe this is also about broken promises, a High School, a Junior High,
and now the entire building; did they close them or steal them?
Ronnie, I agree with Fred that David’s letter may have been
appropriate.
Terry M. Hopp

5. 5/6/14
4/30/14 USD 400 Budget at a Glance
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee #
Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of
Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase
FTE Admin 11 12.3 11.5 10.3 11.2 11.1 10.3 11.3
Administrators budgeted 65,007$ 64,586$ 99.4% 67,856$ 105.1% 72,395$ 106.7% 74,311$ 102.6% 74,130$ 99.8% 78,642$ 106.1% 77,656$ 98.7%
FTE Teachers 63 64 65 62 64 60 61 59
Teachers budgeted 42,420$ 48,480$ 114.3% 48,846$ 100.8% 46,201$ 94.6% 46,237$ 100.1% 49,207$ 106.4% 49,791$ 101.2% 50,134$ 100.7%
FTE other 12.8 14.4 19.2 13.8 7.6 9.8 9.7 7.6
other cert budgeted 40,611$ 40,806$ 100.5% 43,220$ 105.9% 41,563$ 96.2% 38,942$ 93.7% 38,015$ 97.6% 44,394$ 116.8% 59,402$ 133.8%
FTE Class 41.2 42.7 42.8 39.3 40.3 1.0254 39 41.7 40.9
Classified budgeted 22,547$ 28,541$ 126.6% 29,940$ 104.9% 31,594$ 105.5% 31,723$ 100.4% 30,862$ 97.3% 33,114$ 107.3% 35,191$ 106.3%
FTE Admin 11.3 10.6 10.6 10 11.1 11.1 11.3
Administrators actual 64,813$ 70,185$ 108.3% 72,425$ 103.2% 77,106$ 106.5% 72,682$ 94.3% 74,936$ 103.1% 75,525$ 100.8%
732,390$ 743,959$ 101.6% 767,709$ 103.2% 771,056$ 100.4% 806,771$ 104.6% 831,790$ 103.1% 853,427$ 102.6% 877,511$ 102.8%
FTE Teachers 64 62 64 62 64 60 61
Teachers actual 45,098$ 48,311$ 107.1% 48,409$ 100.2% 48,563$ 100.3% 48,835$ 100.6% 49,125$ 100.6% 50,647$ 103.1%
2,886,253$ 2,995,271$ 103.8% 3,098,148$ 103.4% 3,010,888$ 97.2% 3,125,451$ 103.8% 2,947,520$ 94.3% 3,089,485$ 104.8% 2,957,929$ 95.7%
FTE other 14.4 13.1 19.1 16.3 7.6 9.7 8.7
other cert actual 37,959$ 40,773$ 107.4% 31,383$ 77.0% 34,910$ 111.2% 46,205$ 132.4% 44,445$ 96.2% 56,597$ 127.3%
546,613$ 534,129$ 97.7% 599,419$ 112.2% 569,035$ 94.9% 351,161$ 61.7% 431,121$ 122.8% 492,396$ 114.2% 451,456$ 91.7%
FET Class 42.7 39.5 41.9 40.7 40.9 41.9 41.5
Classified actual 26,926$ 29,325$ 108.9% 29,973$ 102.2% 31,191$ 104.1% 31,993$ 102.6% 31,996$ 100.0% 33,779$ 105.6%
1,149,730$ 1,158,321$ 100.7% 1,255,879$ 108.4% 1,269,480$ 101.1% 1,308,495$ 103.1% 1,340,616$ 102.5% 1,401,820$ 104.6% 1,439,313$ 102.7%
Total Salaries 5,314,986$ 5,431,680$ 102.2% 5,721,155$ 105.3% 5,620,459$ 98.2% 5,591,878$ 99.5% 5,551,047$ 99.3% 5,837,128$ 105.2% 5,726,209$ 98.1%
% of total expenditures 48.0% 45.2% 46.5% 49.8% 48.4% 47.5% 49.4% 49.3%
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
total budgeted expenses ^ 12,178,378$ 12,904,382$ 106.0% 13,921,701$ 107.9% 13,449,083$ 96.6% 13,668,361$ 101.6% 13,981,380$ 102.3% 14,144,550$ 101.2% 13,735,910$ 97.1%
Budgeted expenses per student ^ 11,016$ 12,840$ 116.6% 14,059$ 109.5% 13,582$ 96.6% 13,874$ 102.1% 14,381$ 103.7% 14,146$ 98.4% 13,877$ 98.1%
total expenditures * 11,070,816$ 12,020,023$ 108.6% 12,304,720$ 102.4% 11,275,090$ 91.6% 11,545,453$ 102.4% 11,691,180$ 101.3% 11,821,966$ 101.1% 11,622,972$
Actual expenses per student * 11,016$ 11,960$ 108.6% 12,426$ 103.9% 11,387$ 91.6% 11,566$ 101.6% 11,716$ 101.3% 11,944$ 101.9% 11,743$
#s from year before budget at a glance 12,020,651$ 12,214,252$ 11,691,181$
#s from year before budget at a glance 11,961$ 12,335$ 11,692$
Budgeted total revenue, state, fed, local * 14,341,287$ 14,604,250$ 101.8% 13,395,315$ 91.7%
Budgeted Revenue per student * 14,725.63$ 15,501.80$ 105.3%
Revenue - Expenses 2,650,107$ 2,782,284$
total revenue, state, fed, local * 11,070,816$ 111.6% 12,020,651$ 108.6% 12,214,252$ 101.6% 11,275,090$ 92.3% 11,545,452$ 102.4% 11,691,181$ 101.3% 11,821,966$ 101.1%
Actual expenses per student * 11,016$ 111.8% 12,140$ 110.2% 12,017.17$ 99.0% 11,349$ 94.4% 12,064$ 106.3% 12,004$ 99.5% 12,549$ 104.5%
Actual FTE enrollment 1005 99.8% 990.2 98.5% 1016.4 102.6% 993.5 97.7% 957 96.3% 0 973.9 101.8% # 942.1 96.7% 952.4 101.1%
FTE Actual including preschool (form 1000) * 990.2 #REF! 990.2 #REF! 990.2 990.2 988.5 997.9 989.8
includes all funds
(capital, bond, virtual)
2009-2010 has different numbers
from republishing
contracted

6. These numbers are taken from Budget at a Glance
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
total Budgeted Expenses
total expenditure 12,178,378$
total Actual Expenses
total expenditures 9,114,119$ 9,920,003$ 108.8% 11,070,816$
These numbers ar
general fund budget
general fund actuals
contingency reserve July 1st Balance 240,662$ 391,552$
Actual sources of Revenue These numbers are taken from Smoky Valley (USD DO400) Mcpherson C
State Aid 5,275,399$ 5,365,918$ 101.7% 5,827,921$ 108.6% 5,414,875$ 92.9% 5,922,546$ 109.4% 6,780,447$ 114.5% 7,764,679$
Federal Aid 163,029$ 164,369$ 100.8% 171,830$ 104.5% 178,186$ 103.7% 319,038$ 179.0% 313,373$ 98.2% 331,823$
Local Revenue 2,344,007$ 2,184,821$ 93.2% 2,194,057$ 100.4% 2,922,562$ 133.2% 2,872,535$ 98.3% 2,826,181$ 98.4% 2,974,314$
total revenue 7,782,435$ 7,715,108$ 99.1% 8,193,808$ 106.2% 8,515,623$ 103.9% 9,114,119$ 107.0% 9,920,001$ 108.8% 11,070,816$
State Aid per student 5,295$ 5,394$ 101.9% 6,205$ 115.0% 5,879$ 94.8% 6,234$ 106.0% 6,736$ 108.1% 7,726$
Federal Aid per student 164$ 165$ 101.0% 183$ 110.7% 193$ 105.8% 336$ 173.6% 311$ 92.7% 330$
Local Revenue per student 2,353$ 2,196$ 93.3% 2,336$ 106.4% 3,173$ 135.9% 3,023$ 95.3% 2,808$ 92.9% 2,960$
total spent per student 7,811$ 7,755$ 99.3% 8,723$ 112.5% 9,246$ 106.0% 9,593$ 103.8% 9,855$ 102.7% 11,016$
Enrollment (FTE)* for Budget Authority 996.3 0 994.8 99.8% 939.3 94.4% 921 98.1% 950.1 103.2% 1006.6 105.9% 1005
includes all funds (capital, bond,
virtual)
from 2008-2009
Budget at a Glace
10% of general fund budget is max
tried to close MJH

7. 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
12,904,382$ 106.0% 13,921,701$ 107.9% 13,449,083$ 96.6% 13,668,361$ 101.6% 13,981,380$ 102.3% 14,144,550$ 101.2% 13,735,910$ 97.1%
111.6% 12,020,023$ 108.6% 12,304,720$ 102.4% 11,275,090$ 91.6% 11,545,453$ 102.4% 11,691,181$ 101.3% 11,821,966$ 101.1%
12,020,651$ 12,214,252$
Budgeted sources of Revenue
State 7,336,879$ 7,288,960$ 99.3% 7,236,510$ 99.3%
Federal 372,059$ 365,796$ 98.3% 280,632$ 76.7%
Local 6,632,349$ 6,949,494$ 104.8% 5,878,173$ 84.6%
total revenue 14,341,287$ 14,604,250$ 101.8% 13,395,315$ 91.7%
11,944$
budgeted rev-accual exp 2,650,106$ 2,782,284$
numbers are taken from the Budget USD#400 - Smoky Valley
6,949,999$ 6,742,567$ 6,862,232$ 6,775,221$ 6,695,860$
7,969,019$ 7,954,329$ 6,840,633$ 6,749,650$ 7,050,483$ 6,853,681$
411,220.86$ 6.0%
409,467$ 426,797$ 737,142$ 737,142$ 737,142$ 498,142$ 396,686$
cpherson County, KDOE website
Last 13 year %
increase
114.5% 8,433,477$ 108.6% 8,449,210$ 100.2% 6,852,467$ 81.1% 6,944,054$ 101.3% 7,336,879$ 105.7% 7,288,960$ 99.3% 138.2%
105.9% 254,341$ 76.6% 276,729$ 108.8% 876,230$ 316.6% 682,923$ 77.9% 372,059$ 54.5% 365,796$ 98.3% 224.4%
105.2% 3,332,833$ 112.1% 3,488,313$ 104.7% 3,546,393$ 101.7% 3,918,475$ 110.5% 3,982,243$ 101.6% 4,167,210$ 104.6% 177.8%
111.6% 12,020,651$ 108.6% 12,214,252$ 101.6% 11,275,090$ 92.3% 11,545,452$ 102.4% 11,691,181$ 101.3% 11,821,966$ 101.1% 151.9%
114.7% 8,517$ 110.2% 8,313$ 97.6% 6,897$ 83.0% 7,256$ 105.2% 7,534$ 103.8% 7,737$ 102.7% 146.1%
106.1% 257$ 77.8% 272$ 106.0% 882$ 323.9% 714$ 80.9% 382$ 53.5% 388$ 101.6% 237.3%
105.4% 3,366$ 113.7% 3,432$ 102.0% 3,570$ 104.0% 4,095$ 114.7% 4,089$ 99.9% 4,423$ 108.2% 188.0%
111.8% 12,140$ 110.2% 12,017$ 99.0% 11,349$ 94.4% 12,064$ 106.3% 12,004$ 99.5% 12,549$ 104.5% 160.6%
99.8% 990.2 98.5% 1016.4 102.6% 993.5 97.7% 957 96.3% 973.9 101.8% 942.1 96.7% 952.4 101.1%
Budget at a Glance #
9
ace
from 2009-2010 Budget at a Glance
Verual School funding
changed
State Pre-K funded at
this year and therafter 6% of general fund budget
is maxMJH closed
closed MES 4th grade
Closed MES