ELCSD Final Report Dated 8.26.13r

East Liverpool City Schools
Comparison Study of Similar
Districts
&
Efficiency Review
Prepared For the East Liverpool City
School District Board of Education
August 26, 2013
By:
K-12 Business Consulting, Inc.
www.k12consulting.net
Christopher Mohr, MBA, RSBA, CGFM ~ President
Dale Miller, CPA ~ Associate

East Liverpool City Schools – Comparison Study & Efficiency Review
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS PAGE
Executive Summary i
Comparison Study Methodology and Objectives of Study 1
Table 1 ODE Comparison Group and Table 2 Peer Group School Districts 2
General Fund Revenue, Expenditures, & Ending Balance – Actual FY10-13 Est. FY14-17 3
General Fund Ending Cash Balance by Operating Days – Actual FY10-13 Est. FY14-17 4
General Fund Revenue and Expenses Actual FY13 4 - 5
General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Projection Accuracy 6
I. Comparing ELCSD Key Business Matrices to the ODE Comparison
Group of Most Similar Districts and Selected Peer Group School Districts
Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures & % Ending Balance to Revenues – Actual FY12 7 - 8
Student Enrollment -Actual FY03 through FY13 Estimated FY14 through FY22 9
Revenue Per Pupil by Major Source - Actual FY03 through FY12 10
Revenue Per Pupil Comparison - Actual FY12 11
Comparing District Median Income for Calendar Year 2010 to Local Tax Effort 12 - 13
District 10 Year Cost Per Pupil History – Actual FY02-12 14
ODE and Peer Comparison Group Cost Per Pupil – Actual FY12 15
ODE and Peer Group Performance Index Ranking – Actual FY11 16 - 17
ODE and Peer Comparison Group Average Daily Membership – Actual FY10-12 17 - 18
ODE and Peer Comparison Group Expenditure by Major Object – Actual FY12 18 - 20
ODE and Peer Group Cost Per Pupil by Major Function Category – Actual FY12 20 - 22
ODE and Peer Comparison Group Student/Teacher Ratios – Actual FY10-12 22 - 23
ODE and Peer Group Student/Administrator Ratios – Actual F12 23 - 24
ODE Comparison Group Certified Average Salaries – Actual FY10-12 24 - 25
ODE and Peer Group Teacher Experience – Actual FY12 26 - 27
ODE and Peer Group Classified Average Wages – Actual FY10-12 27 - 28
ODE and Peer Group % Fringe Benefits to Wages – Actual FY12 28 - 29
ODE and Peer Group % Retirement & Health Insurance to Wages – Actual FY12 30

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued
ODE and Peer Group Utility Costs Per Sq. Ft.–Actual FY12 31 - 32
ODE and Peer Group Custodial/Maintenance Cost Per Sq. Ft. – Actual FY12 32 – 33
ODE and Peer Group Maintenance/Custodial and Utility Costs Per Sq. Ft. – FY12 33 - 35
ODE and Peer Group Transportation Costs Per Pupil – Actual FY10-11 35 - 36
ODE and Peer Group Transportation Efficiency Ratio– Actual FY12 37
Comparison of Food Service Revenues, Expenditures, and Profit & (Loss) –
Actual FY10-FY12 and Estimated FY13 38
Food Service Revenues – FY12 39
Food Service Expenditures – FY12 39
ODE and Peer Group Food Surplus (Deficit) & Participation % - Actual FY12 40
II. Efficiency Study Identifying Measurable Areas of Potential Cost Reductions
Calculating Possible Cost Reduction Range Using Cost Per Pupil Approach 41
Where District Might Look for Causes of Higher Cost Per Pupil 41 - 44
Efficiency Study Results by Major Business Operation:
A. Financial Management Systems 44 - 45
B. Procurement Practices 45 - 46
C. Health Insurance 46
D. Facilities Operations 47
E. Transportation Operations 47 - 49
F. Food Service Operations 49 - 50
Appendix A – Staffing Analysis 2010-2011 51
Appendix B – Staffing Analysis 2011-2012 52
Appendix C – Total Staff FY11 vs. FY12 53

Executive Summary Page i
Executive Summary
The fiscal-year end cash reserves of the East Liverpool City School District have decreased by
approximately $2 million, or one-third, of the $6 million in reserves on hand a few fiscal years ago. In
October 2012, the Treasurer presented a five-year forecast projecting the remaining $4 million in reserves
would be gone within five years unless revenues rose or expenditures dropped.
In the two-year State budget (HB59) Gov. John Kasich signed on June 30, the School District received an
additional $1 million annually in State funding. This improved the fiscal outlook when the Treasurer
updated the financial forecast in May 2013. Now, it is the responsibility of the District to take the steps
necessary to control its expenditures to ensure its budget is balanced for the foreseeable future. The purpose
of this report is to provide the district with guidance and insight in order to effectuate good decision making
and efficient stewardship of its resources.
This report notes that the District has an effective system of fiscal reporting and management. It documents
that the District is more reliant on State financial support than most other school systems in the state of
Ohio, including peer districts nearby and across Ohio. This exposes the district to the vicissitudes of the
legislative funding process for schools more than its peers. This report identifies areas where the district
compares favorably and unfavorably with similar districts.
During Fiscal Year 2012-13, the District had a more senior staff than most peer districts, and with
correspondingly greater salary and benefits costs. Seven senior staff members retired at the end of the school
year, and several others voluntarily left the District, which will reduce employment costs going forward.
However, with employees set to pay 7.5% of health insurance premium costs in Fiscal Year 2013-14,
compared to 15% or more for peer districts across Ohio, this is an area with the future potential for cost
savings. Additionally, while the District is a member of a consortium that provides it with leverage for
controlling health insurance costs, the District is paying above-market rates for life insurance through the
consortium. The potential cost savings is in excess of $25,000 per year. The District also has more students
involved in school choice programs than peer districts.
Current cash reserves compare favorably with similar districts. Instructional and instructional support costs
are near peer averages. Administrative costs are well below peer averages. But, operations and maintenance
costs are above peer averages, partially due to the fact that the District has not had a permanent improvement
levy to shoulder the cost of major capital improvements in more than ten years.
The District spends $936 more per pupil than the peer average. An important reason for this is that its pupil-
teacher ratio is among the lowest of its peers. Two important reasons for this are that it has 38% more
special education students than the average peer district and it operates an independent vocational
educational program. Pupil-teacher ratios for many vocational educational programs and special education
programs are required to be lower than the 25:1 ratio for general educational programs. Both of these factors
help drive the district’s instructional costs higher than peer districts.
Some of the higher costs the district incurs are the result of necessary and legitimate policy pronouncements
made by the Board of Education. A good example is the decision to permit all children who wish to ride a
school bus to school to do so. This “safety first” policy is due to the rugged terrain of the district and lack of
sidewalks in outlying areas.
The empirical data used in the report pinpoints existing strengths in district operations and uses benchmarks
to form the foundation for improving efficiencies in the total operation of the East Liverpool City School
District.
K-12 would like to close with a note of appreciation to district Treasurer/CFO, Mr. Todd Puster, and to
several other staff members for being generous with their time for questions and for supplying the volumes
of information that made this report as accurate as possible. The administrative staff support and input was
invaluable to this project.

East Liverpool CSD– Comparison Study & Efficiency Review
1
Comparison Study Methodology and Objectives of the Study
The purpose of this Comparison Study and Efficiency Review is to comply with the Board of Education’s
request to objectively compare the East Liverpool City School Districts (ELCSD) key business matrices
with other school districts and review business operations to identify three areas of interest:
1) Review the district’s key business matrices in a Comparison Study of similar school districts using
measurable data calculated by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE).
2) Identify measureable areas from this data and information obtained from district staff to conduct an
Efficiency Review to determine where the district might seek to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
3) Identify areas of efficient operations and resource use in the district from the data reviewed.
This report is a limited comparison based on available data maintained by the Ohio Department of
Education (ODE) in various reports which was compiled to make the comparisons in this report. The data
used in this report is from the most recent comparison data available which is for fiscal year 2012 (July 1,
2011 through June 30, 2012) also denoted as FY12. We also used data from the district profile report often
referred to as the Cupp Report from FY12 which is also the most current available. The report provides the
District with information that is intended to help its leaders better understand its cost structures and revenue
streams. A more in-depth Efficiency Study would be required to determine with specificity why areas may
appear higher or lower compared to ELCSD and to determine what added savings and/or efficiency may be
gained in a particular area of operation.
It should also be noted that many variables affect revenue and expenses of the district such as: district
policies, administrative guidelines, collective bargaining, and other locally determined educational
variables. These variables affect key costs such as pupil teacher ratio, program delivery, technology and
materials used in curriculum, facility maintenance levels, and transportation service levels and so on.
While the operating matrices may be comparable, the real understanding of why there are
differences is a much deeper question and would require extensive work to review program delivery
and operations in the ELCSD district, but it would also be necessary to identify the low or lowest cost
comparison district and then analyzing their operation on-site in that district as well to fully draw
conclusions.
Two (2) control groups are used for comparisons in this study. The first comparison group is the “ODE
Comparison Group” which is data for “Similar Districts” as defined by the ODE. The second comparison
group will be referred to as the “Peer Group” and is made up of districts identified by the administration
as good benchmarks for comparative purposes within its region. These school districts are noted in Table 2
on Page 2. This group is mostly a geographic comparison group to be a point of reference as there are
socio-economic, demographic and student enrollment differences among school districts in the sample that
render them incomparable from a technical standpoint. In the Peer Group the reader must consider these
differences as these factors may skew comparisons ELCSD.
When mentioning Similar Districts or ODE Comparison Group Districts we are referring to a unique group
of up to 20 “Similar Districts” noted in Table 1 on Page 2 that are most technically similar to ELCSD
according to certain statistical criteria established by the ODE. Statistically speaking, these are the "most
similar" districts to ELCSD as determined by ODE. Five (5) criteria are used to determine the “Similar
Districts” comparison grouping:
 district size as determined by student average daily membership (ADM)
 poverty level
 socioeconomic status (median income, education, occupational data)
 factors related to urban or rural location (population density, % of mining property value,
% of agricultural property, cost of doing business adjustment factor)
 overall property wealth (non-agricultural and non-residential tax capacity)

2
Table 1: Comparison Group of Similar Districts Per Ohio Department of Education FY12
Rank IRN District County ADM
Poverty
as % of
ADM
% of
Populati
on
Administ
rative or
Professio
nal
Occupati
ons
Median
Income
% of
Populati
on with
College
Degree
or More
%
Agricultu
ral
Property
Populati
on
Density
Non-
Residenti
al & Non-
Agricultu
ral Per
Pupil
%
Minority
Students
0 43919 East Liverpool City Columbiana 2,213 56.9 21.4 24,992 18.0 2.3 1,223.0 16,326 13.2
1 44065 Girard City Trumbull 1,729 55.9 26.8 24,964 24.0 0.4 1,660.0 20,575 12.0
2 44347 Martins Ferry City Belmont 1,565 56.2 24.9 25,096 20.2 6.9 395.0 16,181 11.9
3 44495 Niles City Trumbull 2,771 62.3 22.8 25,611 18.3 0.4 2,207.0 22,381 10.6
4 46243 Tecumseh Local Clark 3,190 48.4 25.0 28,989 18.7 8.0 446.0 13,619 12.5
5 44560 Norwalk City Huron 3,009 47.8 23.6 27,100 19.5 3.5 605.0 23,090 14.2
6 45013 Washington Court House CityFayette 2,321 54.4 25.0 24,640 17.2 0.2 2,559.0 25,136 8.4
7 44859 Struthers City Mahoning 2,013 63.8 22.1 24,554 17.5 0.2 2,277.0 9,927 15.4
8 49452 Madison Local Richland 3,051 57.0 20.8 26,500 14.1 4.3 583.0 27,533 11.2
9 43810 Conneaut Area City Ashtabula 1,983 63.2 23.6 24,145 17.2 14.9 251.0 20,057 7.9
10 44123 Hillsboro City Highland 2,684 58.5 19.8 25,467 16.3 16.8 111.0 24,193 9.9
11 48702 Mad River Local Montgomery 3,461 51.9 26.0 25,631 21.3 0.2 2,037.0 20,730 19.8
12 43687 Bucyrus City Crawford 1,579 63.5 21.0 24,192 14.8 0.3 1,886.0 22,943 7.3
13 47951 South Point Local Lawrence 1,823 60.4 27.0 26,402 19.3 6.4 469.0 26,411 9.9
14 44149 Ironton City Lawrence 1,520 56.4 34.3 24,642 17.6 0.2 2,743.0 25,472 11.1
15 46953 Hamilton Local Franklin 3,004 61.6 18.9 28,168 14.1 3.6 788.0 29,311 18.8
16 44941 Urbana City Champaign 2,273 50.4 25.8 27,466 19.7 7.8 291.0 29,412 13.5
17 43588 Bellefontaine City Logan 2,741 51.6 27.0 26,588 19.8 3.8 497.0 30,300 15.2
18 44966 Van Wert City Van Wert 2,037 46.0 22.7 27,493 21.4 14.4 197.0 23,226 8.7
19 50245 LaBrae Local Trumbull 1,537 52.4 17.1 27,184 9.8 17.2 248.0 15,260 8.7
20 43570 Bellaire Local Belmont 1,318 64.8 21.3 24,532 17.7 13.2 226.0 19,561 10.7
ODE Similar Comparison Districts
Source: ODE Similar District Methodology Fiscal Year 2012
Table 2: Peer Group Districts Based on ODE Data for FY12
IRN District County ADM
Poverty
as % of
ADM
% of
Populati
on
Administ
rative or
Professio
nal
Occupati
ons
Median
Income
% of
Populati
on with
College
Degree
or More
%
Agricultu
ral
Property
Populati
on
Density
Non-
Residenti
al & Non-
Agricultu
ral Per
Pupil
%
Minority
Students
43919 East Liverpool City Columbiana 2,213 56.9 21.4 24,992 18.0 2.3 1,223.0 16,326 13.2
43570 Bellaire Local Belmont 1,318 64.8 21.3 24,532 17.7 13.2 226 19,561 10.7
43695 Cambridge City Guernsey 2,361 63.9 24.8 22,963 17.6 7.1 209 30,828 9
44347 Martins FerryCity Belmont 1,565 56.2 24.9 25,096 20.2 6.9 395 16,181 11.9
44735 Salem City Columbiana 2093 47.9 24 26,403 21.5 2.6 940 41,583 3.6
44826 Steubenville City Jefferson 2253 66 26.2 23,217 21.7 0.3 2193 24,492 41.7
45245 Harrison Hills City Harrison 1631 50.5 19.9 27,603 16.1 43.8 37 30,150 6.3
45278 Carrollton Exempted VillageCarroll 2387 47 25.4 29,935 16.4 35.9 59 27,423 1.9
45997 St Clairsville-Richland CityBelmont 1666 28.6 31.7 32,897 25 8 213 71,129 7.1
46425 Beaver Local Columbiana 2063 45.5 26.4 30,554 19.2 20.4 143 23,965 2.4
47787 Buckeye Local Jefferson 1995 54.7 21.2 27,627 16.5 15.8 120 77,988 2.7
47795 Edison Local Jefferson 1950 42.5 24.3 31,169 20 23.8 74 72,035 1.4
49890 Minerva Local Stark 2010 48.8 21.1 29,072 14.5 23.9 150 20,494 2.4
Source: ODE Data Warehouse FY12

3
General Fund Revenue, Expenditures & Ending Balance
A review of this information is a good starting point as it assesses the overall financial health of the school
system when looking at comparative data for revenue and expenditures. The ending balance and reserve
level of the General Fund has a significant impact on the district’s ability to meet unforeseen events and
needs. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Best Practice guidance suggests an
ending unreserved General Fund cash balance of no less than one (1) month of operating
expenditures, and that each government’s particular circumstances may dictate an unreserved fund balance
significantly in excess of this amount. The district numbers noted in Figures 1 and 2 are from the most
recent Five Year Forecast to be filed with the ODE May 2013 and the actual FY13 year end results.
The graph below (Figures 1 and 2) shows adequate reserves and ending balances through FY16 but,
beginning in FY17 ending balances began to fall as expenditures outpaced revenues. The renewal of the 6.5
mill emergency levy is included in the revenue noted below in the graph. Also revenues projected in the
forecast include state revenues for ELCSD projected in the House version of HB59 for the state of Ohio
biennium budget for FY14 and FY15. This could be exacerbated by uncertain funding from the state of
Ohio if the HB59 simulation for FY14 and FY15 is not funded as noted in the simulation. Also the FY16-
FY17 state budget could help or further exacerbate the ending balance. The district receives roughly80%
of total General Fund revenue from the state of Ohio.
Figure 1: General Fund Revenue, Expenditures and Ending Balance Actual FY10-13 and -Est. FY14-17
$0
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
Act 2010 Act 2011 Act 2012 Act 2013 Est 2014 Est 2015 Est 2016 Est 2017
General FundRevenue, Expenditures &CashBalances
Revenue Expenditure Cash Balance
Includesa
renewal levy
*Source: District Five Year Forecast filed in May 2013 with ODE and FY13 final year end data
General Fund Ending Cash Balance
Through FY16 the district appears to have an adequate ending cash balance to meet the minimum level of
reserves suggested by GFOA. Beginning in FY17, however, the district’s ending cash balance is estimated
to decline below a 30-day level. ELCSD will need to plan adjustments by three methods 1) controlled and
calculated precise cuts in expenditures, 2) additional revenues, and 3) slow controlled use of the General
Fund reserves. These steps taken early can have a compounding effect on ending cash balances throughout
the forecast and extend the time or necessity of major steps.

4
Figure 2: General Fund Ending Cash Balances Actual FY10-13 and Est. FY14-17
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
Act 2010 Act 2011 Act 2012 Act 2013 Est 2014 Est 2015 Est 2016 Est 2017
General FundEnding CashBalance
30 Days
Ending Cash
Unencumbered
Includesa
renewal levy
*Source: District Five Year Forecast filed May 2013 with ODE and FY13 final year end data
General Fund Revenue and Expenses
Figure 3 on Page 5 shows the sources of general fund revenue the district received in FY13 based on final
year end June 30, 2013 data. It should be noted that state foundation, restricted state aid and property tax
allocation are all sources from the state of Ohio and amount to nearly 80% of district operating revenues.
This high proportion of revenue attributable to state revenues exposes the district to swings in the state
economy and legislative choices on public school funding which occur every two (2) years in Ohio. This
obviously means that ELCSD is not able to control or know with certainty the largest source of revenues
for operating the district for more than a short-term period of two years.
The district has limited local property tax revenue capacity as its property value per pupil is $62,294 while
the state average is $137,515 and similar districts average is $88,046. It also has limited capacity for a
school district income tax as the median income is $24,992 is also well below the state median income of
$31,681 based on 2010 data. This generally means the district will have to turn to costs in order to control
ending cash balances and financial stability if state funding is reduced or frozen in future years.
Figure 4 on Page 5 shows general fund expenditures in FY13 based on final year end June 30, 2013 data.
This shows that roughly 73% of expenses are for wages and fringe benefits which is below the statewide
average of 77.6% and similar district averages of 78.4%. With 73% of expenses in wages and benefits the
district has not tied up as much in these large cost items and has some flexibility in cost cutting if needed in
an economic downturn such as that faced with state funding cuts in FY12 and FY13. Purchased services
costs are 20% of costs and are slightly higher than the statewide average of 17.4% and similar district
average of 16.1%. This is likely due to deductions for community school, open enrollment and voucher
programs as the district has 480 students leaving the district at June 2013 for other opportunities.

5
Figure 3: General Fund Operating Revenue (Sources) Actual FY13
Property Tax
16%
State Foundation
76%
Restricted State Aid
1%
Restricted Federal
0%
Property Tax Allocation
3%
Other Operating Revenue
4%
Other Financing Sources
0%
General FundOperating Revenues Est. FY13$23,221,607
Figure 4: General Fund Operating Expenditure (Uses) Actual FY13
Wages
49%
Benefits
24%
Purchased Services
20%
Materials
2%Capital
1%Other
2%
Transfers
2%
General Fund Operating Expenditures Actual FY13 $24,758,188
General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Projection Accuracy
The district five year forecast is required to be created and filed by October 31 and May 31 of each fiscal
year. The accuracy of the forecast is paramount to providing the district board of education and
administration with accurate information with which to make informed decisions. The processes and

6
systems created to accurately produce these estimates can be measured by their accuracy based on actual
results. Below in Table 3 and 4 we look at the baseline (current) year estimates made a year in advance vs.
the actual results. The accuracy of the baseline year lays the foundation for years two through five of the
long-term forecast. During the four year period from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2013, the district
treasurer has predicted revenue within a range of .21% to 3.09%, with an average variance of .39% or
99.61% accurate. Expenses have been estimated within a range of .03% to 3.73% accuracy with a four
year average of .73% variance or 99.27% accurate over time.
Based on these results it is apparent that the Treasurer has established controls and processes to accurately
project district revenues and expenses consistently in order to provide excellent data to management.
Table 3: General Fund Revenue Estimates Vs. Actual FY10 through FY13
Estimated Actual
Revenue By Fiscal Year Revenue Revenue Variance %
FY13 $23,271,364 $23,221,607 ($49,757) -0.21%
FY12 $24,409,988 $24,225,344 ($184,644) -0.76%
FY11 $23,796,369 $23,680,451 ($115,918) -0.49%
FY10 $23,301,000 $24,021,290 $720,290 3.09%
Avg. 4 Year Accuracy $94,778,721 $95,148,692 $369,971 0.39%
*Source District Monthly Financial Reports
Table 4: General Fund Expenditure Estimates Vs. Actual FY10 through FY13
Estimated Actual
Expenditure By Fiscal Year Expenditures Expenditures Variance %
FY13 $24,339,159 $24,758,188 ($419,029) -1.72%
FY12 $24,693,485 $24,701,420 ($7,935) -0.03%
FY11 $24,636,505 $24,370,174 $266,331 1.08%
FY10 $23,125,538 $22,263,046 $862,492 3.73%
Avg. 4 Year Accuracy $96,794,687 $96,092,828 $701,859 0.73%
*Source District Monthly Financial Reports
I. COMPARING ELCSD KEY BUSINESS MATRICES TO THE ODE
COMPARISON GROUP OF MOST SIMILAR DISTRICTS AND THE PEER
GROUP SCHOOL DISTRICTS
The next several Pages of this report (Page 6 through Page 40) will be devoted to comparing ELCSD to the
districts noted in Table 1 and Table 2 on Page 2 to determine how they compare in a number of measurable
key business matrices. The source data for each graph is noted below each graph.
The user of this report should be aware that while the data maintained by the ODE is highly accurate, there
is some degree of variability in the actual account coding of expenditures by the finance office of each
individual district. The cost coding variances can be material in some cases. For instance Figure 22, on
Page 21” ODE Comparison Group Cost per Pupil By Major Function Category FY 12” shows costs by
percentage for administration. Some districts code copier leases, maintenance and copy paper used in
school buildings as “administrative expenses”, yet others code these expenses as “instructional expenses”.
Both can be acceptable coding but result in the district appearing high or low in either category compared

7
to another district who may code differently. Copiers are a significant expense in most schools particularly
if they deliver copied sets of purchased online material to students in place of textbooks and how frequently
copies are made of short-cycle assessments and other tests to determine student progress. Cost differences
in the data do vary between districts to some extent due to account coding preferences used by each district
as illustrated by this administrative cost example.
Copiers are just one example of variability in account coding that can lead to differences in comparative
data. The only way to determine variances such as the copy cost example above would be to analyze cost
difference and dissect it at the account coding level at each district being compared. This would require
cooperation with the individual district(s) to ask for their assistance in resolving the differences and an
extensive amount of time.
Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures FY 12 & % Ending Cash Balance to Revenues
Figure5 and 6 on Page 8 look at FY12 to determine if similar school districts spent more than they received
in FY12. When this happens it is generally a negative sign that the district is starting into a cycle where
cash will be depleted and lead to a levy request and/or budget reductions. In FY12 and FY13 the state of
Ohio reduced funding to schools by cutting tangible personal property (TPP) reimbursements and the
federal government eliminated State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (SFSF) and Education Jobs (EdJobs)
funding. Most districts received less money in FY12 and FY13which is why 72% of the ODE comparison
group districts were spending more than they received in FY12.
In FY12 ELCSD ended the fiscal year with expenditures exceeding revenues and the trend continues into
fiscal year 2013. Once the pattern of spending more than revenue received begins it is difficult to change.
Long term a new revenue source or painful reductions in expenditures will be needed unless additional
revenues anticipated in the new state budget (HB59) beginning July 1, 2013 provides the anticipated
additional revenue in FY14 and FY15 to reverse this trend.
Looking at Figure 5 on Page 8 the average district in the ODE comparison group used approximately
$201,500 of reserves in FY12 and carried 20.3% of annual revenue as and ending balance, while ELCSD
carried 21.4%. The Government Finance Officers Association suggests one to two months of ending
unreserved cash or a range of 8% to 15% as a minimum.
ELCSD carried 21.4%which was greater than the average ODE Comparison Group district and
better than the minimum prescribed as a best practice by the Government Finance Officers
Association.

8
Figure 5: General Fund Revenue Over(under) Expenditures & % Ending Cash Balance to Revenue FY12
-2%
0%
2% 2%
5%
8%
16% 17%
19% 19%
20%
20%
21%
21%
24%
25%
26%
31% 32%
37% 37%
40%
46%
-10.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
-$2,500,000
-$2,000,000
-$1,500,000
-$1,000,000
-$500,000
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
ODE Group Revenue Over(Under) Expenditures & % Ending Cash Balance to
Revenue FY12
FY12 Exp Over Rev Ending Balance As % Rev FY12
*Source: FY12 ODE School District Fiscal Benchmark Report
Compared to the Peer Group, in Figure 6 ELCSD percentage of carry over ending balance was above
average among these selected districts. The average for the peer group was 10% and ELCSD was 21.4% so
ELCSD was in comparably better shape cash balance wise than most peer group districts.
Figure 6: General Fund Revenue Over (under) Expenditures & % Ending Cash Balance to Revenue FY12
-2%
2% 3% 3% 4%
6% 7%
8% 8%
10%
16%
19%
21%
24% 24%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
-$1,200,000
-$1,000,000
-$800,000
-$600,000
-$400,000
-$200,000
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
Peer GroupOver(Under) Exp.& % Ending Cash to Revenue FY12
FY12 Exp Over Rev Ending Balance As % Rev FY12
*Source: FY12 ODE School District Fiscal Benchmark Report

9
Student Enrollment Trend Data
The district enrollment had been on a steady decline from FY03 through FY10 according to a report issued
by DeJong Healy dated February 3, 2012, which is represented in the Figure 7 below. Beginning in FY11
the district enrollment stabilized and has actually increased slightly since FY11 through FY13 based on
actual enrollment data. The DeJong Healy report called for enrollment to essentially remain steady through
FY22. It appears that enrollment may remain steady through FY22 but at a slightly higher enrollment
number than was noted in this February 3, 2012 report.
Student enrollment is very important to ELCSD as it continues to study efficient facility utilization and
future housing needs for students. Declining enrollment also tends to exacerbate comparable statistics such
as revenue and expenditures per pupil. District costs and revenues per pupil can increase or decrease based
on the enrollment number used in the denominator of these ratios even though no additional expenses or
revenues are received. Much of the comparable data captured and reported by the ODE is based on a per
pupil basis as noted throughout this report and may distort actual data compared to districts with growing or
stagnant enrollment.
Figure 7: Student Enrollment Actual FY03 through FY13 and Estimated FY14 through FY22
0
250
500
750
1,000
1,250
1,500
1,750
2,000
2,250
2,500
2,750
3,000
3,250
A-03
A-04
A-05
A-06
A-07
A-08
A-09
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
E-14
E-15
E-16
E-17
E-18
E-19
E-20
E-21
E-22
StudentEnrollment
A = Actual Enrollment ~ E= Estimated Enrollment
Student Enrollment Actual School Year 2003 through Est. 2022
C-tech
7-12
5-6
PK-4
Total
*Source Dejong Healy
Report February 3, 2012
* Source: DeJong Healy Report February 3, 2012 and Actual FY13 Enrollment ODE Bridge Report May
2013
Revenue Per Pupil By Major Source
The district has three (3) operating revenue sources, Federal, State, and Local as shown in Figure 8. Total
revenue fell from FY09 to FY10 and has remained stagnant in total since FY10. Property taxes and state
basic aid revenue are the significant source of revenues to the district by far. The ELCSD receives the
largest share of its operating revenues from state of Ohio. This source of revenue has been under stress due
to the FY12-FY13 state budget and reductions of funding to the state from the federal government.
ELCSD is a formula district and therefore receives state funding increases or decreases based on student
average daily membership in state funding in FY13. The local revenue sources are also being stressed with
property valuation decreasing due to the slow housing market. ELCSD has seen five consecutive years of
decreased assessed values and the loss of tangible personal property values. The district has maintained tax

10
revenues due to HB 920 effects or the revenues would have dropped further. The current national and state
economic concerns are improving due to increasing economic vigor. In addition, the energy developments
in and around the area may help to stimulate new development and jobs. The only change projected in
revenues for FY14 and FY15 is new state funding anticipated in HB59 the new FY14-15 state biennium
budget which begins July 1, 2013.
Figure 8: Revenue Per Pupil By Major Source July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2012
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
Revenue Per Pupil HistorybyMajor Source FY2003- FY2012
Local Revenue State Revenue Federal Revenue Total
*Source: ODE Data Warehouse information updated through FY12
In comparing the district to the ODE Similar Districts and Peer Group School Districts, ELCSD is above
the state average in revenue collected per pupil. As noted on Figures 9 and 10 the district collects next to
the highest share of state revenue to total collected of any comparison or peer group districts. ELCSD, like
many in the ODE comparison group, find themselves heavily reliant on state funding due to below average
property valuation per pupil. Most of the funding that comes to the district for state aid is in the form of
formula funding. The lower the districts property value per pupil the more state aid per pupil the district
will receive. The district per pupil property valuation is $62,294 compared to a state-wide average of
$137,515 valuation per pupil. The district valuation per pupil is only 45% of the average school district in
Ohio’s valuation. This will mean that any increase in per pupil amount of state funding should benefit the
district in future state budgets, but it also means any reduction or freeze in state funding will have an
immediate negative impact on the district.
Federal funding for the school district is above average for both ODE and the peer groups due to a high
percentage of students being economically disadvantaged and a higher than average percentage of students
with disabilities. The district has 71% of students deemed to be economically disadvantaged compared to a
state-wide average of 45%, and 21% of students identified with a disability compared to a state-wide
average of 14%. This trend appears to be steady so it is likely the district will continue to receive a
significant amount of federal funding but may also face a higher exposure to federal funding reductions
such as the current sequestration of funds which will affect FY14 federal funding dollars for education.
Because of the heavy reliance on state and federal funding the district has a greater exposure to swings
based on economics affecting the broader economy than many districts, which are funded in a more
balanced blend of local, state and federal funding.

11
Figure 9: ODE Comparison Group Revenue Per Pupil – Actual FY12
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
ODE Comparison Group Revenue Per Pupil FY2012
Federal State Local Total
* Source: ODE Data Warehouse information updated through FY12
Figure10: Peer Group Revenue Per Pupil – Actual FY12
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Peer GroupComparisonRevenue Per Pupil FY2012
Federal State Local Total

12
Comparing District Median Income for Calendar Year 2009 to Local Tax Effort
Figures 11 and 12 compare the districts median income to local tax effort for schools, calendar year 2010 is
the most current available within the ODE data warehouse and a complex calculation.
Local Tax Effort Index Definition - is an index that tends to reflect the extent of effort residents of school
districts make in support of public primary and secondary education. This index, one of many possible
measures for evaluating local effort, was initially developed by the Division of Tax Analysis of the Ohio
Department of Taxation and is calculated in the context of residents’ ability to pay by determining the
relative position of each school district in the state in terms of the portion of residents’ income devoted to
supporting public education. For this calculation a four-step process is utilized as follows:
 In the first step, the ratio of any school income tax and Class 1 property taxes charged, to federal
adjusted gross income is calculated at the district and the state level.
 In the second step, the median income of districts’ residents is divided by the statewide median
income to get a ratio of district to state median income.
 In the third step, the district ratio calculated in the first step above is divided by the ratio calculated
in the second step to measure the effort in the context of ability to pay.
 In the fourth step, the ratio calculated in the third step above is divided by the statewide ratio
calculated in the first step above to determine the relative effort index in the context of the state as
a whole.
This effort measure, like others, suffers from shortcomings resulting from inherent complexities in data
collection, manipulation and availability but in most cases it appears to reasonably reflect voters’ effort in
support of elementary and secondary public education.
Source: Ohio Department of Taxation & Ohio County Auditors.
The comparison in Figure 11 notes that the district has an index of 70% which is 23% below the average
index of schools in the ODE comparison group, which is 91%. This indicates that residents in ELCSD are
on average paying around 23% less local school taxes based on similar measures of ability than the average
of residents in similar districts as measured by the ODE.
In Figure 12 ELCSD is just about average in effort index compared to the peer group school districts. The
district’s 70% index score places residents at 5% below the group average effort level in the peer group
and 32% lower than the highest effort level paid which is 102% for peer group school residents. In about
one-half of the districts in the peer group residents as a whole pay less for support of their schools and
about one-half pay more than ELCSD residents.

13
Figure 11: ODE Comparison Group for Calendar Year 2010 Median Income to Local Tax Effort
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
ODE GroupMedianIncome 2010 ComparedtoLocal Tax Effort
TY 10 Median Income Local Tax Effort
*Source: FY12 ODE School District Benchmarking Report
Figure 12: Peer Group for Calendar Year 2010 Median Income to Local Tax Effort
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
Peer GroupMedianIncome 2010 ComparedtoLocal Tax Effort
TY 10 Median Income Local Tax Effort

14
Cost Per Pupil FY02 through FY12
Cost per pupil data used in this report includes operating costs only and does not include Bond Issue or
Permanent Improvement Levy expenses. Costs on a per pupil basis have increased on average by 3.5% a
year for the 10 year history. Considering the district has had decreasing enrollment by 784 students (25%
in ten years) which is an average of 2.5% per year, and has experienced increased building operating cost
since FY08, noted in Figure 13 below, an average of 3.5% is reasonable growth in average costs year over
year. Enrollment changes noted in Figure 7, on Page 9, has contributed to a majority of the cost per pupil
increase. As enrollment decreases the cost per student increases until cuts to staffing compensates for the
reduction in enrollment. Specific areas driving costs are largely wages, retirement contributions, and health
care which are the main drivers of costs in all schools. Over the past four years the enrollment has leveled
off and become steady. The Consumer Price Index for the country as a whole rose on average of 2.96%
year over year during this same ten year period based on the CPI Detail Report dated December 2012,
published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. The district appears to have managed costs close
to this overall CPI number while managing costs as enrollment drops.
Figure 13: District Cost Per Pupil History – Actual FY03 Through FY12
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012
AverageDailyMembership-(ADM)
CostPerPupil
Expenditures Per Pupil History by FunctionFY2003 - FY2012
Instruction Pupil Support Staff Support Administration Building Operations ADM
While the district has apparently managed costs per pupil close to the overall CPI for the past ten years in
comparison to the ODE comparison group and the peer group noted in Figures 14 and 15 the district costs
compare unfavorably and are the top of the 20 ODE comparison group and has the highest cost per pupil in
the peer group. As noted in Figure 14 ELCSD cost per pupil are also above the state average. In both the
similar district and the peer group comparison group figures the district shows that it will need to study
expenditures to determine why they are at the top of both groups. Declining enrollment caused costs per
pupil to increase many areas of district expenditure categories from FY03 through FY10; however
stable enrollment has eliminated costs rising due to the denominator in the cost per pupil ratio
shrinking. Based on FY12 data the district spent $11,533 per pupil or $936 more per pupil than the
average district in Ohio and based on FY12 average daily membership of 2,533 students that would
equate to $2,370,888 more in expenses than an average school district in the state with 2,533 students.
The average cost per pupil for the ODE similar districts was $9,351 which places the district at
$2,180 more per pupil or expenditures of $5,521,940 more than the ODE group of 20 similar districts.

15
The district may want to analyze information in this report to determine the reasons costs per pupil
are so much more than other similar districts.
Figure 14: ODE Comparison Group Cost Per Pupil – Actual FY12
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
ODE Group Expenditure Per Pupil FY2012
Instruction Support Admin Operation
Figure 15: Peer Group Cost Per Pupil – Actual FY12
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Peer GroupExpenditure Per Pupil FY2012
Instruction Support Admin Operation

16
Performance Index Ranking
Effective September 2012, House Bill 153 requires all school districts and school buildings to be ranked
using the Performance Index (PI) score. The state legislature believes such rankings will provide parents
and taxpayers a new way to evaluate how local schools are performing while allowing educators to
compare their performance with peers. The performance index rewards the achievement of every student,
not just those who score proficient or higher. Traditional school districts and school buildings, including
community schools, earn points based on how well each student does on all tested subjects in grades 3-8 on
Ohio’s Achievement Assessments and on the 10th grade Ohio Graduation Test. The PI score calculated
used data from the FY11 student data for this initial report. The PI score will be used as a part of the new
state report card in August 2015 when all districts will be given a grade of A through F like a typical
student report card.
All assessments have five performance levels which include: advanced, accelerated, proficient, basic and
limited. The percentage of students scoring at each performance level is calculated and then multiplied by
the point value assigned to that performance level. The points earned for each performance level are totaled
to determine each schools performance index score. The higher the PI score the lower a district’s
performance is relative to other school districts in the state.
Figure 16 and 17, shows that in both the ODE comparison group and peer group that the district has the
highest PI score which indicates lower performance levels as calculated by the ODE as required by HB153.
The district does not compare favorably to other districts in either comparison group based on this initial
data ranking from the state.
Figure 16: ODE Comparison Group Performance Index Ranking – Actual FY11
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
ODE ComparisonGroup Performance Index Rank
Performance Index
* Source: ODE Performance Index Rankings FY11

17
Figure 17: Peer Group Performance Index Ranking – Actual FY11
272
348
381 388
415 431 437 440 458 469 490
584
625
668
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Peer GroupPerformance Index Rank
Performance Index
*Source: ODE Performance Index Ranking FY11
Average Daily Membership
The district average daily membership (ADM) has been decreasing for several years from FY02 through
FY10 based on data provided by the ODE. In FY11 enrollment stabilized and in FY12 and FY13 ADM has
increased slightly. Figure 20 reflects the increase in ADM from 2,240 in FY09 to 2,298 in FY12, an increase
of 58 students. In FY13 ADM has actually increased again by 21 students. A look at ten years back shows a
larger drop in enrollment, from 3,103 in FY03 to 2,319 in FY13 a decrease of 784 or 25.2%, however the
enrollment trend since FY10 has been stable to slightly increasing. Figure 18 and 19, on Page 18, shows
districts in the ODE and peer group are generally dropping in ADM while ELCSD seems to have stable
ADM. This will bode well for ELCSD as they will continue to receive state funding and any increased state
funding with the new state budget HB59 effective July 1, 2013 if enrollment stays steady or increases.

18
Figure 18: ODE Comparison Group Average daily Membership history – Actual FY10-12
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
ODE ComparisonGroup ADM
2010 2011 2012
Figure 19: Peer Group Average daily Membership history – Actual FY10-12
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Peer GroupComparisonADM
2010 2011 2012
Comparison of Expenditures By Major Expenditure Objects for FY12
This comparison is made to determine the allocation of expenditures in major categories of expenses that
drive cost per pupil and district budgets. Generally speaking, the higher the district’s expenditures in terms

19
of percentages that are used for salary and fringe benefits, the less is available for other areas of the budget
such as curriculum adoption and professional development which are a school system’s educational
enterprises research and development. Also, the higher the percentages in these areas the less flexibility is
available for the district to make cost adjustments without RIF’s (reduction in force) and retirement
incentive programs aimed at lowering costs.
Figure 20 below and 21, on Page 20, reflects that the district has a combined total of 73% in salary and
benefits. The ODE comparison group range is from a low of 72% to a high of 84% for salary and fringe
benefit costs. The ELCSD combined total of salary and fringe benefits is on the low end of the ODE
comparison group and below the state average of 77% for all districts and the same 77% for ELCSD ODE
comparison group in FY12. This is a positive metric for the district based on this quantitative data.
On the other hand purchased services appears to be on the high side at 21.5% of expenses compared
to the ODE comparison group average of 16% and a state wide average for all schools of 17.4%.
Purchased services are an area the district may want to consider further to look at why costs are
running higher in these areas.
Figure 20: ODE Comparison Group Expenditure by Major Object Category – Actual FY12
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
ODE ComparisonGroup ExpendituresbyObject %FY12
Salary Benefits Purchased Services Other
* Source: District Profile Report FY12
When combining salary and fringe benefits the district is among the lowest in these combined costs as
noted in Figure 21 comparing it to other peer group districts. The peer group schools range from a low
combined cost of 70.9% to a high of 82.8% with an average of 75%. The districts 73% of combined wages
and benefits is below average for the peer group. Purchased services appear to be running high in
percentage compared to the peer group as well at the ODE group noted in Figure 20 above.

20
Figure 21: Peer Group Expenditure by Major Object Category – Actual FY12
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
Peer GroupExpenditures by Object % FY12
Salary Benefits Purchased Services Other
* Source: ODE District Profile Report FY12
Comparison of Cost Per Pupil By Major Function Category FY12
Figures 22 on Page 21 and Figure 23, on Page 22, compare the cost per pupil by selected major function
category as compared to the district’s ODE comparison group and the peer group. The categories include:
Instruction, Building Operations, Support Services and Administrative Support. Looking at these categories
is helpful to determine if any areas appear out of line when reviewing districts that are very similar.
Instructional Categories – This is the key area of expenditure for any school system. Costs in this area
include regular and special education classroom teachers, teacher aides/paraprofessionals, copying costs,
textbooks, teaching materials and supplies, and consumable materials used in student instruction.
Building Operation Categories - This includes facility operations and is made up of several functional
categories in the district including: building maintenance materials, supplies, contract repairs, busses,
utilities, cleaning of facilities, maintenance of grounds and sports fields, and capital expenses for
equipment used in these areas.
Support Service Categories – This includes area of support for pupils and staff needed outside of
individual classrooms, such as: guidance counseling, media center support, field trips, student testing
services and career advice, etc. For staff: staff development, teacher and staff training and in-service.
Administration Categories – This includes school principals office staff, central office administration and
the Board of Education; and include: day to day supervision of staff in buildings and district wide, goal
setting, strategic planning activities at the building and district level, staff evaluation, recommendation of
staff, and all other human resource functions, financial operations, and curriculum operations.
For an academic organization it is better to spend more in the Instructional Category than any other major
category. Figure 22 and 23, reflects that the district spent $.551 (55.1%) of every dollar on direct
instruction which is slightly below average compared to the ODE Similar District comparison group

21
of $.563 (56.3%) and is about the same as the peer group average of $.556 (55.6%) spent on direct
instruction..
The district spends $.097 (9.7%) of each dollar on administrative support which is below the ODE
comparison group average of $.12 (12%) and the peer group average of $.122 (12.2%) of every dollar spent
on Administrative costs. The district is spending below both comparison groups on administrative
costs.
The district is spending $.224 (22.4%) of every dollar on Building Operations which is higher than both
ODE and peer groups. The ODE group spent on average $.186 (18.6%) and the peer group spent $.206
(20.6%) of every dollar on Building Operations. If the district lowered these costs to the average of
$.186 it could possibly save 3.8% of costs or $438 per student which is roughly $1,110,055 based on
student ADM of 2,533 using FY12 data.
The district is at or below average for the combined Support Services for pupil and staff. Building
Operation Costs is an area where additional review could be made to see if there are areas where costs
could be reduced based on comparison with other districts. Additional information on utility and custodial
costs will be presented later in this report on Pages 31 thought 35.
Figure 22: ODE Comparison Group Cost Per Pupil by Major Function Category – Actual FY12
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
ODE GroupExpenditures byMajor Functions FY12
Instruction Admin Building Pupil Support

22
Figure 23: Peer Group Cost Per Pupil by Major Function Category – Actual FY12
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Peer GroupExpenditures byMajor Functions FY12
Instruction Admin Building Pupil Support
Comparison of Student Teacher Ratios FY10 through FY12
This data was calculated from using data elements in the ODE Data Warehouse system. The ODE stopped
computing Pupil Teacher ratios in FY08. These numbers are calculated exactly the same way for each
district in Figure 24 and 25 on Page 23.
Districts which tend to have a lower student teacher ratio (STR) also called pupil teacher ratio (PTR)
typically have chosen to have smaller class sizes at elementary levels and offer more subject level class
options at the secondary level. Smaller class sizes and more curriculum offerings costs tend to result in a
higher cost per pupil because of the amount spent on direct instruction. It is common to see districts with
lower pupil teacher ratios have higher costs per pupil. There is considerable debate and academic research
on both sides of the argument as to whether small class sizes result in higher achievement for students or if
it results in the talent of the professional teacher assigned to the class.
ELCSD has the 3rd
lowest PTR pupil teacher ratio for their ODE comparison group in Figure 24 and in the
peer group comparison in Figure 25 on Page 23. A conclusion that could be drawn from the district’s
average PTR is that this is a significant reason that the costs per pupil are higher in ELCSD than other
districts in their comparison group as noted on Page 15. The district may want to look at staffing levels
and subject offerings to determine if the number of staff is required to offer the programs in the
district or if class sections could be paired back if enrollment is not at minimum acceptable levels and
possibly offer these classes with an online alternative that would be less expensive.

23
Figure 24: ODE Comparison Group Student/Teacher Ratios– Actual FY10-FY12
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
ODE GroupStudents/TeacherRatioCalculated
2010 2011 2012
* Source: Data is calculated using ODE Data Warehouse information updated through FY12
Figure 25: Peer Group Student/Teacher Ratios– Actual FY10-FY12
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Peer GroupStudents/Teacher RatioCalculated
2010 2011 2012
* Source: Data is calculated using ODE Data Warehouse information updated through FY12
Comparison of Student Administrator Ratios FY12
The district administrative pupil ratio is below average compared to the ODE comparison group and
average compared to the peer group. As noted earlier the administrative costs per pupil are 9.7% which is
below the ODE and peer comparison group average of 12.2%. These ratios appear reasonable.

24
Figure 26: ODE Comparison Group Pupil/Administrator Ratio – FY12
0
50
100
150
200
250
ODE Comparison Group Administrator/Pupil Ratio FY12
Pupils Per Administrator
* Source: ODE Data Warehouse FY12
Figure 27: Peer Group Pupil/Administrator Ratio – FY12
0
50
100
150
200
250
Peer Group Administrator/Pupil Ratio FY12
Pupils Per Administrator
* ODE Data Warehouse FY12
Comparison of Certified Average Salaries FY10-12
Figures 28 and 29 reflect the average salaries paid to certificated staff which includes certificated teachers
and administrators in a school system. ELCSD is 3.1% below average in comparison to wages for their

25
ODE group, as noted in Figure 28 and about 2.0% above the average in comparison to the peer group noted
in Figure 29 below. This does not appear from this analysis that this is an area of expenses that are causing
costs per pupil to be high in the comparison and peer groups.
Figure28: ODE Comparison Group Certified Average Salaries– Actual FY10-FY12
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
ODE Comparison Group AverageCertified SalariesFY10-FY12
2010 2011 2012
Figure 29: Peer Group Certified Average Salaries– Actual FY10-FY12
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
Peer GroupCertifiedAverage Salaries FY10-FY12
2010 2011 2012

26
Comparison of Teaching Staff Experience Levels FY12
In comparing ELCSD to the ODE and peer groups in Figure 30 and 31 the district has a relatively high
percentage of teaching staff with 10 or more years of experience compared to both groups and the smallest
number of staff in the 5 to 10 years of experience group. This could be a contributing factor to the districts
higher than average cost per pupil combined with the low pupil teacher ratios noted earlier in the report.
This means the district has a higher percentage of staff paid at the higher end of the certificated salary
schedule when compared to other districts in the ODE comparison group and the peer group. The district
may want to study this statistic further to see if a retirement incentive plan or other plan could lower staff at
the high end of the salary schedule and balance the cost of staff similar to other districts in these
comparison groups.
Figure 30: ODE Comparison Group Teachers Experience FY12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
ODE Comparison Group % Teacher Experience in Years
0-4
5-10
10+

27
Figure 31: Peer Group Teachers Experience FY12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Peer Group % Teacher Experience in Years
0-4
5-10
10+
Comparison of Classified Average Salaries FY09-11
Figures 32 and 33 reflect the average salaries paid to classified staff which includes all non-teaching and
non-certificated administrator positions such as custodians, secretaries, clerks, bus drivers and teacher
aides. ELCSD is below average in comparison to wages on average for their ODE and peer group. The
classified wage levels are not likely a significant factor in the higher cost per pupil noted earlier.
.
Figure 32: ODE Comparison Group Classified Average Wages– Actual FY10-FY12
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
ODE GroupAverage ClassifiedSalariesFY10 - FY12
2010 2011 2012

28
Figure 33: Peer Group Classified Average Wages– Actual FY10-FY12
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
Peer GroupAverage ClassifiedSalaries FY10- FY12
2010 2011 2012
Comparison of the % of Retirement and Health Insurance Costs to Wages for FY12
Health insurances and retirement contributions are a significant cost for schools districts. In Figure 34 and
35, on Page 29, ELCSD spent 73% of the General Fund on wages and benefits in FY12. Of that amount
24.5% was in the area of fringe benefits. When we compared the amount of fringe benefits costs to wages
it was 4th
highest in the comparison group at a percentage of 50.4% and average in the ODE group was
40%. ELCSD was also the 5th
highest percentage of fringe benefits to wages in the peer group as well,
which averaged 46%. In Figure 36 and 37, on Page 30, district health care costs are among the highest in
both groups.
This could indicate that health care benefit costs are higher in ELCSD than in most of the districts in both
comparison groups. Both STRS and SERS contributions for retirement are the same for all districts in
Ohio other than some actual pick-up of these costs for some staff in most districts. So the variable in cost
differences is mostly likely added health care benefits such as vision insurance and/or health care premiums
are higher due to utilization, a rich plan design or the district paying a larger percentage of the premiums
for health care. It could also be a combination of all of these factors that could be helping to increase costs
in this area for the district.
The district may want to consider looking deeper into the area of fringe benefits as this could be a
contributing factor for the higher cost per pupil noted earlier in the report. This could be an
indication that the district may want to continue to control health care costs including review of plan
design and/or negotiate higher employee contributions. With health care costs growing two to three
times faster than CPI these are important costs to have control over for the district

29
Figure 34: ODE Comparison Group % Fringe Benefits to Wages FY12
64.0%
66.0%
68.0%
70.0%
72.0%
74.0%
76.0%
78.0%
80.0%
82.0%
84.0%
86.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
PersonnelServiceCostsas%ofTotalCosts
FringeBenefitsas%ofWages
ODE Comparison Group Fringes Benefits as % of Wages FY12
Fringe/Wages Total PS
Figure 35: Peer Group % Fringe Benefits to Wages FY12
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
PersonnelServiceCostsas%ofTotalCosts
FringeBenefitsasa%ofWages
Peer Group Fringes Benefitsas % of Wages FY12
Fringe/Wages Total PS

30
Figure 36: ODE Comparison Group % Retirement and Health Insurance Compared to Wages FY12
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
ODE ComparisonGroup % Retirement &HealthInsurance toWage FY12
Retirement % of Wages Health Care % of Wages
Source: ODE Data Warehouse information updated through FY12
Figure 37: Peer Group % Retirement and Health Insurance Compared to Wages FY12
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
Peer GroupComparison% Retirement&HealthInsurance toWage FY12
Retirement % of Wages Health Care % of Wages
Source: ODE Data Warehouse information updated through FY12

31
Comparison of the Building Operation Category Data for FY12
The three building operational areas that a direct cost comparison can be made to other school districts are
presented in this section. Other areas of operation are not kept by the ODE in the Data Warehouse or the
Benchmark Report. This information was reviewed as an area of interest as it is available to be evaluated
against other school systems and it appeared that building operation costs were running higher than the
ODE comparison and peer group districts in earlier analysis of expenses per pupil by functional areas on
Pages 21 and 22.
Utility Costs: The first comparison in building operations that was available for review is the utility cost
per square foot. Figure 38 and 39 reflects for both ODE Comparison Group and the peer group that for
FY12 ELCSD is in the lower one-half of the groups. When comparing with the peer group ELCSD falls
close to the group average. This indicates that the district has procured primarily electric and natural gas at
equally competitive rates as other schools locally and around the state. Utility cost per square foot also
appears to be slightly below average or just average. There are still some districts which are using
less electric per square foot so it could be possible to look for additional efficiencies but this area is
not out of line based on direct comparison with other districts.
Figure 38 ODE Comparison Group Utility Cost per Square Foot FY12
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
ODE ComparisonGroup Utility Cost Per Sq. Ft. FY12

32
Figure 39 Peer Comparison Group Utility Cost Per Square Foot FY12
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
Peer GroupUtility Costs per sq. ft. FY12
Custodial/Maintenance Costs: The other building operation comparison available is the
Custodial/Maintenance Costs per Square Foot for districts. Classified wages and fringe benefit costs would
also impact this area of costs as would the level of staffing used to clean and maintain buildings. The ODE
Comparison Group, Figure 40, on Page 33 shows ELCSD in the higher quarter of costs per square foot.
Figure 41, on Page 33, reflects the same trend for peer group districts. This is an area that the district
may want to further evaluate to determine why these costs are high compared to other districts and
determine if additional efficiency can be obtained.

33
Figure 40: ODE Comparison Group Custodial/Maintenance Cost per Square Foot FY12
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
ODE ComparisonGroup Custodial/Maint. Costsper sq. ft. FY12
Figure 41: Peer Comparison Group Custodial/Maintenance Cost per Square Foot FY12
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
Peer Group Custodial/Maint. Costs per sq. ft. FY12
Maintenance/Custodial and Utility Costs Per Square Foot: Based on the ODE comparison group noted
in Figure 42, on Page 34, the district has the 4rd
highest cost per square foot at $6.62 per sq. ft. and the 3rd
highest square footage per student at 213 sq. ft. per student. When breaking this comparison down the area

34
that appears to come out is that maintenance/custodial costs appear to be a little high and square footage per
student is among the highest. The two areas are obviously related in that if the district has a higher square
footage per student to maintain and clean then the there will be an elevation in the custodial and
maintenance costs as well. The comparison with the peer group in Figure 43, on Page 35, also shows a
similar pattern with the district square footage per student being the 3rd
highest and costs for maintenance
and custodial operations is 4th
highest in this grouping.
It can be observed that there is no straight line relationship between district costs for maintenance/custodial
and utility costs and the number of square footage per student. Generally speaking the more square footage
maintained by the district the higher the costs per square foot and cost per pupil. Also when buildings are
not fully utilized (i.e. at capacity) then there is a higher cost per student and typically added costs per
square foot as well.
This is an area the district may want to look into as this is an area which comparisons suggest costs
are higher than similar and peer group districts. Comparisons on Pages 15, 21 and 22 also reflect
that Operations and Building Operations on these comparison graphs are also higher in those
stacked bar charts. This is an area where costs may be able to be reduced or repurposed.
Figure 42: ODE Comparison Group Maintenance/Custodial & Utility Costs FY12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
$7.00
$8.00
$9.00
SquareFtPerStudent
CostPerSquareFoot
ODE Comparison Group Maintenance/Custodial &Utility CostsFY12
Util. costs per sq. ft. Custodial/Maint. Costs per sq. ft. Total Operating Cost Per Sq Ft Square Foot per Pupil

35
Figure 43: Peer Comparison Group Maintenance/Custodial & Utility Costs FY12
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
SquareFtPerStudent
CostPerSquareFoot
Peer Group Maintenance/Custodial &Utility Costs FY12
Util. costs per sq. ft. Custodial/Maint. Costs per sq. ft. Total Operating Cost Per Sq Ft Square Foot per Pupil
Comparison of Transportation Data
Transportation is a significant operational area that a direct cost comparison can be made to other school
districts. The most current data available for comparison is for FY10 and FY11. Costs do not typically
shift significantly year to year unless deliberate changes have been made to operations in an area of the
operation. We confirmed that no such changes have been made since FY10 so these costs while dated
should still be relevant in terms of ranking and moderately relevant in terms of actual costs since student
enrollment is stable and ridership has been steady.
In Figure 44, on Page 36, ELCSD transportation costs are right at the average costs per student for the
ODE group and slightly above average in terms of efficiency ratio in FY10 and FY11 but slipped in FY12
for efficiency as noted on Figure 46, on Page 37. Cost per pupil are not out of line but are higher than a
number of the other similar districts which is likely a result of the policy that all students can ride therefore
increasing the number of busses and corresponding operating costs than is required by Ohio Law. The
district maintains an “all students can ride” policy due to lack of side walks and extreme terrain to get to
several school buildings. It is also generally safer for students to ride busses to and from school. The
district efficiency ratio as determined by the ODE slipped to 98% from 127%, where 100% is efficient.
For the peer group in Figure 45, on Page 36, ELCSD is significantly below average and very efficient
compared to these districts for FY10 and FY11, but the efficiency ration fell to 98% in FY12 according to
the ODE which is below the 100% efficiency level. The higher level of efficiency can be attributed to the
district triple routing of busses and, as noted above, a policy that any student can ride due to lack of
sidewalks and steep terrain to get to several school buildings. Higher utilization of the bus fleet is a sign
of efficiency in fleet management according to the ODE pupil transportation division. The transportation
efficiency shows that the transportation department is doing well. Generally speaking, the fewer students a
district transports the higher the cost per pupil will be but overall transportation costs would generally be
lower for districts adhering to state minimum standards. Conversely, the more students transported then
costs per student are typically lower and the more efficient the district bus fleet is utilized.

36
Overall ELCSD transportation costs show good efficiency with the target of 100% ELCSD rated 127% in
FY10 and FY11 but slipped to 98% in FY12, and costs are not out of line for the policy of “every student
can ride”. If the district wanted to reduce costs in transportation the policy would have to be reviewed
to determine if a policy closer to state minimum standards could be acceptable.
Figure 44: ODE Comparison Group Transportation Costs Per Pupil– Actual FY10-FY11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
PercentEfficientAboveTarget
CostPerPupilTransported
ODE Group Transportation Cost per Student FY10 &FY11
FY 10 FY 11 FY11 Efficient
* Source ODE Division of Transportation Cost Reports Updated Through FY11
Figure 45: Peer Group Transportation Costs Per Pupil– Actual FY10-FY11
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
PercentEfficientAboveTarget
CostPerPupilTransported
Peer GroupTransportationCost per Student FY10&FY11
FY 10 FY 11 FY11 Efficient
* Source ODE Division of Transportation Cost Reports Updated Through FY11

37
Figure 46: ODE Comparison Group Transportation Efficiency Ratio– Actual FY12
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0% 160.0%
Van Wert City
Conneaut Area City
Urbana City
Bucyrus City
East Liverpool City
Efficient
Hillsboro City
South Point Local
Martins Ferry City
Bellaire Local
Group Average
Tecumseh Local
Ironton City
Madison Local
Struthers City
Niles City
Girard City
Mad River Local
Norwalk City
Bellefontaine City
LaBrae Local
Hamilton Local
Washington CH
ODE Comparison Group Transportation Efficency Ratio FY12
- Greater Than 100% Good
* Source: FY12 ODE School District Benchmarking Report
Figure 47: Peer Group Transportation Efficiency Ratio – Actual FY12
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0% 160.0% 180.0%
Cambridge City
Beaver Local
Buckeye Local
Salem City
East Liverpool City
Steubenville City
Statewide Average
Martins Ferry City
Group Average
Bellaire Local
St Clairsville-Richland City
Edison Local
Minerva Local
Carrollton EVSD
Harrison Hills City
Peer GroupTransportationEfficiency RatioFY12
* Source: FY12 ODE School District Benchmarking Report

38
Comparison of Food Service Program Revenue, Expenditures and Profit & Loss
Actual FY10-FY12 and Estimated FY13
The Food Service program in the district is considered an Enterprise Fund and is suppose to operate at a
profit or breakeven in the worst case scenario. We look at Food Service operations because if they fail to
operate at a profit or breakeven they often require funds to be transferred from the General Fund of the
district and therefore could become a liability for the General Fund. The district food service program has
maintained profitability over the past three years and looks to be on target to maintain that for FY13 as the
year comes to an end June 30, 2013, as noted in Figure 50 below. Revenues have up ticked since FY11 due
to an increase in the number of families meeting eligibility requirements for free and reduced price lunches
as a result of the economic downturn. It is very important that the school district offer nutritious meals to
students who otherwise may not have adequate nutrition. A quality food service program also supports
student achievement in ELCSD.
Figures 51 and 52, on Page 40, the ELCSD food service program is operating at a surplus slightly below
ODE group average and above the peer group average. Overall the participation level at 72% is above
average of both groups and is a key to generating a profit for the food service program. The program is
running well and should continue to not be a burden on the General Fund.
The district may want to consider the Community Eligibility Option that the USDA Food and
Nutrition Service is offering for districts who meet or exceed 40% free and reduced price eligibility.
In some cases if free and reduced eligibility reach high enough levels that all students would receive
free breakfasts and lunches daily without requiring eligibility applications for four years at a time.
The district currently has a 71% economically disadvantage student base and may qualify for this
program.
Figure 48: Food Service Income, Expenses and Profit & Loss Act. FY10 through FY12, and Est. FY13
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
FY10 FY11 FY12 Est. FY13
Food Service Income, Expensesand Ending Cash Balance Actual FY10-12, Est.
FY13
Income Direct Expenses Ending Cash
* Source: District Revenue and Expense Summary Report and MR40 Food Service Reports

39
Figure 49: Food Service Income Sources FY12
76%
2%
22%
Food Service Revenue By PercentageFY12
Federal
State
Sales
*Source: District MR40 Food Service Reports
Figure 50: Food Service Expense Uses FY12
51%
25%
18%
5%
1%
Food Service Expenses by PercentageFY12
Food
Labor
Benefits
Supplies
Purchased Services

40
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
($300,000)
($200,000)
($100,000)
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
StudentParticipation%
FoodServiceSurplus/(Deficit) ODE ComparisonGroup FNS Surplus (Deficit) &Participation% FY12
FNS Surplus(Deficit) FY12 Participation %
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
($150,000)
($100,000)
($50,000)
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
StudentParticipation%
FoodServiceSurplus/(Deficit)
Peer GroupFNSSurplus (Deficit)&Participation% FY12
FNS Surplus(Deficit) FY10 Participation %

41
II. THE SECOND OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY - IDENTIFY
MEASURABLE AREAS OF POTENTIAL COST REDUCTIONS
Based on the comparisons made between ELCSD and their ODE Comparison and Peer Group Districts, the
districts cost per pupil is the highest in both comparison groups as noted in Figure 14 and 15, on Page 15 of
this report. The areas that appear to be driving the costs higher are:
1. Low pupil teacher ratios - (Figures 24 - 25 on Page 23)
2. Larger percentage of experienced staff at higher level of salary schedule (Figures 30 -31 on Pages
26 & 27)
3. Higher percentage of fringe benefits to wages – (Figures 34 – 35 on Page 29)
4. Higher percentage of health care as a percentage of wages – (Figure 36 – 37 on Page 30)
5. Higher Maintenance/Custodial & Utility costs – (Figures 42-43 on Pages 34 & 35)
Compared to both groups these are broad areas of concern which will be looked at more fully to see what
additional data can be noted that will be of interest to the district as it considers ways to bring revenue and
expenditures in to balance longer term. A caution should be noted when considering areas of possible
savings noted below. While some areas of possible savings may be identified in the comparative data,
actually making reductions can involve important considerations of state standards, educational goals,
collective bargaining, administrative guidelines and Board of Education Policy. For instance eliminating
high school bussing to reduce operation costs would involve state standards, administrative guidelines and
Board Policy. While this example is an extreme, most reductions of a substantial nature would involve
consequences that require considerable evaluation before implementation. Reductions should always be
measured against the goal of ELCSD to improve student academic performance.
Calculating a Possible Cost Reduction Range Using Cost Per Pupil (CPP) Approach
The district cost per pupil for FY12 was $11,533 and the comparison group average was $9,344, the peer
group average was $9,717 and statewide average was $10,507 as noted below in the table. The variance in
the right side column is the average of these groups less the ELCSD average cost per pupil multiplied by
the ELCSD enrollment for FY12. This gives a realistic range of possible expense reductions if the district is
looking to reduce its rank as highest cost per pupil in both groups.
Table 5: Cost Per Pupil Variances ELCSD vs. Averages in Comparison Groups FY12
District FY12 CPP ELCSD CPP Variance CPP
ELCSD
Enrollment Var.
Comp Group Avg. $9,344 $11,533 -$2,189 2,189 -$4,791,721
Peer Group Avg. $9,717 $11,533 -$1,816 2,189 -$3,975,224
State Avg. $10,507 $11,533 -$1,026 2,189 -$2,245,914
Please remember that the range of reductions shown are for illustration purposes and are not
recommendations or a suggestion on the practicality of making cuts to achieve a lower cost per pupil in the
comparison group rankings.
Where the District Might Look For Causes of the Higher Cost Per Pupil
Below are some specific examples of where the district might look to understand costs based on
measurable comparative data in this report. As noted at the beginning of this report a more detailed analysis
would be needed to identify what areas specifically could result in savings and if the actual operational data
is completely comparable. The operating costs were noted to be higher in comparison and upon a
closer look may be areas to consider if the district is looking to thoroughly understand why costs per
pupil are higher than their other comparison groups.

42
1) Low Pupil Teacher Ratios- ELCSD’s computed Student Teacher Ratio for FY12 was 13.8
students per teacher (Figure 24, Page 23). This ratio is third lowest in the ODE comparison group and
second lowest in peer group. The average cost for a certificated staff member for ELCSD in FY12 was
$49,188 (Figure 28, Page 25). For illustrative purposes if ELCSD increased the Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR)
to the highest of the comparison group which is 19, the district could reduce teaching staff by 38 positions
at the average cost of $49,188 would equal savings of $1,915,597 plus an estimated 49% for retirement
and other fringe benefits estimated at total savings of $2,854,240. If the district increased PTR’s by one-
half this amount to 16.4 PTR the savings could be $1,427,120.
2) Higher Percentage of Experienced Teaching Staff - The district has an extremely high
percentage of teachers at the high end of experience as noted on Figure 30 on Page 26. This helps drive up
costs per pupil as the staff at this point in their career are making higher amounts than a relatively younger
staff member. It may be productive and provide a solid return on investment for the district to look into
plans to help more experienced staff retire as part of an attrition plan to increase pupil teacher ratios. This
would result in replacing higher paid staff with lower paid staff and save the district resources.
3) District Staffing Levels Above Average of Similar Districts - Appendix B on Page 52 shows that
the district staffing in FY12 is nearly 28 FTE over similar districts which indicates that some right sizing
may be possible and still not jeopardize a quality education since the average standards met in the ODE
comparison group are 21 out of 26 standards for Ohio Achievement Tests. Specific areas where district
staffing is over other similar districts are noted below in item numbers 4, 5 and 6.
4) Review Special Education Staffing Costs- The district could look at the use of special education
staffing particularly in the area of aide usage. In FY10 support staff for special education cost $600,627
and in FY12 it was $1,224,615. The costs for aides more than doubled in a two year period and in FY13, 5
new aides were hired which will increase these costs even more. In addition to these costs multi
handicapped costs increased in FY11 from $115,883 to $222,302 in FY12 and are also increasing in FY13.
Appendix C on Page 53 shows in FY12 job code 230 special education staff was 39.50 FTE while similar
districts had 16.50 FTE. This is 23 FTE above districts with similar ADM and demographics.
The district may realize savings by looking at technical requirements for staffing special education
classrooms and review Individual Education Plan (IEP) procedures to make sure plans agreed to be
affordable for the district and within the budget.
The district may explore options to ensure maximizing shared special education units with the county ESC
and other districts where shared costs may be less than costs to educate students locally.
The district may wish to review costs for catastrophic students and make sure invoicing occurs for students
whose costs qualify as extraordinary or catastrophic as the state of Ohio has a separate pool of funds to help
district who are overburdened for students who costs are deemed catastrophic.
5) Staff Levels for Monitoring– It is noted in Appendix C on Page 53 that the staff code 906 for staff
positions noted as “Monitoring” showed 19 FTE in FY12 which was up 2.68 FTE from FY11. Similar
districts show an average of 2.50 FTE in this category of staff. The district is higher by 16.5 FTE in this
area and may benefit form reviewing these positions coded in the budget to determine if these positions are
critical to improving student achievement and meeting district goals.
6) Career Tech Staffing Levels – The district operates its own vocational program at the high school
campus. Appendix C on Page 53 shows 10.4 FTE staff and the average district shows 5.2 FTE. Operating
a vocational school is the reason FTE’s in this area are higher than other similar districts because most
districts do not offer a comprehensive vocational program. It also increases the amount of square footage
maintained by the district and causes costs in that area to be higher as well. The district may consider a
shared service to accept other students in this program to help generate added dollars for the district or look

43
at other options. Vocational programs are typically more expensive than other programs particularly in
capital needs and requirements to stay current with technology.
7) Substitute Costs – Non-certificated substitute costs have risen each year from $147,192 in FY10
to $180,721 in FY12 and are on pace to exceed $190,000 in FY13. This is an increase of nearly 10% a year
since FY10. Certificated substitute costs have risen from $149,920 in FY10 to $207,004 in FY12 an
increase of 19% a year for two years but these costs are moderating in FY13 and look to be on pace to be
about $140,000. Substitute costs are essentially double wage costs and look to be on an upward trend for
classified staff and may have subsided in FY13 for certificated staff. This could mean there are some areas
of the collective bargaining agreement that may need tightened or that closer monitoring of leave may
result in a reduction of the steady increases in costs in this area.
8) Health Insurance Costs – Health insurance costs as a percentage of wages is third highest in the
ODE comparison group of similar districts and fifth highest in peer group. Fringe benefits, led by health
insurance costs, are essentially 50% of wages paid. Average in the ODE comparison group is 41%. A 9%
reduction in this area would result in a cost reduction of $1,082,831 based on estimated wages in FY13 of
$12,031,461. The district is estimated to spend $4,450,000 for all heath care insurance for calendar year
2013. This is an anticipated increase of 7.4% composite over 2012 rates. An area that the district may
want to consider looking into is that employees currently contribute 5% of total premiums for all health
care, increasing to 7.5% September 1, 2013. It is more the norm that employees in schools are paying a
higher percentage of the costs for health care and are routinely between 15% and 20% of the premiums and
the schedule of benefits are increasing deductibles and out-of-pocket limits. If the district employees
moved to a 15% share of insurance costs, districts costs would decrease by at least $445,000 a year and
claims may also moderate.
9) Maintenance/Custodial & Utility Costs per Square Foot - The district operates, cleans and
maintains the following facilities with the staff as indicated.
Table 6: Maintenance, Custodial and Grounds Statistics and Benchmark Data
District Statistics & Staffing At April 2013
LaCroft Elementary Sq. Footage 69,874
North Elementary Sq. Footage 76,296
Westgate Admin & Middle School Sq. Footage 131,517
East Liverpool HS/Voc Ed/Gym 202,229
Transportation Department 6,600
Total Sq Footage 486,516
Total Acerage Maintained 19.5
Total FTE Custodians 24.0
Total FTE Maintenance 3.25
Total FTE Grounds 0.75
Benchmarked Data on Staffing Needs
AS&U Five Year Avg Sq. Ft. per FTE Maintenance 94,952
Calculated FTE Maintenance Needed 5.1
AS&U Five Year Avg Acres per FTE Groundkeeper 40.0
Calculated FTE Ground Keeping Staff Needed 0.5
NCES Level 3 Cleaning Median Sq. Ft. per Custodian 29,500
Calculated FTE custodian Need 16.5
Total Mainteance & Custodial Staffing FTE 28.0
Calculated total Maintenance & Custodial Staffing Need 22.1
Staffing Over Benchmark Data 5.9

44
*Source American Schools & University 38th
Survey and National Council on Educational Statistics
As noted above in Table 6 the district is comparably over staffed in the area of custodial staff in particular
when compared to the benchmarks. The district also has to consider facility use in the coming years as
enrollment has leveled off the last couple years and has slightly increased. Presently the district operates
213 square foot per student which is among the highest in comparison groups. The ODE comparison group
is 167 square foot per student. This roughly suggests 46 square foot more per student which is roughly
100,694, square footage more than other schools districts on average. This means overall costs for
operating and maintaining district facilities space will be higher per pupil than other districts and is a
significant contributor to the higher cost per pupil.
Another look at faculty costs on a straight comparison is noted in Table 7 below. The acquisition of
utilities are not out of line but overall facility and custodial and maintenance costs are highest in
comparison to all group averages noted. This is largely due to some apparent over staffing and that the
district operates 46 more square footage per student than many other districts.
Table 7: Comparison of Facility Operating Costs Per Square Foot FY12
COMPARISON UTILITIES FACILITY CUST & MAINT.
1) ELCSD $1.26 $6.62 $3.65
2) ODE Group $1.10 $4.22 $2.31
3) Peer Group $1.26 $5.30 $2.86
4) State Avg. $1.45 $5.93 $3.05
* Source: ODE FY12 Benchmarking Report
10) Buy Utilities in Larger Buying Groups or Consortiums - It was noted that the district does not
purchase natural gas or electric in a group purchasing program or other school consortium. This is an area
noted in a spot review of electric and natural gas bills that the cost per Kwh was $ .115 per KWH and
Natural Gas was around $5.75 per MCF. The district could save 5% to 10% per KWH if they enroll with
Power4Schools program. Natural gas bought through the OSC program may also yield some savings. The
district could also benefit from working with an energy company to aggregate and track all utility invoices
to monitor usage and track rates that are charged. Often for a nominal fee the district can acquire an expert
who tracks this data and alerts the district to concerns identified which could be a savings opportunity or a
billing error. Having this data aggregated could help the district manage its utility costs tighter.
Efficiency Study Results
The areas noted below were reviewed looking for specific examples of where the district could improve
efficiency and reduce costs; and, at the same time it was noted where actions were shown to be very
effective and showed an efficient utilization of resources yielding the district a good return on investment.
This information is obtained from direct observation of processes, interviews and review of source
documents as part of the efficiency study. Areas studied were:
A. Financial Management Systems
B. Procurement Practices
C. Health Insurance
D. Facility Operations
E. Transportation Operations
F. Food Service Operations
A) Financial Management Systems – The financial systems that underpin the operation of the
district are integral to efficient operations because the district relies on these systems to receive money, pay
bills, record assets, and to track these transactions for various purposes such as auditing, reporting and

45
management decisions. The district uses “State Software” to provide these services which it obtains
through bulk buying arrangements with their Information Technology Center ACCESS. This software is
used in the vast majority of school districts in Ohio and is sufficiently robust to provide data for all
accounting, budgeting, receipting, and bill payment, reporting and tracking requirements.
Ideas for Improved Efficiency and Cost Savings - Financial Management Systems:
1) Ending Cash Balance Policy or Resolution – Consider adding this policy guidance to administration
on maintaining an adequate ending cash balance target when planning in the five year forecast.
2) Capital Asset Planning – Consider creating a five year capital asset plan to look at anticipated
financial needs for facility repairs, equipment replacement, curriculum & textbook adoptions,
technology replacement and other major capital areas. This will assist in financial planning for
mission critical asset replacement. For instance an area such as technology is playing a larger role in
classroom instruction and may soon replace textbooks. A plan is needed to help capture the planning
needed to make this type of transition which will involve a substantial capital investment.
Areas Where Efficient Utilization of Resources Were Noted- Financial Management
Systems:
1) Unqualified Audit Opinion– District financial audits have obtained unqualified opinions which verify
data is reported accurately and in compliance with Ohio and Federal Laws.
2) Ending Cash Balances – Ending cash balances noted on Figure 2, Page 4 shows 30 day cash balance
though FY17.
3) Budget System – The district budgeting system for buildings and departments is based on a per pupil
amount where each principal, department head, and supervisor has knowledge at the beginning of each
fiscal year as to resources available to carry out their goals and objectives. This improves efficiency in
aligning resources to district strategies and objectives and should help deliver materials needed in an
efficient manner to students and staff alike.
4) Five Year Forecast Accuracy – As noted in Table 3 and 4 on Page 6 the Treasurer has excellent
control of forecasting revenue and expenses based on the combined variance of actual versus estimated
noted on these tables.
B) Procurement Practices – The district is a member of OME-RESA and Ohio Department of
Administrative Service State Purchasing Consortium which are shared service providers (consortiums) to
schools and provides a lengthy list of bulk bid prices for busses, food service supplies, custodial supplies,
materials, and other goods all schools need to conduct business. Purchasing from these organizations or
using them as benchmarks for prices obtained elsewhere assures the district is getting prices that are the
lowest.
Ideas for Improved Efficiency and Cost Savings - Procurement Practices:
1) Electricity & Natural Gas – These two areas of significant expense combined were $552,823 in
FY12. Even small reductions in the price and use of these resources would result in sizable savings for the
district. The district is not currently in an electric purchasing pool such as “Power4Schools” sponsored by
OSBA, OASBO, BASA, and the Ohio School Council. Currently the district cost per kWh is $.115. The
district should explore this or other electric pool to determine if a savings could be realized. In FY12 the
district spent $459,764 in electric charges. It is common that districts save 10% on electric generation
costs or a potential target of $45,900 for the district, which would typically be possible through joining a
large buying block. Natural gas costs have come down in the past few years to a cost of $93,059 in FY12,
largely due to warmer winters and lower costs for the commodity. There still is some potential to save in
the purchase of the commodity by considering a Natural Gas pool. The savings potential would be less
than electric with potential savings around 5%.

ELCSD Final Report Dated 8.26.13r

ELCSD Final Report Dated 8.26.13r

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to ELCSD Final Report Dated 8.26.13r

Similar to ELCSD Final Report Dated 8.26.13r (20)

More from Chris Mohr

More from Chris Mohr (8)

ELCSD Final Report Dated 8.26.13r