The Vermont Association of School Business Officials (VASBO) provided testimony to the House Education Committee on a draft bill regarding school governance. VASBO estimated potential savings from the bill in several areas, including a reduction in education spending per pupil from $472 to $169, savings of $34 million from increasing average class sizes, and $5 million from eliminating small schools grants. VASBO noted it is difficult to estimate savings from potential central office staff reductions under the new governance structures. They also recommended delaying implementation of equalized pupil adjustments to encourage districts to join regional districts. Finally, VASBO expressed concern that placing non-operating districts under the State Board of Education could increase costs due to increased administrative requirements.
"You would be surprised that in some schools, the restriction appears to be implicitly understood, since they neither have a line for temporarily restricted funds on their balance sheet nor the statement below in their respective financial statement notes".
ARRA Overview Illinois Workforce Partnership Regional MeetingsCSW
Created in March 2009, this presentation presents an overview of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Created by CSW for a regional meeting of the Illinois Workforce Partnership.
Ways and Means Committee review of previous budgets and metrics evaluation. Some comparisons are made with neighboring towns. Submitted to the administration and the school board.
San Joaquin Delta
Community College District
Office of Fiscal Services
5151 Pacific Avenue
Stockton, CA 95207
TO: Board of Trustees
Jeff Marsee Ph.D, Superintendent/President
District Leadership
FROM: Michael Hill, Administrative Consultant
Raquel Puentes-Griffith, Controller
SUBJECT: 2011-12 Adoption Budget
The budget development process has been much smoother this year than last. As you will see from the
presentation materials the changes from tentative to adoption are smaller in number and less dramatic
than 2010-2011. This is a more typical pattern for the unrestricted general fund portion of the budget.
The heavy lifting is normally done in preparation for the tentative budget. We do place added emphasis
on the restricted funds moving from the tentative to adoption budgets.
For the restricted funds there are no major surprises and with the effort made during this last year by the
fiscal services staff and program managers the restricted funds budgets are cleaner and reflect more
clearly the true status of programs.
Regarding the unrestricted general fund we are pleased to report that there is some revenue improvement
as a result of the state budget that was adopted but at the same time our estimate of the beginning fund
balance turned out to be higher than the actual results. We will expand on these points in this
memorandum.
We also want to provide you with a sense of what the current circumstance means for the 2012-2013
fiscal year. It has been the district strategy to approach the state funding loss in a multi-year plan and the
2011-12 budget represents the first year of the plan.
State Budget
The state budget had to confront a shortfall of $26 billion. About $13 billion was addressed back in
March through reduced funding of programs, the community colleges included. This became the best
case scenario in the evaluative process. Facing more cuts to close the gap for the remaining $13 billion,
extending taxes or a combination of both, the legislature and governor could not reach agreement on how
to proceed. The process bogged down in the usual political way.
The “May Revise” is that point where the state measures revenue flows and makes adjustments to the
revenue estimates for the next year. When that measurement occurred it was determined that the revenue
estimates could be increased which covered a portion of the $13 billion gap. In the final days of June to
get the budget out the door the revenue estimates were increased further but because there was a sense the
numbers were soft and unlikely to materialize, triggers were incorporated which would impose mid-year
cuts. The trigger date for making the determination is December 15, 2011. The triggers are as follows:
Tier 0
If between $3 and $4 billion of the new revenue materializes, no ad.
San Joaquin Delta
Community College District
Office of Fiscal Services
5151 Pacific Avenue
Stockton, CA 95207
TO: Board of Trustees
Jeff Marsee Ph.D, Superintendent/President
District Leadership
FROM: Michael Hill, Administrative Consultant
Raquel Puentes-Griffith, Controller
SUBJECT: 2011-12 Adoption Budget
The budget development process has been much smoother this year than last. As you will see from the
presentation materials the changes from tentative to adoption are smaller in number and less dramatic
than 2010-2011. This is a more typical pattern for the unrestricted general fund portion of the budget.
The heavy lifting is normally done in preparation for the tentative budget. We do place added emphasis
on the restricted funds moving from the tentative to adoption budgets.
For the restricted funds there are no major surprises and with the effort made during this last year by the
fiscal services staff and program managers the restricted funds budgets are cleaner and reflect more
clearly the true status of programs.
Regarding the unrestricted general fund we are pleased to report that there is some revenue improvement
as a result of the state budget that was adopted but at the same time our estimate of the beginning fund
balance turned out to be higher than the actual results. We will expand on these points in this
memorandum.
We also want to provide you with a sense of what the current circumstance means for the 2012-2013
fiscal year. It has been the district strategy to approach the state funding loss in a multi-year plan and the
2011-12 budget represents the first year of the plan.
State Budget
The state budget had to confront a shortfall of $26 billion. About $13 billion was addressed back in
March through reduced funding of programs, the community colleges included. This became the best
case scenario in the evaluative process. Facing more cuts to close the gap for the remaining $13 billion,
extending taxes or a combination of both, the legislature and governor could not reach agreement on how
to proceed. The process bogged down in the usual political way.
The “May Revise” is that point where the state measures revenue flows and makes adjustments to the
revenue estimates for the next year. When that measurement occurred it was determined that the revenue
estimates could be increased which covered a portion of the $13 billion gap. In the final days of June to
get the budget out the door the revenue estimates were increased further but because there was a sense the
numbers were soft and unlikely to materialize, triggers were incorporated which would impose mid-year
cuts. The trigger date for making the determination is December 15, 2011. The triggers are as follows:
Tier 0
If between $3 and $4 billion of the new revenue materializes, no ad ...
"You would be surprised that in some schools, the restriction appears to be implicitly understood, since they neither have a line for temporarily restricted funds on their balance sheet nor the statement below in their respective financial statement notes".
ARRA Overview Illinois Workforce Partnership Regional MeetingsCSW
Created in March 2009, this presentation presents an overview of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Created by CSW for a regional meeting of the Illinois Workforce Partnership.
Ways and Means Committee review of previous budgets and metrics evaluation. Some comparisons are made with neighboring towns. Submitted to the administration and the school board.
San Joaquin Delta
Community College District
Office of Fiscal Services
5151 Pacific Avenue
Stockton, CA 95207
TO: Board of Trustees
Jeff Marsee Ph.D, Superintendent/President
District Leadership
FROM: Michael Hill, Administrative Consultant
Raquel Puentes-Griffith, Controller
SUBJECT: 2011-12 Adoption Budget
The budget development process has been much smoother this year than last. As you will see from the
presentation materials the changes from tentative to adoption are smaller in number and less dramatic
than 2010-2011. This is a more typical pattern for the unrestricted general fund portion of the budget.
The heavy lifting is normally done in preparation for the tentative budget. We do place added emphasis
on the restricted funds moving from the tentative to adoption budgets.
For the restricted funds there are no major surprises and with the effort made during this last year by the
fiscal services staff and program managers the restricted funds budgets are cleaner and reflect more
clearly the true status of programs.
Regarding the unrestricted general fund we are pleased to report that there is some revenue improvement
as a result of the state budget that was adopted but at the same time our estimate of the beginning fund
balance turned out to be higher than the actual results. We will expand on these points in this
memorandum.
We also want to provide you with a sense of what the current circumstance means for the 2012-2013
fiscal year. It has been the district strategy to approach the state funding loss in a multi-year plan and the
2011-12 budget represents the first year of the plan.
State Budget
The state budget had to confront a shortfall of $26 billion. About $13 billion was addressed back in
March through reduced funding of programs, the community colleges included. This became the best
case scenario in the evaluative process. Facing more cuts to close the gap for the remaining $13 billion,
extending taxes or a combination of both, the legislature and governor could not reach agreement on how
to proceed. The process bogged down in the usual political way.
The “May Revise” is that point where the state measures revenue flows and makes adjustments to the
revenue estimates for the next year. When that measurement occurred it was determined that the revenue
estimates could be increased which covered a portion of the $13 billion gap. In the final days of June to
get the budget out the door the revenue estimates were increased further but because there was a sense the
numbers were soft and unlikely to materialize, triggers were incorporated which would impose mid-year
cuts. The trigger date for making the determination is December 15, 2011. The triggers are as follows:
Tier 0
If between $3 and $4 billion of the new revenue materializes, no ad.
San Joaquin Delta
Community College District
Office of Fiscal Services
5151 Pacific Avenue
Stockton, CA 95207
TO: Board of Trustees
Jeff Marsee Ph.D, Superintendent/President
District Leadership
FROM: Michael Hill, Administrative Consultant
Raquel Puentes-Griffith, Controller
SUBJECT: 2011-12 Adoption Budget
The budget development process has been much smoother this year than last. As you will see from the
presentation materials the changes from tentative to adoption are smaller in number and less dramatic
than 2010-2011. This is a more typical pattern for the unrestricted general fund portion of the budget.
The heavy lifting is normally done in preparation for the tentative budget. We do place added emphasis
on the restricted funds moving from the tentative to adoption budgets.
For the restricted funds there are no major surprises and with the effort made during this last year by the
fiscal services staff and program managers the restricted funds budgets are cleaner and reflect more
clearly the true status of programs.
Regarding the unrestricted general fund we are pleased to report that there is some revenue improvement
as a result of the state budget that was adopted but at the same time our estimate of the beginning fund
balance turned out to be higher than the actual results. We will expand on these points in this
memorandum.
We also want to provide you with a sense of what the current circumstance means for the 2012-2013
fiscal year. It has been the district strategy to approach the state funding loss in a multi-year plan and the
2011-12 budget represents the first year of the plan.
State Budget
The state budget had to confront a shortfall of $26 billion. About $13 billion was addressed back in
March through reduced funding of programs, the community colleges included. This became the best
case scenario in the evaluative process. Facing more cuts to close the gap for the remaining $13 billion,
extending taxes or a combination of both, the legislature and governor could not reach agreement on how
to proceed. The process bogged down in the usual political way.
The “May Revise” is that point where the state measures revenue flows and makes adjustments to the
revenue estimates for the next year. When that measurement occurred it was determined that the revenue
estimates could be increased which covered a portion of the $13 billion gap. In the final days of June to
get the budget out the door the revenue estimates were increased further but because there was a sense the
numbers were soft and unlikely to materialize, triggers were incorporated which would impose mid-year
cuts. The trigger date for making the determination is December 15, 2011. The triggers are as follows:
Tier 0
If between $3 and $4 billion of the new revenue materializes, no ad ...
1. Richard Pembroke& GrantGeisler: HouseEducation Committee Testimony - Feb 17, 2015
Dear Committee Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to provideinput on your latest draftbill (dr req 15-1034-
draft2.1).
We representthe VermontAssociation of School Business Officials (VASBO). Wemust
emphasizewe do not representour local boards, board members or superintendents.
Potential Savings: You have asked us for the potential savings resulting fromthe draft bill.
We’ve previously submitted VASBO’s 2010 position paper on schoolgovernance. While
the paper did not identify an overallestimate of savings, itdid providenon-cumulative
estimates based on analogies.
Education Spending per Equalized Pupil - the difference in education spending (ES) per
equalized pupils (EP) between supervisory unions (SUs) and supervisorydistricts (SDs): JFO
has since analyzed comparative data for FY15 which shows the ES per EP gap between SDs
and SUs has closed from$472/EP to $169/EP adjusting the potential savings from$32Mto
justunder $12M.
Class Sizes (non-cumulative) - the difference in student-to-teacher ratios between SUs
and SDs: Using FY14 data provided by the Agency of Education, the student-to-teacher
ratio in SDs was 11.98 whilethe ratio was only 11.18 in SUs. If SUs could increasetheir
ratio to 11.98, the state-wide number of teachers would be reduced by 505.75. Using the
Bureau of Labor Statistics average Vermontteacher salary of $53,759 and conservatively
estimating benefits at $14,514(27% of salary), you arriveat a potential savings of $34M
compared to the $29Mwe estimated in 2010. Although class sizespeaks to teaching staff,
a more efficient governancestructureas outlined will likely yield staff reductions in other
employee classes thereby increasing the savings.
Reduction of Small Schools Grants: The Agency of Education can provide a more
accurate estimate of savings relating to the elimination of this grantfor schools that are
not eligible due to geographic necessity. We believe a savings of $5M is reasonable.
Central Office Staffing: Since the bill allows for local control and flexibility in the
formation of new SDs it is difficult to estimate the number of staff that may be reduced in
central offices across the state, but assuming there will be somereduction fromthe
2. currentgovernancestructureto the proposed governancestructure there should be some
savings that could be captured or reinvested.
State-wide Financial and Student Information Systems: This initiative would be
beneficial and highly effective for capturing and analyzing data going forward, butthere
would be an associated cost. The costis dependent on the system(s) thatare selected.
VASBO would be very interested in working with AOE to choosethe right system(s).
Other Feedback: We’d also like to providesomefeedback on someof the languagewithin
the draftbill.
Equalized Pupil Hold-Harmless Protection: We would like to see these adjustments
take effect in FY18 instead of FY17. The adjustments may encourageaffected districts to
join a Regional Education District (RED) and they may not be able to do so until FY18.
Extending the effective date could then be viewed as another incentive instead of a
penalty.
Non-Operating Districts: We’reconcerned about the proposalto push non-operating
districts into one or more SDs or to place them under the State Board of Education (SBE).
Not knowing how this structuremay look, coupled with the amount of administrative time
that is taken up managing non-operating districts, the SBE would need to have a large,
highly qualified staff to track and accountfor all the students, their residency, their
placements, and their tuition agreements across a vast geographicalarea. This could
result in an increase in education spending.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Richard Pembroke& GrantGeisler