Presentation delivered by Superintendent Dr. Joseph Maruszczak at the Mendon-Upton Regional SC meeting of April 6, 2015. The slides discuss what target share and minimum local contribution are and how an override passage will impact the district's progress toward its target share goal as established by the State.

1. Mendon & Upton Target Share:
Implications of an Override
April 6, 2015

2. Target Share
• Staring in 2007, the State established a new
funding formula… one where a greater burden
for financing PK-12 education would be on
municipalities
• Target Share: establishes a goal of how much
(%) each municipality should contribute to
school budgets, based upon two factors-
 Aggregate property values
 Aggregate personal income levels
> MRGF
 Aggregate property values
 Aggregate personal income levels

3. Target Share has been STABLE
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
Mendon
Upton
• However, since 2007, both Mendon & Upton have been funding
the school budget below the Target Share

4. Minimum Local Contribution
• Based upon Target Share goal
• Determined by enrollment & MRGF (Municipal
Revenue Growth Factor)
Town Target Share for
FY16
Increase in
MLC for FY16
Actual Share
Once MLC is
Met
Distance
from Target
Share- FY16
Mendon 65.60 % $336,363 60.61% -4.99 %
Upton 64.85 % $271,599 59.17% -5.65 %
FY16 MRGF: Mendon: 4.86 % Upton: 4.11%

5. Lines for Local Assessments

6. Min. Local Contribution Increase vs.
Actual Contribution Increase from Mendon
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
MLC Increase Actual Mendon Increase
The 4-year
cumulative
shortfall
would be
$406,442

7. Mendon Funding w/No Override
-$200,000
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
Increase in MLC Operational Additional

8. What this Translates To:
• $1.4 M in Cuts for FY16
• The Loss of ~20 FTE Positions
• Class Sizes @ 26-30 at All Levels
• Loss of Elective Opportunities @ the Secondary
Level
• Less Supports (Academic/Social/Emotional) for
Students
• Increased Fees for Athletics/Extracurriculars
• Downward Spiral for the MURSD

9. Mendon Funding w/ FY16 Override
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
Increase in MLC Operational Additional

10. What this Translates To:
• MURSD Strategic Plan is Supported/Goals are
Realized
• Level Services/Programming Sustained
• Class Sizes Average 20-22 @ All Levels
• More Supports for Students Who Need Them
• Reduced/Eliminated Fees for Athletics/Extra &
Co-curriculars
• Sustainability for 4-5 Years

11. Min. Local Contribution Increase vs.
Actual Contribution Increase from Upton
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
MLC Increase Actual Upton Increase
The 4-year
cumulative
shortfall
would be
$453,717

12. Upton Funding w/No Override
-$200,000
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
Increase in MLC Operational Additional

13. Upton Funding w/FY16 Override
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20
Increase in MLC Operational Additional

14. Conclusions
• The Mendon driver formula (half of 2 ½
increase, half of new receipts) will not meet
the district’s needs for FY16
• This formula does not meet the MLC- and the
cumulative effect is creating a deficit
• Without an override, by FY18 the Operational
Additional in each town will not even meet
the MLC

15. Conclusions
• If a FY16 override fails, the district will make
numerous cuts… and the FY17 Budget request
will no doubt include override requests to
rebuild the district
• Passage of the FY16 override is a smart
investment for the coming school year and
beyond as it builds the Operational Additional
to sustainable levels