This document provides budget information for USD 400 from 2006-2007 to 2013-2014. It shows numbers for staffing levels and salaries, total budgeted and actual expenses, revenues, and other financial metrics. Overall, salaries have increased each year, though the rate of increase has varied. Budgeted expenses have generally increased annually between 96.6-107.9%, while actual expenses have increased at a lower rate between 91.6-108.8%. Revenues have fluctuated from year to year between 91.7-105.7% of the previous year.
University Faculty Senate Presentaiton: Overview of Contributions Report Marc...Larry Catá Backer
Penn State University Faculty Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, Advisory and Consultative Report--An Overview of Contributions Report, March 17, 2015
Analysis by the Legislative Finance Division of Alaska's fiscal position: how we got here, where we are and where we are headed under various alternatives.
University Faculty Senate Presentaiton: Overview of Contributions Report Marc...Larry Catá Backer
Penn State University Faculty Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, Advisory and Consultative Report--An Overview of Contributions Report, March 17, 2015
Analysis by the Legislative Finance Division of Alaska's fiscal position: how we got here, where we are and where we are headed under various alternatives.
This webinar was hosted by Dan Matarrese (Tax Senior Manager) from McKonly & Asbury. The presentation provided an annual “State of the Tax Union” address. We detailed the relevant changes in our tax system for 2014 while also discussing planning opportunities that exist in our current environment. Our team will provided a unique look at the most recent IRS statistics to examine the economic results that our tax policies are producing.
Check out our Upcoming Events page for news and updates on our future seminars and webinars at http://www.macpas.com/events/
Exploring the State of Facilities 2014 [Part 4]: Operations Effectiveness & E...Sightlines
During this webinar, Sightlines Vice President Jim Kadamus and Associate Vice President Jay Pearlman offer an in-depth discussion of the benchmarks, trends, and best practices introduced in our 2014 report The State of Facilities in Higher Education.
Part 4 explores the challenges of the day-to-day operations on campus that are caused by flat operating budgets that are unable to keep up with inflation, increasing staffing coverages, and an inability to protect energy savings. In response, strategies for increasing planned maintenance investments to offset scarce resources and examples of policy shifts that have allowed facilities leaders to protect and re-allocate energy savings are also discussed.
This webinar was hosted by Dan Matarrese (Tax Senior Manager) from McKonly & Asbury. The presentation provided an annual “State of the Tax Union” address. We detailed the relevant changes in our tax system for 2014 while also discussing planning opportunities that exist in our current environment. Our team will provided a unique look at the most recent IRS statistics to examine the economic results that our tax policies are producing.
Check out our Upcoming Events page for news and updates on our future seminars and webinars at http://www.macpas.com/events/
Exploring the State of Facilities 2014 [Part 4]: Operations Effectiveness & E...Sightlines
During this webinar, Sightlines Vice President Jim Kadamus and Associate Vice President Jay Pearlman offer an in-depth discussion of the benchmarks, trends, and best practices introduced in our 2014 report The State of Facilities in Higher Education.
Part 4 explores the challenges of the day-to-day operations on campus that are caused by flat operating budgets that are unable to keep up with inflation, increasing staffing coverages, and an inability to protect energy savings. In response, strategies for increasing planned maintenance investments to offset scarce resources and examples of policy shifts that have allowed facilities leaders to protect and re-allocate energy savings are also discussed.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
1. 5/6/14
4/30/14 USD 400 Budget at a Glance
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee # Employee #
Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of Average Salary % of
Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase Total Salary increase
FTE Admin 11 12.3 11.5 10.3 11.2 11.1 10.3 11.3
Administrators budgeted 65,007$ 64,586$ 99.4% 67,856$ 105.1% 72,395$ 106.7% 74,311$ 102.6% 74,130$ 99.8% 78,642$ 106.1% 77,656$ 98.7%
FTE Teachers 63 64 65 62 64 60 61 59
Teachers budgeted 42,420$ 48,480$ 114.3% 48,846$ 100.8% 46,201$ 94.6% 46,237$ 100.1% 49,207$ 106.4% 49,791$ 101.2% 50,134$ 100.7%
FTE other 12.8 14.4 19.2 13.8 7.6 9.8 9.7 7.6
other cert budgeted 40,611$ 40,806$ 100.5% 43,220$ 105.9% 41,563$ 96.2% 38,942$ 93.7% 38,015$ 97.6% 44,394$ 116.8% 59,402$ 133.8%
FTE Class 41.2 42.7 42.8 39.3 40.3 1.0254 39 41.7 40.9
Classified budgeted 22,547$ 28,541$ 126.6% 29,940$ 104.9% 31,594$ 105.5% 31,723$ 100.4% 30,862$ 97.3% 33,114$ 107.3% 35,191$ 106.3%
FTE Admin 11.3 10.6 10.6 10 11.1 11.1 11.3
Administrators actual 64,813$ 70,185$ 108.3% 72,425$ 103.2% 77,106$ 106.5% 72,682$ 94.3% 74,936$ 103.1% 75,525$ 100.8%
732,390$ 743,959$ 101.6% 767,709$ 103.2% 771,056$ 100.4% 806,771$ 104.6% 831,790$ 103.1% 853,427$ 102.6% 877,511$ 102.8%
FTE Teachers 64 62 64 62 64 60 61
Teachers actual 45,098$ 48,311$ 107.1% 48,409$ 100.2% 48,563$ 100.3% 48,835$ 100.6% 49,125$ 100.6% 50,647$ 103.1%
2,886,253$ 2,995,271$ 103.8% 3,098,148$ 103.4% 3,010,888$ 97.2% 3,125,451$ 103.8% 2,947,520$ 94.3% 3,089,485$ 104.8% 2,957,929$ 95.7%
FTE other 14.4 13.1 19.1 16.3 7.6 9.7 8.7
other cert actual 37,959$ 40,773$ 107.4% 31,383$ 77.0% 34,910$ 111.2% 46,205$ 132.4% 44,445$ 96.2% 56,597$ 127.3%
546,613$ 534,129$ 97.7% 599,419$ 112.2% 569,035$ 94.9% 351,161$ 61.7% 431,121$ 122.8% 492,396$ 114.2% 451,456$ 91.7%
FET Class 42.7 39.5 41.9 40.7 40.9 41.9 41.5
Classified actual 26,926$ 29,325$ 108.9% 29,973$ 102.2% 31,191$ 104.1% 31,993$ 102.6% 31,996$ 100.0% 33,779$ 105.6%
1,149,730$ 1,158,321$ 100.7% 1,255,879$ 108.4% 1,269,480$ 101.1% 1,308,495$ 103.1% 1,340,616$ 102.5% 1,401,820$ 104.6% 1,439,313$ 102.7%
Total Salaries 5,314,986$ 5,431,680$ 102.2% 5,721,155$ 105.3% 5,620,459$ 98.2% 5,591,878$ 99.5% 5,551,047$ 99.3% 5,837,128$ 105.2% 5,726,209$ 98.1%
% of total expenditures 48.0% 45.2% 46.5% 49.8% 48.4% 47.5% 49.4% 49.3%
2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
total budgeted expenses ^ 12,178,378$ 12,904,382$ 106.0% 13,921,701$ 107.9% 13,449,083$ 96.6% 13,668,361$ 101.6% 13,981,380$ 102.3% 14,144,550$ 101.2% 13,735,910$ 97.1%
Budgeted expenses per student ^ 11,016$ 12,840$ 116.6% 14,059$ 109.5% 13,582$ 96.6% 13,874$ 102.1% 14,381$ 103.7% 14,146$ 98.4% 13,877$ 98.1%
total expenditures * 11,070,816$ 12,020,023$ 108.6% 12,304,720$ 102.4% 11,275,090$ 91.6% 11,545,453$ 102.4% 11,691,180$ 101.3% 11,821,966$ 101.1% 11,622,972$
Actual expenses per student * 11,016$ 11,960$ 108.6% 12,426$ 103.9% 11,387$ 91.6% 11,566$ 101.6% 11,716$ 101.3% 11,944$ 101.9% 11,743$
#s from year before budget at a glance 12,020,651$ 12,214,252$ 11,691,181$
#s from year before budget at a glance 11,961$ 12,335$ 11,692$
Budgeted total revenue, state, fed, local * 14,341,287$ 14,604,250$ 101.8% 13,395,315$ 91.7%
Budgeted Revenue per student * 14,725.63$ 15,501.80$ 105.3%
Revenue - Expenses 2,650,107$ 2,782,284$
total revenue, state, fed, local * 11,070,816$ 111.6% 12,020,651$ 108.6% 12,214,252$ 101.6% 11,275,090$ 92.3% 11,545,452$ 102.4% 11,691,181$ 101.3% 11,821,966$ 101.1%
Actual expenses per student * 11,016$ 111.8% 12,140$ 110.2% 12,017.17$ 99.0% 11,349$ 94.4% 12,064$ 106.3% 12,004$ 99.5% 12,549$ 104.5%
Actual FTE enrollment 1005 99.8% 990.2 98.5% 1016.4 102.6% 993.5 97.7% 957 96.3% 0 973.9 101.8% # 942.1 96.7% 952.4 101.1%
FTE Actual including preschool (form 1000) * 990.2 #REF! 990.2 #REF! 990.2 990.2 988.5 997.9 989.8
includes all funds
(capital, bond, virtual)
2009-2010 has different numbers
from republishing
contracted
2. These numbers are taken from Budget at a Glance
2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
total Budgeted Expenses
total expenditure 12,178,378$
total Actual Expenses
total expenditures 9,114,119$ 9,920,003$ 108.8% 11,070,816$
These numbers ar
general fund budget
general fund actuals
contingency reserve July 1st Balance 240,662$ 391,552$
Actual sources of Revenue These numbers are taken from Smoky Valley (USD DO400) Mcpherson C
State Aid 5,275,399$ 5,365,918$ 101.7% 5,827,921$ 108.6% 5,414,875$ 92.9% 5,922,546$ 109.4% 6,780,447$ 114.5% 7,764,679$
Federal Aid 163,029$ 164,369$ 100.8% 171,830$ 104.5% 178,186$ 103.7% 319,038$ 179.0% 313,373$ 98.2% 331,823$
Local Revenue 2,344,007$ 2,184,821$ 93.2% 2,194,057$ 100.4% 2,922,562$ 133.2% 2,872,535$ 98.3% 2,826,181$ 98.4% 2,974,314$
total revenue 7,782,435$ 7,715,108$ 99.1% 8,193,808$ 106.2% 8,515,623$ 103.9% 9,114,119$ 107.0% 9,920,001$ 108.8% 11,070,816$
State Aid per student 5,295$ 5,394$ 101.9% 6,205$ 115.0% 5,879$ 94.8% 6,234$ 106.0% 6,736$ 108.1% 7,726$
Federal Aid per student 164$ 165$ 101.0% 183$ 110.7% 193$ 105.8% 336$ 173.6% 311$ 92.7% 330$
Local Revenue per student 2,353$ 2,196$ 93.3% 2,336$ 106.4% 3,173$ 135.9% 3,023$ 95.3% 2,808$ 92.9% 2,960$
total spent per student 7,811$ 7,755$ 99.3% 8,723$ 112.5% 9,246$ 106.0% 9,593$ 103.8% 9,855$ 102.7% 11,016$
Enrollment (FTE)* for Budget Authority 996.3 0 994.8 99.8% 939.3 94.4% 921 98.1% 950.1 103.2% 1006.6 105.9% 1005
includes all funds (capital, bond,
virtual)
from 2008-2009
Budget at a Glace
10% of general fund budget is max
tried to close MJH
3. 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
12,904,382$ 106.0% 13,921,701$ 107.9% 13,449,083$ 96.6% 13,668,361$ 101.6% 13,981,380$ 102.3% 14,144,550$ 101.2% 13,735,910$ 97.1%
111.6% 12,020,023$ 108.6% 12,304,720$ 102.4% 11,275,090$ 91.6% 11,545,453$ 102.4% 11,691,181$ 101.3% 11,821,966$ 101.1%
12,020,651$ 12,214,252$
Budgeted sources of Revenue
State 7,336,879$ 7,288,960$ 99.3% 7,236,510$ 99.3%
Federal 372,059$ 365,796$ 98.3% 280,632$ 76.7%
Local 6,632,349$ 6,949,494$ 104.8% 5,878,173$ 84.6%
total revenue 14,341,287$ 14,604,250$ 101.8% 13,395,315$ 91.7%
11,944$
budgeted rev-accual exp 2,650,106$ 2,782,284$
numbers are taken from the Budget USD#400 - Smoky Valley
6,949,999$ 6,742,567$ 6,862,232$ 6,775,221$ 6,695,860$
7,969,019$ 7,954,329$ 6,840,633$ 6,749,650$ 7,050,483$ 6,853,681$
411,220.86$ 6.0%
409,467$ 426,797$ 737,142$ 737,142$ 737,142$ 498,142$ 396,686$
cpherson County, KDOE website
Last 13 year %
increase
114.5% 8,433,477$ 108.6% 8,449,210$ 100.2% 6,852,467$ 81.1% 6,944,054$ 101.3% 7,336,879$ 105.7% 7,288,960$ 99.3% 138.2%
105.9% 254,341$ 76.6% 276,729$ 108.8% 876,230$ 316.6% 682,923$ 77.9% 372,059$ 54.5% 365,796$ 98.3% 224.4%
105.2% 3,332,833$ 112.1% 3,488,313$ 104.7% 3,546,393$ 101.7% 3,918,475$ 110.5% 3,982,243$ 101.6% 4,167,210$ 104.6% 177.8%
111.6% 12,020,651$ 108.6% 12,214,252$ 101.6% 11,275,090$ 92.3% 11,545,452$ 102.4% 11,691,181$ 101.3% 11,821,966$ 101.1% 151.9%
114.7% 8,517$ 110.2% 8,313$ 97.6% 6,897$ 83.0% 7,256$ 105.2% 7,534$ 103.8% 7,737$ 102.7% 146.1%
106.1% 257$ 77.8% 272$ 106.0% 882$ 323.9% 714$ 80.9% 382$ 53.5% 388$ 101.6% 237.3%
105.4% 3,366$ 113.7% 3,432$ 102.0% 3,570$ 104.0% 4,095$ 114.7% 4,089$ 99.9% 4,423$ 108.2% 188.0%
111.8% 12,140$ 110.2% 12,017$ 99.0% 11,349$ 94.4% 12,064$ 106.3% 12,004$ 99.5% 12,549$ 104.5% 160.6%
99.8% 990.2 98.5% 1016.4 102.6% 993.5 97.7% 957 96.3% 973.9 101.8% 942.1 96.7% 952.4 101.1%
Budget at a Glance #
9
ace
from 2009-2010 Budget at a Glance
Verual School funding
changed
State Pre-K funded at
this year and therafter 6% of general fund budget
is maxMJH closed
closed MES 4th grade
Closed MES