1.18.11 budget workshop agenda (draft) -...

Administration Center16550 SW Merlo RoadBeaverton, OregonJanuary 18, 20116:30 P.M. - 8:30 P.M.

PRESENTER TIME

I. Welcome and Opening Remarks Tom Quillin 6:30 PM

II. Opening Comments Jerome Colonna

III. Role of the Budget Committee Tom Quillin

IV. Review, Revise and Adopt Budget Jerome ColonnaCommittee Ground Rules

V. Elect Chair and Vice-Chair Tom Quillin

VI. Approval of Minutes from May 25, 2010, Committee Chair 6:45 PMJune 3, 2010, and October 22, 2010 meetings

VII. Public Comments Committee Chair

VIII. Staffing Calendar Sue Robertson

IX. Budget Update Claire Hertz

X. Community Outreach Board Karen Cunningham &Subcommittee Report Sarah Smith

XI. Review Grant Budgets Carl Mead & Craig Irwin

XII. Agenda for Next Workshop - February 22 Chair 8:20 PM

XIII. Closing Remarks Jerome Colonna

Adjourn 8:30 PM

District Goal for 2010-2015: All students will show continuous progress toward their personal learning goals, developed in collaboration with teachers and parents, and will be prepared for post-secondary education and career success.

AGENDA

We invite all participants to join in the group discussions. For further Budget information, check the District website at: www.beaverton.k12.or.us

The next meeting will be on February 22, 2011. Meetings begin at 6:30 p.m. and are held at the District Administration Center.

2011-12 Budget Committee Workshop

Business Services Budget Committee Working Agreements 11-12 1/12/2011

Beaverton School District 2011-12 Budget Committee

Working Agreements

1. Each Budget Committee member should:

a. Be familiar with the District’s 2010-2015 Strategic Plan & Implementation Overview and seek to align Committee recommendations and decisions to the plan while actively acknowledging and maintaining the policies of the board. The District's strategic plan will be presented in detail at the first budget meeting of the Committee including what resources are required to accomplish the goals.

b. Encourage each member to participate fully through thoughtful discussion and effective decision-making, and effectively communicate with each other by focusing on problem-solving and willingness to consider all points of view.

c. Seek to understand the principles, alternatives and choices within the recommendations presented by District staff. The staff will prepare cost benefit and impact analyses as needed and requested.

d. Come prepared for every meeting by reviewing the agenda and background materials in advance.

e. As a general guideline, overall pre K-12, district-wide benefits should be prioritized higher than individual programs or cost centers.

2. Information requests that require staff time to complete must be approved by the

Committee at the budget meeting. Any individual request for information will be treated as a request of the entire Committee and will be sent to each member. Any information requests between meetings will need to be presented to the Chair who will confer with the Chief Financial Officer. Requests for information shall be specific and state the reason, need or intent of the request. Each meeting shall have a staff scribe to record data requests, research requests and clarifying information requests. The scribe will reiterate these requests at the end of each meeting for consent by the committee.

3. The Chair is authorized to speak on behalf of the Budget Committee to the media. The

Chair may delegate this responsibility to other members of the Committee. When speaking to the media, Budget Committee members should indicate that they are voicing their personal opinion if they share views that are contrary to Committee approved decisions/recommendations. The Chair should be informed of any contact by the media with Budget Committee members and the content thereof.

4. Formal action on key decisions will be conducted by Robert’s Rules of Order. The

process will include a motion, second, discussion and a vote by the Committee. When possible, votes shall be taken at least one meeting following the presentation of action requested.

5. The prior year's Budget process will be reviewed and revised as necessary and

incorporated into the work of the current year's Budget process. The Committee shall look at prior year decisions and their impact.

Zone BOARD APPOINTED BUDGET COMMITTEE

TERM EXPIRES JUNE 30

1 Karen Cunningham Brett Baker 20116896 SW 67th 6645 SW Peyton RoadPortland, OR 97223 Portland, OR 97223Res. 503-246-3563 Res. 503-977-2676Bus. Bus. 503-886-4602E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

2 Tom Quillin Dave Bouchard 201115319 NW Eugene Lane 17559 NW Gilbert LanePortland, OR 97229 Portland, OR 97229Res. 503-617-7333 Res: 503-690-7447Bus. 503-712-1563 Work:E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

3 Mary VanderWeele Carrie Anderson 20122330 SW Imperial Court 9630 SW Vista PlacePortland, OR 97225 Portland, OR 97225Cell: 503-806-1694 Res: 503-297-2572Bus: 503-671-2504 Cell: 503-313-4750E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

4 Sarah Smith Carmin Ruiz 201316550 SW Merlo Road 4215 SW Laducer PlaceBeaverton, OR 97006 Beaverton, OR 97007Res: 503-356-9345 Cell: 503-734-0963Bus. Work: 503-350-4068E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

5 LeeAnn Larsen John Burns 201217886 NW Sedgewick Ct. 18280 SW Jay StreetBeaverton, OR 97006 Beaverton, OR 97006Res: Res: Cell: 503-572-6763 Cell: 971-506-7814E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

6 Jeff Hicks Cheri McDevitt 20129980 SW Buckskin Ter. 8331 SW Chevy PlaceBeaverton, OR 97008 Beaverton, OR 97008Res. 503-579-3034 Res. 503-646-2235Bus. Bus.E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

7 Lisa Shultz Cameron Irtifa 201312860 SW Glenhaven Street 6615 SW 155th Ave.Portland, OR 97225 Beaverton, OR 97007Res: 503-643-6944 Res. 503-579-5647Bus. Bus. 503-380-5015E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

STAFF REPRESENTATIVES

Mary Jean Katz, McKay ES Therese Nolan, English Teacher, Sunset [email protected] [email protected]

Shirley Brock, Five Oaks MS John Metcalf, Routing Coordinator, [email protected] [email protected]

Ken Yarnell, Aloha HS Guy Weisenbach, Systems Analyst, [email protected] [email protected]

Steve Day, Health & Science HS Ari Cosey, Counselor, Bonny Slope/[email protected] aribania_cosey@beaverton,k12,or.us

SUPPORT STAFF

Jerome Colonna, Superintendent Gayellyn Jacobson, Budget [email protected] [email protected]

Claire Hertz, Chief Financial Officer Debby Wohlmut, Administrative [email protected] [email protected]

2011 - 2012 BUDGET COMMITTEE

1/10/2011 dlw/bus office

BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT2011-12 DISTRICT BUDGET COMMITTEE CALENDAR

June 16, 2010 School Board MeetingDiscuss Selection of Budget Committee Members to Fill Vacancies

October 11, 2010 School Board Meeting Appoint Budget Committee Members to Fill Vacancies

October 12 - 21, 2010 Budget 101 Workshops - as needed for new community membersAn Introduction to State K-12 Funding, the BSD General Fund Budget and an orientation to the budget process

October 22, 2010 Budget Committee RetreatDebrief 2010-11 process, review of budget committee role and legal requirements for budget process, and develop goals for 2011-12

December 2010 - January 2011 Budget 101 Workshops - as needed for new ad hoc staff membersAn Introduction to State K-12 Funding, the BSD General Fund Budget and an orientation to the budget process

January 18, 2011 Budget Committee WorkshopElect Budget Committee Officers, Review Ground Rules, Role of the Budget Committee, Preliminary Revenue Update, Review of Grant Budgets

February 22, 2011 Budget Committee Workshop Revenue Update, Review of School Cost Center Budgets, Fiscal Evaluation of District Initiatives

March 15, 2011 Budget Committee WorkshopPreliminary Budget Assumptions, Review of Operations & Facilities Budgets, Budget Recommendations, Revenue Update

March 30, 2011 Budget Committee Listening Session: 7:00 - 8:30 p.m.Location: Sunset High School

April 12, 2011 Budget Committee Meeting - Initial MeetingUpdate Budget Assumptions, Delivery of Proposed Budget Document and Budget Message, Review of Teaching and Learning Budget

April 21, 2011 Budget Committee Listening Session: 7:00 - 8:30 p.m.Location: Beaverton High School

May 3, 2011 Budget Committee MeetingBudget Recommendations

May 17, 2011 Budget Committee MeetingRevenue update from May Economic Forecast and Approval of Budget and Tax Levies

June 7, 2011 School Board MeetingBudget Hearing/Board Adopts Budget and Tax Levies

July 15, 2011 Certify BudgetSubmit to Washington/Multnomah County Tax Assessors no later than July 15th

All Budget Committee Meetings will be from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m., at the District Administration Center, unless otherwise noted.

Budget Calendar 11-12 Board ApprovedPrepared by Business Services

1/10/2011

1-1

Code: DB Adopted: 9/10/79

Readopted: 3/10/97 5/9/05

Orig. Code: 3110

DISTRICT BUDGET

The budget shall serve as the financial plan of operation and the management guide foraccomplishing the goals and objectives of the district.

In establishing the budget process the Board shall establish budget development guidelines,approve the budget calendar, appoint the budget committee membership and adopt the budget.The district may provide that the budget and budget documents be prepared on an annual orbiennial basis.

The administration shall provide for the involvement of the community and staff insubmitting the recommended budget document to the budget committee.

The district budget shall be prepared and authorized in full compliance with the Local BudgetLaw. The Chief Financial Officer for business shall be the budget officer.

END OF POLICY

Legal References:

ORS 294.305 - 294.565 ORS 328.542 - 328.565

Beaverton School District

Beaverton School District Code: DBEA

Adopted: 3/8/93 Readopted:03/10/97,

02/09/98 Orig. Code: 3110.1

BUDGET COMMITTEE

The budget committee shall consist of the seven members of the Board and seven community members. The Board shall appoint one community member from each Board zone, if possible. Ex-officio members of the community may be appointed as non-voting members. The budget committee shall select, at its first meeting, a presiding officer from its membership. The budget committee shall approve the budget document to provide for the efficient and effective financial operation of the District. The Board shall establish budget development guidelines, adopt the budget, make appropriations and determine the tax levy. END OF POLICY ______________________________________________________________________________ Legal References: ORS 174.130 ORS 192.610 – 192.710 ORS 294-305 – 294.565 (Local Budget Law)

1 of 1

Code: DBK

Adopted:

BUDGET TRANSFER AUTHORITY

The adopted budget is a financial plan which may be subject to change as a result of circumstances or

events occurring during the ensuing budget period. All appropriation transfers shall be authorized

when completed by official resolution of the Board. The authorizing resolution must state the need for

the transfer, its purpose and the amount of the transfer.

Transfers of general operating contingency appropriations which in aggregate during a fiscal year or

budget period exceed 15 percent of the total appropriations of the fund may be made only after the

adoption of a supplemental budget prepared for that purpose.

The Superintendent has the authority to approve transfers between programs and object codes within

the same level of appropriation.

Interfund transfers from the general fund to any other fund are authorized when completed by official

resolution of the Board stating the need, purpose and the amount.

Appropriation transfers from any special revenue fund will comply with applicable statutes.

END OF POLICY

Legal References:

ORS 294.450

Beaverton School District

Beaverton School District Financial Goals for 2011-12

The District will develop a budget to:

1. Ensure operation of core basic functions during extraordinary state fiscal

revenue shortfalls 2. Support the outcomes of the District Goal and Strategic Plan for 2010-15 3. Maintain or rebuild a 5% fund balance in general fund by the end of the

2011-13 biennium

4. Increase efficiencies of District operations, programs and practices to offer the highest quality programs possible.

The budget process will: 1. Encourage participation from all sectors of the community 2. Communicate and clarify budget questions for the public 3. Include in-depth review of the following budget topics: grants, operations and

facilities, and school cost centers 4. Review initiatives adopted by the district in prior years including a fiscal

evaluation of the program

BUDGET COMMITTEE WORKSHOP BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 48

BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION CENTER

Budget Committee Workshop May 25, 2010

The Budget Committee of the Beaverton School District conducted a Budget Workshop at the Administration Center on May 25, 2010 at 6:34 p.m. Board Members Present: Budget Committee Members Present: Mary VanderWeele Jeff Hicks Karen Cunningham Sarah Smith Lisa Shultz LeeAnn Larsen Tom Quillin

Brett Baker Cameron Irtifa Dave Bouchard Cheri McDevitt John Burns Carrie Anderson Mark Schick

Jerome Colonna Superintendent Sarah Boly Bud Moore Claire Hertz Sue Robertson Steve Langford Maureen Wheeler Holly Lekas Brenda Lewis Carl Mead Vicki Lukich Dick Steinbrugge Arlene Hirsch Linda Hall Mike Chamberlain Karen Burch Cathy Hall Joanne Walker Jan Minten Terry Nolan Kelly Bordwell

Deputy Superintendent Deputy Superintendent Chief Financial Officer Chief Human Resource Officer Chief Information Officer Public Communication Officer Regional Administrator Regional Administrator Regional Administrator Regional Administrator Executive Administrator for Facilities Principal Principal Principal Classified Staff representative Classified Staff representative Classified Staff representative Certified Staff representative Certified Staff representative Certified Staff representative

Visitors: 35 Media: 1 WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS Budget Committee Chair Brett Baker welcomed everyone to the meeting. There has been a Budget Committee retreat scheduled for October 15th from 8 – 4. More information/details will follow. This retreat will help define the roll of the Committee. A draft 2011-12 budget calendar has been prepared. The new calendar delivers the proposed budget in April rather than in May. Next year is a legislative year and it may be unlikely that a solid determination on funding will have been made by the time the Committee is presented with the document. This week, the District did a sampling of other large districts in the state to understand their budget committee process. In reviewing the processes, we would be near the top in terms of

Budget Committee Meeting 2 May 25, 2010

how involved the citizen budget committee is. The Portland school district is similar to Beaverton. The most interesting contrast is the Salem Keizer school district. The Salem Keizer School District budget process started on May 18th with the presentation of the budget message. There were two hearings scheduled for the 25th and 26th and the board votes on the budget on June 8th. Baker stated it was a contrast when compared to how much time Beaverton spends on the budget process. Baker also noted that an Oregonian article (published on May 21) titled “State Faces Decade of Pain” which reported on the shortfall of the Oregon state budget for the next ten years. It is anticipated that there will be a shortfall of a couple billion dollars, per year, over the next few years. The economic forecast may impact our budget cycle next year further than we are anticipating. INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS Early in the afternoon, Colonna received an email from Kent Hunsaker, Executive Director of Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (COSA). The state estimated revenue forecast for June had just been released. Hunsaker’s email indicated that there was a state-wide ending fund balance deficit for the 2009-11 biennium of $562.6 million. Hunsaker’s email indicated that all state and governmental programs and services would likely be taking an across the board reduction in 2010-11 by lowering revenue distributed to all governmental entities. This represents a state funding level for the biennium of $5.76 billion instead of $6.0 billion. Beaverton would receive $341 less per student or about $13 million less than what we thought we’d approve this evening. Governor Kulongoski announced that all entities will face a 9% across the board cut. The forecast isn’t all doom and gloom. There are some positive economic indicators. The employment numbers across the nation are up. Tax collections for 2010 are up. Eleven of the 13 economic indicators for the state of Oregon are up. Lottery proceeds are up. Oregon’s exports are up over 41% as compared to January to April of last year. Total manufacturing productivity is up. There is one federal jobs for teachers bill (which is $23 billion – Oregon’s share $271 million) is in the senate, and if passed, Oregon’s share would be $271 million for 2010-11. Some would ask why this has happened all of a sudden. The most important factors are Oregon’s income tax payments are down 16.4% from a year ago, refunds have exceeded expectations, capital gains are down and a variety of state taxes came in lower than expected. The District is responding by gathering key district staff to formulate a budget balancing plan. We’ve sent out a notice to all employees in the District, to the Budget Committee and have scheduled two employee forum meetings for this Friday and next Friday (June 4th). There are three internal budget committee meetings scheduled to create a plan for the current funding scenario. Additionally, there are two all administrator meetings are scheduled to help prepare and plan to respond to the current situation. The District recommends that the Budget Committee meet on June 3rd to discuss the proposed reductions rather than meeting to meet with Odden and Picus as previously scheduled.


Staff will need time to prepare. There was no way that staff could come forward this evening with a plan that could stand the test of time in the next year. Staff needs the chance to be inclusive with others in the District and provide opportunities for input from key groups. The Budget Committee will need to move forward and approve the budget tonight realizing that there is going to be a shortfall. The District will be working with that shortfall and addressing it with the Budget Committee on June 3rd. There are statutory requirements for hearings and public notices that need to be in place as we come to the end of the school year. The Committee asked the following clarifying questions: Q – Given the news of day, it seems difficult to pass a budget tonight. Would it be possible, given the legal and publication requirements, to have June 3rd be an option for approval? Can we still meet our deadlines if we wait until June 3rd? A – Chief Financial Officer Claire Hertz will be presenting information about these deadlines a little later in the evening and will provide more detailed information about this question. PUBLIC COMMENTS Beaverton Education Association (BEA) president David Wilkinson spoke briefly on the news of the projected budget shortfalls. Wilkinson made several points:

We can’t afford to panic – the best response will take methodical planning. There is money in the rainy day fund at the state level which could cushion the mid-

biennium reduction Congress is considering the Keep our Educators Working Act It remains to be seen whether there are other ways to lessen the revenue shortfall

which would spare education and other critical services Much of the information we need to consider is not available for us tonight, and a

rush decision will not reflect our best thinking

LaFawn Smith, parent and community member, advocated for dropping the proficiency program and getting back to basics. Sarah Gonzales, student teacher and former BSD student, advocated for manageable class sizes. Mark Mackler, parent of two students in BSD, advocated for manageable class sizes. Jeanine Orme advocated for the orchestra program in the District. Catherine Kernodle advocated for manageable class sizes. Lisa Shropshire & Joanne Vasquez, representing Montclair Elementary, advocated for small school specialists positions in the District. Niki Taylo advocated for manageable class sizes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from 5-11-10 Budget Committee member Dave Bouchard moved that the 5/11/10 minutes be approved with the following changes Jeff Hicks and Lisa Shultz are listed as budget committee members and should be listed as Board members. The minutes with the previously mentioned changes were approved unanimously.


MAY ECOMONIC FORECAST Chief Financial Officer Claire Hertz presented information about the May Economic Forecast that was released 5/25/10. As of 11:00 am today, the State of Oregon is projected to have a $562 million negative fund balance or deficit at the end of the 2009-11 biennium. The governor has announced across the board cuts to all state agencies equating to a 9% reduction at the state level. The state has $175 million in reserves through June 30, 2011 which would leave little option for a legislative special session. The shortfall is due to final adjustments for 2009 income tax collections. The first quarter of 2010 looks more promising. Both the national and state economies are showing a sign of recovery but it hasn’t been in time for the current biennium of 2009-11. The new forecast requires a $237 million reduction in K-12 funding for the 2010-11 fiscal year and is equal to $341 per student. For Beaverton School District that is approximately $13 million in reductions. We will need two calendars to respond to the forecast today: a legal budget process calendar and an emergency budget planning calendar. Looking at the legal requirements section, we need to have an adopted budget by the Board on June 16th. In order to accomplish this, we need a legal notice of hearing and budget summary published in the Beaverton Valley Times on June 3rd. The Budget Summary will need to be presented to the newspaper on May 27th. In order to have the budget summary prepared for the paper, the Budget Committee will need to approve a budget tonight. . The District administration recommends that the budget committee approve the budget as presented tonight in order to meet the legal deadlines. Looking at the Emergency Budget Planning Calendar, the board has the right to reconvene the budget committee after the budget approval tonight. The administration will develop a proposal with input from all employee open forums, internal budget work group and all administrator meetings, and bring a proposal to a budget committee meeting on June 3rd with the goal of Board adoption of the budget at the June 16th Board meeting. It is an unusual calendar of events due to the late notice of the revenue shortfall. The District is asking the Committee to approve a budget tonight to meet the legally required deadlines. Then the Committee will be reconvened at the direction of the Board, to continue the process of balancing the budget, and the Board will adopt the 2010-11 budget on June 16th. The Committee asked the following questions: Q – If the budget committee reconvenes on June 3rd, is the budget final on June 16th per the board or will there still be opportunities to make changes after June 16th? A – As in the past two years, the economic decline has not allowed the District to spend the adopted budget amount. We will continue to monitor economic forecasts, enrollment growth and state school fund estimates, and make changes as needed. Q – If we approve the budget with the numbers we had in the packet yesterday, we would not be considering any of the numbers we received today. Or would we have to reduce it and pass it reduced? A – The legal requirement is that if there are any changes made between an approved budget by the Budget Committee and the Board adoption, there can’t be more than a 10% increase in the


budget. That isn’t a problem, because we’ll be decreasing the budget. Even if you’re approving a higher level budget, we will make a reduction for the adoption. There just wasn’t time, with the news announced at noon today, to make a rushed decision on how to balance the budget. We need time to process reductions with staff, and bring a recommendation back to the budget committee. Superintendent Colonna commented one of the reasons to not bring a proposal forward tonight is there was not enough time to develop well thought out recommendations. The second concern is all employee groups should be involved in finding solutions. Superintendent Colonna will convene the internal budget committee three times. The group has representatives from all employee groups. These representatives need to be at the table to talk about what is brought forward to the Budget Committee. Q – When we publish, will there be a footnote that the budget is going to change? A – A notice of budget hearing and a budget summary are provided in the publication. We will stick to the legally prescribed forms, and will use numerous communication strategies to notify the community. Q – I thought the advertisement requirement was seven days before the meeting? A – It is 5 – 30 days. We have to publish in the boundaries of the District and our local paper is a weekly publication. Q – It is unclear whether today’s announcement is a binding number. Is the budget in front of us tonight legally binding to the District? A – Hertz replied revenue estimates are from the Oregon Department of Education State School Fund estimates. She’s been in contact with ODE this afternoon, and they will be producing a new state school fund estimate for 2010-11 including the new economic forecast information. It will be released by the end of the week. Q – If the federal dollars are approved, if it's too late to be included in the budget, would there be a supplemental budget? A – We could include it as a possibility in the budget. If we receive unanticipated grants the District is allowed to spend them through an appropriation resolution approved by the Board. Superintendent Colonna commented about the immediacy of the situation. He believes that it would be tragic if we made deep cuts that weren’t necessary, but he is compelled to believe that the cuts are necessary. The governor’s press release indicates “this decline is significant and immediate action is required.” The governor is using his authority under ORS 291.261 to cut public agencies by approximately $560 million dollars to rebalance the budget. He indicates a 9% across the board reduction for the remaining 12 months of the biennium.

CHANGES FROM PROPOSED TO APPROVED BUDGET Hertz presented the Beaverton School District Reconciliation from Proposed Budget to Recommended Approved Budget handout. Hertz reviewed the handout describing Beaverton School District Adjustments to the 2010-11 Proposed Budget due to the May 25, 2010 forecast. The Committee asked the following questions to which staff provided the following answers: Q – Can you explain the large contingency in Nutrition Services?


A – The contingency was adjusted due to changes in ODE reporting guidelines received last week and a correction to a miscoding between objects. Q – There were originally five elementary specialists added back into the budget, and now there are seven, and there seems to be a shortage at three middle sized schools. Can you explain this? A – There are enrollment adjustments made to staffing allocations every year. Staffing is allocated based on enrollment that changes each year. The Committee has received a listing of staffing changes made in each school due to enrollment changes. The net change was a negative five which was the original reduction. The add-back was to small schools which was a change of seven positions. Q – So the three for middle sized schools had to do with enrollment decreases rather than the new allocation at smaller schools? A – Yes. Q – The ratio from specialist to student remains the same as it was this year to next year, there’s just a change in student enrollment? A – There were both. We rolled back and fixed the small elementary schools, and now the changes are due to enrollment and not allocation. Q – We transferred from Contingency at a board meeting in this year’s budget. How much do we have left in this year’s contingency? A – There is currently $11.9 million in contingency. Q – Is this a good time to talk about cuts to schools versus central office? A – School reductions represent 82 APU, and Central Office reductions are 18 APU. Superintendent Colonna clarified a prior comment he made when we started the budget process. He had previously indicated that there was about 1/3 of the cuts were coming from the Central office and about 2/3 were coming from the school sites. The ending fund balance reduction of about $4 million was counted in the Central Office reductions. Colonna’s original percentages have changed, because now there are three categories: Central Office, Ending Fund Balance and schools. Q – There is $1.81 million under facilities for looking for High School land, is that correct? A – We have money left in the bond that we are using for purchasing property for another high school, possibly in the southwest part of the District. These are bond resources. There will be no general fund monies used to purchase property. Q - On page 61 of the proposed document, function 2210, what is the increase in certified staff from 4.25 this year to 25.373 in the upcoming year? The number from the 2008-09 budget was 67. It is assumed that this function is coaches, which includes some instructional coaches. A – It is the Response to Intervention (RTI) Specialists. This is a shift that we made when we lowered our Maintenance of Effort bar for Special Education. RTI Specialists were originally in the IDEA stimulus funding. In order to lower the bar for Maintenance of Effort, we had to move the RTI specialists from the IDEA stimulus into general fund. Then we moved some special education staffing into the IDEA stimulus. Q – How is that reflected in our budget document? Where would we see those people picked up from last year? A – They have been moved into fund 270. Q – I would like to see from where they were moved. A – They came out of 1250 into Fund 100, function 1250.


Q – This really doesn’t reflect a change in staffing; you’re just changing where you’re putting those individuals. A – That is correct, it is to meet federal stimulus guidelines. Q – This budget somehow reflects an increase in transportation costs that are related to options. Doesn’t the opening of another option school at Summa mean an increase in transportation costs? A – No. The Summa program at Stoller is entirely for Stoller students. It is actually reducing the options transportation costs, because Stoller students are remaining in their home school. The Stoller Summa program will be on the regular Stoller schedule. Q – There is no increased transportation costs related to options next year? A – We can’t say that for every student. We can’t compare the students that have moved from year to year, but the Stoller Summa program is actually saving the District money by keeping those students in their neighborhood school. Q - Have we heard information relating to class sizes from schools other than Sunset High School? A – Westview class size is very similar, not unusual from Sunset, with class sizes averaging between 34 – 36 students. Aloha is similar as well. Some classes will be higher and some will be smaller and adjustments will happen over the summer. Q – The class size numbers principals are handing out now are based on the 99th percentile of the staffing that high schools are ending the year with, is that correct? A – Yes DISCUSSION & APPROVAL OF BUDGET DOCUMENT & TAX RATES Chair Baker led a Budget Committee discussion about the budget document. Superintendent reviewed the “Recommended General Fund District Allocation Adjustments for 2010-11” handout that presented reduction percentages by area: 47% reduction by schools, 10% reduction by central office, and 43% by all other cost centers. The unfilled positions savings referenced in number 1 are reductions that will be taken throughout the District. Q – Over the last several years, class sizes have been creeping up. When reviewing functions 2240 and 2230 (page 165) we see big increases from the current budget. Salaries in 2230 increase from $11,650 to $297,000 and in Function 2240 increases from $2.4 million to $3.4 million, is that reallocation? A – These are estimated grant funds. The District has submitted as nine I-3 grants at the federal level. We don’t anticipate receiving them all, but we’ve budgeted for all of them. They are all included in the budget. Q – So if we don’t receive all those grants, then what happens to those staff members? A – They don’t get hired and we don’t fill the positions. Q – This will impact new employees? A – Yes. If we receive the grants, we will fill the positions. Q – Have those positions been presumed at the moment? Are they using those in trying to balance class sizes?


A – These positions are in federal grants that aren’t necessarily classroom teachers. When they are in the 2000 function level, they are not in the classrooms. In our staffing right now, we are not presuming any of these positions because we have not received the grant. The Committee members made the following comments: Budget Committee member Carrie Anderson commented class sizes are unmanageable now, and is concerned about class sizes. Budget Committee member John Burns commented that in 2002, we had 35,000 students. This year we are finishing with about 38,000. That is an increase of about 8%. In that timeframe, our staffing has gone up about 22%. Federal dollars went from $8.6 million to $22.9 million, not including stimulus dollars or an increase of 166%. The combination of state and local sources for general funds went from $242 million to $350 million or an increase of 44%. I would hope we look at these trends and figure out where we’re spending the money. Budget Committee member Dave Bouchard commented he’s sure that since 2002, the District has encountered significant increases in a number of expenses in addition to the cost of additional student enrollment. How much higher is health insurance for employees today than it was in 2002? Wages have gone up, transportation costs and everything across the board. To simply equate it to the fact that we have 8 percent more students we should just be spending 8% more doesn’t work. There’s a lot more in there than enrollment growth. Would the District consider going out for a two or three year operating levy? Superintendent Colonna commented that the District is considering going out for a Technology Local Option Levy. We have not talked about something for total operations. There are some limitations on how we can use the money, but it does merit discussion. Staff budget committee member Terri Nolan commented she appreciates the complexity of this document and the time that it takes to put it together. As a teacher, as a parent and as an ex-accountant, she kept searching through the budget for a decision making model. Maybe because she is a teacher, and a parent that is going to have a student in a class of 52, she doesn't want to disagree with decisions that she's not sure what the triggers are. If we’re going to re-examine, we need to look at the decision model and start with children and classrooms. Not disagreeing with options, specialists or coaches, but if there were a place where it was all in one model and we could look at it, we could make more informed decisions. School funding is far more complex because there are all kinds of grants and they each have restrictions. From sitting on the outside, trying to look and weave through this budget and help make decisions or make a valid comment is fairly difficult. We're not sure what the baseline assumptions are. Board member Sarah Smith – As we move forward, we’re choosing between multiple ideas that we see as needs, wants or must haves. Her biggest concern is that we try to eliminate things on a consistent basis. We have to concentrate on the teachers in the classroom. Budget Committee member Carrie Anderson – When talking about school reductions vs. central reductions, this is not the balance that we expected and we need to protect the classroom. School Board member Mary VanderWeele – In these tough times, we need to try to hold our students and classrooms as harmless as possible. She believes that if students are indeed the center of our vision, and students are our collective responsibility, which we commit to in our strategic plan, we need to start there, where students live all day long and work backwards. Our first priority should be manageable class sizes. She would like to see Central Office cuts be


a larger proportion when compared to schools. Certified staff should be rededicated to the classroom wherever that’s possible. She believes we should do everything possible to hold children and classrooms harmless. Budget Committee member Mark Schick was concerned about the mixed message if we adopt the budget when we know we aren’t going to use this budget. Dave Bouchard moved the Beaverton School District budget in the aggregate amount of $514,094,743 for all funds for 2010-11 be approved and that the permanent tax rate of $4.6930 per $1,000 of assessed value be assessed in support of the General Fund. And to further move that a tax of $46,140,929 be approved for the service of bonded debt obligations of the School District. The motion was seconded by Karen Cunningham. The motion passed unanimously. Mary VanderWeele moved that the budget committee reconvene on June 3rd. Mark Schick seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

CLOSING REMARKS Superintendent Colonna spoke to a meeting he had last week. John Burns is going to move forward and look at other organizations’ budget documents and propose changes and recommendations. Superintendent Colonna realizes this budget document has some limitations. He thinks it is much improved over what we had, however it can be better. We are always changing it to improve it. If anyone has suggestions or other documents for review, please funnel to John Burns so he can bring it forward. Superintendent Colonna will meet with all employee groups, and will bring proposals for recommended reductions forward for you to consider. We will prioritize our items and be ready to discuss the prioritized list and additional items on the list. The Friday employee forum will have a representative from each department in the District who will be here and ready to answer questions. This next meeting will be important and we will talk in more detail about what we’re experiencing. Superintendent Colonna invited staff to return and bring others to the Friday employee forum meeting and thanked the Budget Committee for their faith in passing the budget tonight. We are in really difficult times, he has faith in the Budget Committee guiding us to the best work we can. SET AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING – JUNE 3

Reviewed and discussed additional budget reductions.

ADJOURN Budget Committee Chair Brett Baker adjourned the meeting at 8:50 pm. Brett Baker Jennifer Bridgewater Budget Committee Chair Recording Secretary


BEAVERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION CENTER

Budget Committee Workshop June 3, 2010

The Budget Committee of the Beaverton School District conducted a Budget Workshop at the Administration Center on June 3, 2010 at 6:32 p.m. Board Members Present: Budget Committee Members Present: Karen Cunningham Tom Quillin Mary VanderWeele Sarah Smith LeeAnn Larsen Jeff Hicks Lisa Shultz

Brett Baker Dave Bouchard Carrie Anderson Mark Schick John Burns Cheri McDevitt Cameron Irtifa

Jerome Colonna Superintendent Sarah Boly Bud Moore Claire Hertz Sue Robertson Steve Langford Maureen Wheeler Holly Lekas Brenda Lewis Carl Mead Vicki Lukich Dick Steinbrugge Arlene Hirsch Linda Hall Mike Chamberlain Kelly Bordwell Jan Minten Terry Nolan Karen Burch Cathy Hall Joanne Walker

Deputy Superintendent Deputy Superintendent Chief Financial Officer Chief Human Resource Officer Chief Information Officer Public Communication Officer Regional Administrator Regional Administrator Regional Administrator Regional Administrator Executive Administrator for Facilities Principal Principal Principal Certified Staff Representative Certified Staff Representative Certified Staff Representative Classified Staff Representative Classified Staff Representative Classified Staff Representative

Visitors: 50 Media: 0

Welcome and Opening Remarks Budget Committee Chair Brett Baker welcomed everyone to the meeting and spoke briefly about the agenda for the meeting. Introductory Comments Superintendent Jerome Colonna shared a quote from the book entitled The Help written by Kathryn Stockett. There is a line in the book which reads “How much more awful can an already awful day have?” This relates to the budget news we had last week. At the last meeting, Superintendent Colonna mentioned that it isn’t wise to look at this type of scenario/situation without hope. There are spots of light at the end of the tunnel. In April 2010, the State added 3,900 jobs, the highest amount in 2.5 years. The unemployment rate in Oregon fell by one full percent.

Budget Committee Meeting 2 June 3, 2010

Corporate profits are up and this is true for many companies in the area. Our year, so far, has seen personal tax withholding increasing, which is one key to future growth. The US economy, for the 3rd quarter in a row, is showing economic growth. The business cycle that had been in abeyance is now starting to move back to a sustainable economy. Profits are creating jobs, jobs are creating income, and income is creating increased spending. That is what is happening on the national level, the gradual way, and that is what needs to continue. Superintendent Colonna noted that his recommendation tonight is different than what he brought forward earlier this year. Although we have been working on a three year plan, which includes sustainable cuts, tonight’s presentation will include six reductions, of which, only two are sustainable cuts. In order to prepare for the previously recommended reduction plan, staff worked for several months to develop and ensure the plan was sustainable. With this most recent news, we have not had the luxury of taking the time to get all bargaining groups together. We don’t have time for Memorandum of Agreements or massive staffing changes. Tonight, we are favoring cutting reserves over cutting people, days or programs. He feels as though the District is well prepared, and thinks the plan is a proposal that certainly is worth careful scrutiny and he is looking forward to that time on the agenda. Public Comments David Wilkinson, president of the Beaverton Education Association (BEA) spoke briefly about the new list of reductions to address the budget shortfall:

● The process was inclusive, collaborative, difficult and ultimately a testament to the District’s dedication to the students

● Thanked Chief Financial Officer Claire Hertz and all on the financial team who made the process work

● Thanked colleagues on the internal budget committee and administrators ● Thanked the Budget Committee ● He encouraged the group to adopt the reduction list as submitted

Susan Greenberg thanked Committee members for their work during the budget process and asked those in attendance to lobby our senators and representatives to vote for education. Financial Update Chief Financial Officer Claire Hertz provided a financial update. Hertz thanked everyone for coming. Information has been coming out rapidly from Salem, and noted numbers are changing daily. When the budget was developed, it was with enrollment numbers from March 31. Our May 2nd enrollment count has helped some of our revenue shortfall. Our current reduction is $11.2 million. We have also had updates to the state school fund for common and county school funds. The general fund balance has also increased. We have expenditures through May 31, and our projected fund balance for 2009-10 is 7.5%. In our proposal tonight, we are asking to bring the fund balance down to 4%. We would like to use a total of 3.5% of our fund balance to help balance the budget. Overall, the changes will most likely continue with every economic forecast. As we bring the recommended reductions forward to balance the budget, we’ll need to leave a way to make adjustments in September, December, March and May in case we need to in response to the four economic forecasts. As staff meet to discuss reduction options, they tend to bring the option of cutting days forward more often than anything else. We think that option needs to be saved for use during the school year to help balance as needed.


Superintendent’s Budget Reduction Recommendation to the Budget Committee Superintendent Colonna presented his prioritized list of budget reductions and a secondary list of non-prioritized options for reductions. Superintendent Colonna reviewed the current situation. The current budget shortfall is last years’ personal income tax payments are down. Refunds were higher than they were projected and capital gains are down from projections. The state has three main revenue streams that are headed in the wrong direction and has created the difficulty we’ve been dealing with for the last week and a half. What Colonna is presenting to the Committee tonight is the best information available, but is likely to continue to change. Our next revenue forecast will be in September. The revenue forecast could be lower than today’s numbers, and could mean we would make an adjustment during the year. On the lists presented tonight, there is $5.8 million dollars worth of reduction options, not including reducing days. Some of the options came from staff members who attended the Friday Employee Forum meeting. These lists represent hundreds of hours of work by various staff members. Item One on our Second Round page is to reduce health insurance reserve fund by $1 million. This reduction is not sustainable into future years. Q – What will be left in the Health Insurance Reserve Fund for next year after taking a $1 million

reduction? A – We are making this change based on a recommendation from our insurance broker. The Health

Insurance Reserve is $3.5 million after the reduction. Item Two is reducing the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Reserve Fund by $500,000. This reduction is not sustainable into future years. After the reduction, there is a balance remaining of $1.5 million in the fund. Q - It sounds like there is a delta between our actuarial recommendation and state mandated requirement.

What does the state require? A – There is no statutory requirement for the reserve; it is based on an actuarial recommendation. Item Three is reducing the ending fund balance to four percent. The reduction in ending fund balance would equal $5.8 million. This reduction is not sustainable into future years, and would need school board approval. This reduction would need to be repaid in future years to return the fund balance required by board policy. School Board Member Tom Quillin commented that this item is the largest single reduction proposed, and he recognizes we are facing some extremely difficult choices. Part of the rationale for reducing the ending fund balance asserts that this is the purpose for which the ending fund balance was intended. He’s uncomfortable with that assertion. Quillin does not believe the board policy (DBDB) which establishes a 5% guideline for the ending fund balance is designed to provide a mechanism like this. He acknowledges that we are in extraordinary times, but believes the policy is intended to meet shortfalls during the execution of the current budget and meeting short term needs that arise within a budget year. He doesn’t think it was ever intended to be used in the budget planning process. The District will want to be very diligent and clear about the plan to get back to the 5% balance as soon as possible. It’s important the Committee be clear this is an extraordinary measure and agrees the Committee should be, but the group needs to understand the consequences are of lowering the fund balance level.


Quillin noted that one of the key implications is concern for the bond rating and future bond interest rates and the team has not had a chance to quantify or build an estimate around this point. He would like to request that over the weeks ahead to take a look at the bond concerns and provide estimates of the impact on bond ratings and borrowing rates. Chief Financial Officer Claire Hertz responded that the District had to sell bonds when the fund balance was down to 3.6% of revenue, and it did not have a negative effect on our bond rating as we have an excellent reputation. She was initially concerned about the implications of having a fund balance below board policy. Hertz was able to explain the district had purposefully spent down over time as well as the revenue shortfalls which were being experienced at the State level. Spending habits have changed in the last two years. Fund balances have been projected to be 5% in the last two years, and the district has exceeded projections. Every staff member in the District is being thoughtful about how they’re spending funds in this economic time. Hertz truly believes that if we project a 4% ending fund balance, and the expectation is to grow it to 5% by the end of the year, we will be able to do it. Quillin commented that one idea to capture out of Hertz’s comments is the commitment from District staff is the key to deliver these results, and he’s glad that Hertz highlighted that. Quillin would like the Committee to consider carrying forward to next years’ discussion the idea of looking at some type of an amendment to the Board Policy that would allow us to establish some kind of a fund that is a reserve fund automatically created by the savings or overage that exceeds the 5% ending fund balance. Doing so could be a step toward starting some sort of a reserve. It’s hard to imagine thinking so optimistically, but it could build in some plans for opportunity ahead. Superintendent Colonna agrees with what Quillin is saying and noted that we did have one of those funds, called the Sustainability Fund, which has been spent down over the last two years of troubling economic times. At one time it was up to approximately $9.5 million. These are extraordinary times. It isn’t just the dollar amount that is a problem for us. We had only nine days to put this reduction proposal together. Q – Are we talking about the contingency in the General Fund? A – Yes, the numbers we just talked about are specifically General Fund. Q – Looking back at past meeting recommendations, we were looking at a 6.5 % ending fund balance going

to 5% now to 4%. How is a 1.5% drop $4.4 million, and another 1% is $5.8 million? A – Our projected ending fund balance was expected to be at 7.5% and we’re asking to reduce it to 4% in

order to realize the $5.8 million reduction. Another way of stating this is we have already used 1.5%, and the fund has grown since that time. Now we’re suggesting, use of an additional 1.5%, taking it down from 7.5% to 6%. In total, the fund balance will go to 4% which accounts for the $5.8 million reduction.

Q – Are we anticipating using our bonding capacity any time soon? A – We don’t anticipate that the District will need to begin discussing another bond for at least another 2

years. We anticipate a possible 2013-2014 issue to begin looking at a capital bond to address capacity issues.

Q – A bonding agency will not likely penalize the District for going below the 5% for a period of time, is

that correct? A – They look at trends, and we’ve been able to build our ending fund balance so therefore it would show

that we’ve been successful in building our funds back.


Q – We are expecting a pretty significant gap in funding in future years, are we taking that into consideration when the decision was made to tap into the reserve?

A – Hertz said she would like to be conservative and keep the fund balance at 5%, but going to a 4% balance

is less of a concern, because the District has been able to grow the balance during these same types of economic times.

Q – In the last five years, when have we been under 5%? A – The 3.6% in 2007-08 is the only time the balance has been below 5% in the last five years. Q – Are there other uses that we use bonds for or is it mainly facilities? A – Bonds are primarily used for constructing facilities. We do have some PERS bonds in place and they

are expensed as a percentage of payroll. These were issued to lower the interest rate paid to PERS and is similar to refinancing a house to get a lower rate for a mortgage loan. The District receives the State of Oregon guaranteed rate for bonds and receives the same rating of the state even if the District has a lower rating.

Q – How long did the lower ending fund balance last? A – It was just for the one date at June 30, 2008. Q – What is the Oregon guaranteed rate for? A – It is for General Obligation Bonds. Q – Didn’t we do a bond a few years ago for sports and music programs? A – That was the local option levy for operating expenses, and not a bond. Item Four is reducing non-salary accounts District-wide by 10% and this item is sustainable. It would equal approximately $3 million. Although painful, the bulk of this money would be coming from Central Office reductions. This reduction does not include athletics and activities accounts. Q – I appreciate you saying that there is pain there, with the hits that have already been taken, but can we

hear more detail about that? A – Principal Linda Hall noted that she is expecting to take cuts across the board, but technology will take

the greatest hit in her school.

Principal Mike Chamberlain noted that he is expecting reductions to paper and printing budgets, graduation expenses, music and science program budgets, art budgets, and technology budgets. As principals, we agree with this reduction even though it isn’t easy.

Principal Arlene Hirsch noted that last year, many schools gave back money to the District to help with the budget. Some donated to the 1% carryover for schools that were hurting. At her school, she gave back 15% of her budget this last year. There is a collective effort across the District. These cuts hurt, but cutting staff would hurt more.

Deputy Superintendent Bud Moore noted that some ideas for reductions are:

● A possible reduction or greater efficiency in crossing guards while ensuring student safety ● Reduce campus supervisors, and would mean less supervision sporting and other evening activities ● Defer upgrades to electronic security systems ● Delay hiring the proposed mechanic


● Continue conservation efforts to reduce the utilities budget ● Reduction in the replacement equipment budget and existing software contracts ● Reductions will come from funds for consultants, money set aside for sustainability, software for

math adoptions, GED program, strategic plan printing and PLC funding Q – Of this $2.9 million, can you give a general percentage of how much is out of schools and how much is

out of central? A – Schools will be $700,000 and Central Cost Centers are $2.2 million of this reduction. Item Five is to reduce the Athletics and Activities by 10%, which is sustainable. The reduction would be $372,000 from Athletics and $50,000 from Activities. Athletics and Activities are funded in three ways: student fees, gate receipts and from general fund. Most of the general fund reduction would be stipends for coaches. We will also discuss an increase of athletic fees to $225 per student per sport and raising activity fees from $75 to $85 per student per activity. Twenty percent of the money would be set aside for scholarships for students who cannot afford to pay these fees. Pete Lukich, Athletic Director at Sunset High School, spoke on behalf of the District’s Athletic Directors. We’ve always found a way to fund athletics and activities. We’re asking teams to continue fundraising. We’re trying to balance and he believes that they’re to the point of cutting programs. Mike Sanderson, Athletic Director at Westview High School, noted these cuts will also impact transportation and meet management costs. We cannot escape that we will eventually have to cut some programs. Chamberlain commented that we want kids to participate, and we don’t want kids to have to choose one sport rather than two due to costs. We’re trying to do this to avoid making deep, deep cuts and still maintaining programs for kids. Hall noted that the reduction will have more of an impact on high schools, but will also impact activities at middle school levels. We gather participation fees to support some stipends, and some stipends are supported through general funds. The activities fees that are received do not cover what is needed for stipends. Q – With parents transporting students, what liability does that open to the District for parents

transporting students to sporting events? A – There is a procedure in place for proof of valid driver's license and insurance coverage as well as

parental permission in order to transport someone else’s child. We are in the process of finalizing this.

Q – The 10% that we’re talking about now, is that in addition to the 5% that was earlier planned? A – Yes. Q – So it is a total of 15% over last year? A – Yes. Q – In terms of fees, it is not a wash. They aren’t going to offset costs, and there’s going to be additional

measures to be taken such as increased volunteerism or cutting programs. This is the kind of programs that students and parents came to talk to us about next year, is that correct?

A – Yes.


Item Six is to reduce the staffing reserve by 6.2 APU (prior allocation totaled 20.12 APU) in the amount of $496,000. This item is not sustainable. This is the staffing reserve, which has previously been increased to 20.12 APU to help with unexpected enrollment at any location. Making this reduction does take away flexibility, but it does not take away staff in current positions or programs. Q – Is this convertible staffing? A – No, this is a staffing reserve; this is the 1% pool for the entire District. This is in addition to the

convertible staffing. Q – Has this always existed? A – Yes. Q – Are all of the resources in the staffing reserve used each year? If we make this reduction, will it impact

classroom size? A – We try not to use it all, but most years we do. Budget Committee Budget Reduction Recommendation to the Board – Presentation/Q&A/Discussion Superintendent Colonna referenced the page titled “Other Options Considered – Not Recommended at This Time and Not Prioritized.” Colonna noted that staff spent as much time developing these options as on the other recommended list. Superintendent Colonna spoke specifically to the “reducing days” option. This amounts to $1,067,000 per day in non-sustainable reductions. Superintendent Colonna believes that there may be additional reductions made to the next state biennial budget. He believes that the District should reserve the “reducing days” option for extreme circumstances based on additional reductions being needed during the year. There are difficulties with reducing days, including the need to request a waiver for reduced instructional days, and needing to get memorandum of understandings from employee associations. The Committee asked the following questions to which staff provided the following answers: Q – The 5 administrators who have been identified as an optional reduction, who are they, where are they? A – We do not have positions that have been identified. If this were to be selected, Superintendent

Colonna would need to meet with staff and these reductions would be balanced between central and school positions.

Q - How many administrators will we have next year? A - It would be 107 if we did make this reduction. Q - Is there an option to reduce days at one level and not another per our contract? A - No. Q - What do we do about high schools and the shortage of days? A - We can ask for a waiver, and we’ve done this before. Q - How many more hours can be reduced from the instructional program?


A - We are close to the state instructional hours limit now. If we had one of our comprehensive high schools add a couple of minutes to their schedule, and if the options buses run 5 minutes earlier, we could probably reduce two days. If we don’t make any changes, then we are right at the 990 hours for the high schools and close to the 960 hours for the high school option schools.

CORRECTION FROM JON BRIDGES: If Aloha High School shortens their lunch hour by three minutes

next year, then we could cut two days and still be in compliance at all three levels with the number of instructional minutes. Even if we cut two days, the options will still be in compliance with the 960 hours.

Q - In terms of asking for the waiver, is that something that needs to be approved, or is it something we

just ask for and receive? A - Actually there is no waiver of instructional time, what we would be doing would be reporting to the

state that we are out of compliance with the instructional hours and you can do that for one year as long as you submit a plan of correction to remedy for the next year. You cannot do it two years in a row or the state will reduce the amount of state school fund that we receive.

Q - Didn’t we do that with days cut this year? A - No, the days were not instructional days. Q - The schedule that was handed out had 99 administrators, but there are 111 administrators, can you

clarify the difference? A - The difference is between classified and licensed administrators. The data referenced in the handout

was referencing licensed administrators. Q - The RTI (Response to Intervention) specialists reduction, can you talk about this a little bit? A - The RTI specialists’ were added from part of the stimulus spending package. We need to show we have

interventions in place, what the interventions have been, how they were successfully administered, and show progress over time. To support all students, we need to lay the foundation for training teachers on what the interventions are, and how to identify needs for interventions. Keeping students in the general education population is the entire purpose of Response to Intervention.

Q – Are the reductions from the safety and security budget; are these the same reductions we spoke of

earlier? Would this reduction and the prior 10% reduction be reducing the same things? A - This amount represents 25% of the security and safety budget. The reductions would need to come

out of the campus supervisors’ budget area which would pretty much eliminate this function. We’d need to take additional funds from the deferred maintenance and electronics systems upgrade budgets. We may even be required to reduce funds spent on background check for central office staff members. This would have a major impact on safety and security throughout the District.

Q - We get reimbursement for some of our transportation costs. Do crossing guards fall into that category

where we get some reimbursement? A - No, they do not. Q - The RTI specialists were added this year as part of stimulus funding? A - That is correct. Q - The stimulus funding continues through next year?


A - Correct, it is a two year funding. Q – Is the $1.7 million stimulus or general fund dollars? A - Those monies came to us from stimulus funding. Q - Could stimulus money be used for different needs or does it have to be dedicated to this type of

activity? A - It is being used for other things in addition to special education. Q - These specialists, were they classroom teachers last year? Were they new employees? A - They were primarily coaches. Our intent was to continue the training and development of

interventions for classroom teachers with classroom teachers and assisting in small group instruction. Many of the RTI specialists are in the classrooms delivering the interventions to small groups.

Q - So the interventions are for kids that are struggling in the classroom? A - Correct. The interventions would allow for taking a more concentrated look at the needs of a child,

develop interventions, and ideally keep the child moving into special education. The child would remain in the general education program.

Q - The job that these specialists do is about teaching interventions to classroom teachers and in some

cases, working with small groups of students? A - It is multifaceted. The specialists are working with small groups, assisting teachers in development of

interventions and also developing systems district-wide for classroom teachers to track the interventions.

Q - Would they be helping with data teams and that sort of thing? A - Absolutely. Q - How many RTI specialists do we have overall? A - 22 Q - If this money is stimulus money, what other things can it be used for if we didn’t use it here? A - Originally, the RTI specialists were hired and paid out of stimulus funds. We moved them to general

fund and moved resource room teachers into stimulus. We moved special education staffing into stimulus dollars. RTI specialists were moved into general fund. The reason we did this is because we lowered the bar for maintenance of effort in general fund in 2009-10. When we lowered the bar for maintenance of effort, we have to spend that money on a very specific list of items specified by the federal government. The RTI specialists are one of those items on the list.

Q - Are we even able to make this cut? A - In 2009-10, no, in 2010-11 yes. The problem would be in 2011-12, the resource room teachers will

have to be moved back into general fund. If you reduce the RTI specialists in 2010-11, then there is no capacity to move resource room teachers back into general fund in 2011-12.


Q - We just restored two non-teaching days for roughly the same amount of money. We’ve been here before and it doesn’t have to be teaching days, or am I missing something?

A - The type of days would have to be negotiated as well as the reduction of would have to be negotiated.

There are a variety of different days besides instructional days. Q - For clarification of #5, we’re reducing by 10% and adding higher fees. Does the 10% reduction also

include the reduction of sports that were discussed last year? Are we cutting straight across and protecting sports by increasing the fees?

A - There are two different scenarios. The first is an outright reduction of $422,000 for activities and

athletics. That will be cuts in program and personnel. The fee increase scenario would require a board approval. The increase would keep from cutting more programs. They are two different actions, one takes place here with the budget committee, and the other action is for the school board. If the fees are approved, there will be fewer programs lost.

It was suggested that the second sheet that Superintendent Colonna presented be labeled with letters A – H to avoid confusion during future discussion. Budget Committee member Dave Bouchard commented although he doesn’t like the list, he supports it. If he had been obligated to find the reductions, he probably would have used the same approach. The non-sustainable part of this is moving ahead optimistically. He agrees with Quillin that the fund balance is not a rainy day fund. Dropping the fund balance drops the “cash on hand.” If you drop it, you run into the peril of not being able to meet bills. Q - On item #4 is there going to be some kind of oversight established to ensure that 10% reduction in

non-salary accounts is occurring. It there a process in place for ensuring the reductions are happening?

A- For the 10% reduction, we post a negative budget amount in each cost center for the amount of the

total reduction, so a cost center cannot overspend. Budget Committee member John Burns noted only five weeks ago, we were talking about a budget of $299 million, and the ending fund balance was over $14 million. Then we went up to $320 million and the ending fund balance was $16 million. We are now talking about $15.4 at 5%. He would suggest that we consider it very carefully in light of actual numbers we’ve been presented over time. School Board member Sarah Smith does not like any of them. She’s having a hard time with #5- the athletics and activities reduction. She’d like that to be considered with A – the Prevention Intervention Specialists. The fact that they are only serving 150-200 kids is in question. How many kids are going to become special needs kids or uninterested in school because we took away sports? The sports programs being reduced will affect a much larger number of students than the prevention intervention specialist positions will if they are reduced. She would like to find a way to keep #5. Budget Committee member Cameron Irtifa shared that in discussions about item C – it was noted that only 50% of them are greatly involved with students in the classroom. He believes that would make 11 APU that could be utilized for #5 and #6. Hertz clarified that the RTI specialists spend at least 50% of their time working with students. Q - Before the RTI specialist concept was put in place, how was the District surviving? Were RTI specialist

positions created as a way to utilize funds? A - Prior to RTI, when a teacher was hitting a road block or didn’t have interventions to work with a child,

their next step typically was to move to the special education identification process. The intent of RTI


is to eliminate the need for a child to go into special education because we’ve developed interventions to keep the child from having to go into special education. We’re able to get them back into the general education program to make the same kind of strides that their peers are making. That is the intent of the program. The RTI program has been around nationally for five to seven years. There are currently no plans of continuing RTI beyond next year because it is a stimulus project. The RTI teachers would move back into the classrooms.

Q - The 22 specialists we are referencing, how are they assigned? A - They are working in elementary and middle schools, and are assigned .5 at each location. Q - Referencing #6, how can it be explained that it doesn’t affect the classroom or days? A - This is used to adjust for enrollment changes. School Board member Lisa Shultz commented looking at #4 for the $2.9 million is a considerable amount of pain to be felt in the classroom, and there are a lot of tradeoffs being made by not getting textbooks and materials into classrooms. This is the one cut that will have a direct affect on student achievement and she’s not sure how to balance that with perhaps taking a staff day. Baker reminded the group that if the group does recommend reducing a staff day, it will need to be negotiated. School Board member Mary VanderWeele commented that she appreciates the work that the administration has done over the last 8 days, but the Budget Committee has only had about 24 hours to review and consider them. She believes the Committee will continue to reflect on what's been heard tonight. VanderWeele supports items #1 and 2 on the list of budget reductions. They seem conservative and thoughtful and they make sense. Regarding reducing the ending fund balance, she agrees with Quillin in principal, and is confident that our bond rating is intact and that the ending fund balance has consistently grown all year, the trend is good. She’s in support of reducing the ending fund balance as well. She's supportive of Item #4 to the extent of Dick Steinbrugge’s comfort level on the $750,000, but not really otherwise since this is how we run schools. She thinks we’ve already suffered enough pain in that area. In terms of reducing athletics and activities, she’s supportive of the 5% that has already been talked about, but she’s having difficulty with the additional 10 percent reduction. She agrees item #6, the staffing reserve, should be protected, and without the flexibility of convertible funding, these positions seem really critical for having something to manage class size. We should prioritize classroom positions over coaching model positions. Given Burns’ comments she’d like us to consider reducing two days to bring that forward and try to negotiate. She would favor C, D, and E over 4, 5 and 6. Quillin noted that he may be in the minority in thinking that all of the proposals identified here will have some sort of impact on students. He thinks it is an error for us to describe our mission here to eliminate any harm to kids out of these cuts. The plain and simple truth is that it is painful to students, painful to staff and we need to make difficult decisions. He believes that sometimes we get into discussions about looking at opportunities to do something that we refer to as cutting days as a sort of wake up call to the community to dramatize the impact of the cuts that we’re trying to make. He personally thinks that is a punitive action that punishes our staff by taking money out of their pockets.


When we eliminate conference days, as we tried to do this year, it creates an even greater burden on our staff throughout the year. It erodes the quality of communication between teachers and parents, and if we cut learning days, he believes that it is the single most corrosive thing that we can do to our primary mission to teach students. As a matter of value, and commitment to teaching, we need to take those statements very gravely and he would strongly oppose cutting days even if they were non-instruction days. He believes that the team has done a tremendously difficult job creating this package of recommendations. He recognizes, and he spoke of the ending fund balance change, as something that he thinks of as risky. We’re counting on future savings that we haven’t identified yet. Even given all that, he thinks that this is the right package to move forward with. He thinks that we should all be very aware of the fact that the changes that are identified in this are not all immediately obvious to us, the simple line items that get summarized in five words; whether its reducing health insurance reserve fund or reducing athletics and activities are all going to have ripple effects that are unforeseen by us tonight, but given the timeline and given the level of information that’s available for us tonight, this is a good direction for us to go. It’s the best of a series of bad options that we could choose from, that we have to choose from. He supports the package as it’s been proposed (items 1 – 6) fully aware that we have difficult times ahead and a lot of work to do to understand the real world impact of these cuts. He thanked the finance team, and all the administrators and principals who worked to bring this together and identify the reductions. He knows they’re painful and there is more pain ahead. School Board member Jeff Hicks spoke to three teachers who experienced a meeting with their principals to give them this news. It was sobering news, but it was amazing in a lot of ways that from the darkest of dark clouds a few days ago, that we are now at this. They were amazed by the efforts to preserve as many programs as possible and try to take care and keep that focus on kids. Teachers always circle the wagons when it is budget cut time. It is part of our job to circle the wagons as much as we can. As to RTI, it would become part of a classroom teachers practice. He doesn’t know how we can move forward with our district goal if we don’t intervene in individual student lives in ways to redirect and support our program. Hicks noted that when Hertz speaks and her staff supports her, things make sense to him. He appreciates it and believes that the Committee understands the gravity. He supports this package and it makes him uncomfortable but also comfortable in this moment. School Board member Karen Cunningham noted that Quillin and Hicks took most of her words, so she won’t repeat them, except in a couple of places. She believes that we really have to keep reminding everyone that each of these cuts impact kids. The clarity of these explanations is important to get out to our community. It is easy to look at things and say that is not part of the classroom, and in reality they are. When you heard about non-salary accounts, it’s easy to say that’s not part of the classroom, especially when $2.5 million was central office. That is part of the classroom; it’s an incredibly important part of the classroom. Regarding cutting days, when you talk about non-contact days it is easy to think about that as not being part of the classroom, but it is. It negates the impact that our staff professional development has on our kids. Professional development days impact kids. In fact there is some research that says it’s one of the most important things you can do to impact student achievement. You cannot say that by cutting non-contact days that we’re not going to affect the classroom, we would be. Conference days were one example, but professional development days are critical to our kids. Cunningham thinks that we have to look at the choices we’re making in light of the District’s Strategic Plan. We’re talking about individual education for all of our kids. RTI is part of that. Professional development is part of that. Everything we’ve done so far is awful, but on balance, she believes that the administration has


done an amazing job of looking at what our goals are and making those cuts balance that goal. She believes the administration has done the best that it can, and she supports the options presented tonight. Budget Committee member John Burns commented that he is worried that some people have perhaps thought that he had been cavalier about one category or another. He wants to take Tom’s words and put them over the loud speaker. He believes that we’re well beyond cuts that probably don’t affect our kids. That happened a long time ago. He certainly doesn’t mean to trivialize any of it. Burns noted that he has a child who is in special education, and that he understands RTI. He was told once that his son was X and he was really Y, and it took a really long time to convince people that he was Y and this kind of support (RTI Specialists) would have been very helpful. He’d like to take VanderWeele’s list and do a modification, just for purposes of moving the Committee toward some discussion. He’s comfortable with items #1, 2 and 3, and, based on Steinbrugge’s recommendation he’d like to take $750,000 from #4. He’s not comfortable cutting any more from athletics and activities. He believes that, given the economy, you can’t count on fundraising for programs. He is not in favor of #5, nor is he in favor of #6. Burns supports reducing item C, but not a complete cut. He believes that we are down to item #E and that he supports the idea of negotiating to cut two days. Baker commented that he has great confidence in and trusts the administration to do the job that they know and to run the business of the District. He believes that the Committee has an additional role which is to listen to the community, and make adjustments based on that. The Committee did listen and made adjustments to the reduction list. Baker thinks the Committee needs to follow the recommendations of the District. He’s in favor of advancing the recommendations of the District. Budget Committee member Carrie Anderson commented that although she means no disrespect to anybody who has worked on this long list, but she would like to go through the items on the list one by one and not make a big blanket decision on all six at one time. School Board member Sarah Smith supports Carrie’s one by one request. Smith would like to see a moderate reduction for everybody instead of keeping something completely whole and taking so deeply from something else. I support that we look at these individually instead of all or none. School Board member Lisa Shultz appreciates all the thought that has gone into this. One item that concerns her is the 10% reduction across the board. Over and over again, she hears from classroom teachers that are spending out of their pockets to provide materials for their classroom. When we talk about cutting a day, yes it does affect that persons’ salary, but their salary is already being affected. Teachers spending their own money to do their job, that’s also an effect on their salary. She doesn’t think that there are any good choices here. Shultz would like the Committee to make the cuts that are the best and easiest to recover from. Budget Committee member Cheri McDevitt commented that her biggest issue is the athletics and activities reduction. She has to agree with Smith, it affects more kids across the board than would be affected by reducing prevention/intervention specialists. She doesn’t think we can cut days when we have these other options on the table. Quillin thinks that people appreciate the integrity and work that went into this given that only 8 days were spent. This group who created this proposal has been immersed in this data. At the beginning of the meeting, the president of BEA thanked the finance team for the proposal, and made comments along the line, that although the cuts were painful and the package is painful, that this is good work and the best set of recommendations we could have under the circumstances. We heard the same from each of the administrators. He does not believe that he’s heard anything compelling about any of the other un-prioritized, non-recommended actions on the second page that would suggest that the committee should consider those. If anybody, if any administrator, or committee member heard something tonight that suggests that we should


overturn the 8 days worth of work and the analysis that all of the speakers hear suggested they stood behind tonight, then he’d like to hear that data. Unless we have a very compelling reason to consider something that this group recommended against cutting, we need to move forward with the recommendation. School Board member Sarah Smith respectfully disagreed with Quillin. She felt that he was valuing the administrative opinion over the opinion of the Committee and their immersion into their community and their experiences in their communities. She believes that the Committee is here to get our voice out and to get out the experiences from the community. School Board member LeeAnn Larsen commented that she has heartfelt thoughts on this. She’s bothered a little bit by #4, and how it will affect kids. She’s bothered when she hears that teachers are buying things out of their own pocket. That bothers her that if we’re going to keep cutting and chipping away at the non-salary budget. Athletics and activities reduction is a struggle for her. Her family is very athletic, but it gets very difficult when you have more than one child playing a sport at $190 per sport. If a child likes to play more than three sports, it gets very expensive. She doesn’t want to see kids not be able to participate. She knows we’re not talking about fees tonight, but we are talking about cutting items that are near and dear to keeping kids in school. Larsen has a hard time thinking #6 isn’t going to affect some elementary classroom sizes. She believes she’s heard that no, it won’t affect but then others are saying it will affect class size. What to do on the other side, she would probably favor #E over all of them if she had to pick one. Budget Committee member Mark Schick commented that he also appreciates the work that went into this list. He knows it was tough to get this done in such short notice. He agrees with most of the prioritized list, he really only is concerned about #4 because it is so deep. He hasn’t spoken up because he doesn’t have an alternative for it. His thought is not to take the entire 10%, maybe not trim so much. He would like to reduce smaller amounts without devastating something, trying to make the best of the worst. He thinks that would be better since we’re cutting into so much stuff. He doesn’t think A or B should be considered at all, he doesn’t think F should be considered at all. Schick would like to go line by line and vote to see what people on the committee are thinking. Mark Moser, Administrator for Certified Personnel, gave an HR perspective on the not recommended list. He is involved in certified staffing. He noted that the staffing process is done and HR is ready to notify teachers where they’re going to be. He thinks that it is not a good idea to re-staff at this point. The implications for this late date, of doing staffing cuts will create a lot of destruction. His concern is that payroll is in jeopardy if we have to make changes at this late date. Quillin motioned that the committee accept the proposal (Items 1 – 6) as presented. The motion was seconded. Quillin, Baker, McDevitt, Bouchard, Hicks and Cunningham voted in favor of accepting the proposal. Larsen, Burns, Shultz, Irtifa, VanderWeele, Smith, Anderson and Schick voted in opposition. The motion failed. Burns moved that we recommend a budget based on items 1, 2, 3, $750,000 specifically based on the energy efficiency program from facilities, nothing on 5 or 6 and from the second side, that we adjust C – the RTI, leaving $750,000 in there, request a negotiation for 2 days, Item D and accept E, and that should be in balance. Any excess above the necessary reduction would be put back in RTI. The motion was seconded. Discussion on the motion followed: Q - What is the affect of taking these RTI positions and just saying we’re going to take part of this money

away? What is the affect on the schools?


A - RTI is viewed as a framework with different profiles. When we look at different profiles, we start with benchmark kids. Benchmark kids are profile 1’s – they are doing well. Some are even exceeding the benchmarks. Then we move to high strategic students (students who are passing) but RTI specialists assist those children because there are certain areas where these children are lacking. With low strategic students, the RTI specialist helps even further. We can’t leave this room thinking that just because a child is at high proficiency level that an RTI specialist is not going to benefit them in any way. When you’re at a high level, there are certain areas where you are lacking and might need extra support. RTI specialists help in every area: math, science, and reading. The impact of the cut is that they won’t succeed. We need their support and their expertise.

Cunningham commented that she believes that the reduction of administrators, since the word ‘school’ is in there, means some school administrators. She’s afraid that it means partial principals at small elementary schools. That is worse than what they were going to do with the specialists. She’s appalled that we would consider this. Budget Committee member Terri Nolan requested that the amounts in this proposal be verified. Q - If days are cut, does it require an MOU? And, can you get an MOU in time? A - Yes, cutting days would require a memorandum of agreement. Q - Does the recommendation have to come intact to the School Board, where it is a full line by line item

from the budget committee or can the committee recommend a certain portion and go back to the District and ask for an exploration of certain items?

A - The budget was approved at the last meeting, so we’re asking for input and feedback from the

committee. The only formal action that needs to be done at this point is the adoption by the board. McDevitt amended the motion by leaving the RTI specialists whole and removing the prevention/intervention specialists. The amendment was seconded by Smith. Wilkinson commented that if we’re talking about cutting days, it requires an MOU, and it will literally take a couple of weeks. He cannot guarantee that we can get that done this school year and advises that we probably cannot. If we cannot get this done, we cannot staff the District. McDevitt noted that she’s hearing consensus on 1, 2, & 3. She asked if we can leave it to the Board to determine how to make a less than 10% cut. Can we leave it up to the Board to take pieces from all of these options while preserving 4, 5, & 6? Superintendent Colonna would like the budget committee to work through this tonight. To not make a decision tonight would continue to delay our staffing processes. He asked the committee to continue to debate to come up with a majority opinion tonight. Hertz clarified the amended motion. The committee voted on McDevitt’s amendment – one yea and 13 nay. The amendment failed. The committee voted on the original motion as presented by Burns. Shultz asked Wilkinson for clarification about the MOU. Wilkinson replied that there are a specific series of meetings that have to be held. A special session has to be called. It is a very methodical, sound process; it is just not conducive to the kind of timeline we are on. He does not believe it can be done on the timeline we’re looking at right now. Superintendent Colonna responded that we have some small schools and we would look to determine whether they would have full time principals. We have a position in Central Office, administrator for curriculum and


assessment, and that is an open position. Carl Mead is moving to Deputy Superintendent, his regional administrator position would be an open position. There would be a consideration of the number of assistant principals at mainly the secondary level. It would entail very important administrative positions. Colonna doesn’t recommend this as an area to be cut. He hopes that the committee could consider another way to make reductions. There were seven members of the committee in favor of Burns’ motion and seven opposed. The motion failed. Quillin reintroduced the motion to return to the original package for approval. Bouchard seconded. The motion failed. Smith moved that items #1, 2, 3, 4, & 6 and two of the five reduced administrators from item #E and take the rest out of RTI to equal the correct sum. Irtifa seconded. Discussion followed: Anderson agrees with the motion and would like to suggest that we prioritize adding #6 and #4 back if times permit. Wilkinson was asked if cutting days was difficult or impossible. He believes that it is impossible to meet the deadline. Q - Regarding the staffing reserve, if this were to be removed from the cut list, and a school wanted to

keep the RTI, could they do that? If you’re taking the six positions and adding them back in, can you make those RTI?

A - No, the purpose of those funds is primarily for class size. Moser noted that when we’re talking about cutting days, we don’t have a representative from OSEA representing classified staff that can speak to the timeline. Cunningham noted that by reducing RTI specialists, it means some schools won’t have them, which doesn’t seem fair. She thinks that we have overworked administrators and doesn’t think reducing administrators is advisable. She believes that we’re asking for an impossible situation if we are looking at that option. The committee voted – there were 4 in favor, 7 opposed and one abstained. The motion failed. Baker asked if the Board has enough input. VanderWeele replied that she isn’t speaking for the Board, but she noted that if the Committee isn’t going to get anywhere, there is no point in continuing. The Board will welcome more input and information from teachers and principals. She doesn’t’ mean to suggest that any of the cuts are reasonable. The problem we’re having is that none are reasonable and believes that is why we’re at the impasse that we are. She appreciates the work of the committee thus far. Quillin observed that it sounds that there is consensus around the first 4 items on the list as originally proposed. He thinks that maybe we could at least come to consensus on the first 4 items and then defer discussion on the rest, and if the administration needs to modify the budget during the next year or make additional cuts then the committee should leave that for discussion with the administration. In the interest of trying to get consensus around something, it sounds like we can get consensus around at least 4 of the items. Burns motioned the first 3 items and $750,000 on item #4 (which represents $8,050,000) and the motion was seconded. The committee voted unanimously on these 4 items as modified.


The administration was directed to continue working on closing the gap and leave the work to be done to close the gap to be presented to the School Board for adoption. Superintendent Colonna thanked everyone in the room for contributing to the process. He believes that going forward with $8 million identified with $3 million to find is better than leaving with nothing identified. We will now direct our attention on working with the Board and identifying the $3 million to see what we can come up with before the Board meeting on June 16th. Thank you all for all your efforts. Brett Baker thanked the committee for their hard work, thanked those that gave testimony and administrators for their contributions as well. Baker also thanked certified and classified employees in the District for their contributions. VanderWeele thanked Baker for his leadership for the second year in a row. Baker adjourned the meeting at 10:55 pm. Brett Baker Jennifer Bridgewater Budget Committee Chair Recording Secretary

Budget Committee Workshop October 22, 2010 1


THPRD NATURE PARK

Budget Committee Workshop October 22, 2010

The Budget Committee of the Beaverton School District conducted a Budget Workshop at the THPRD Nature Park on October 22, 2010 beginning at 8:10 a.m. Board Members Present: Budget Committee Members Present: Mary VanderWeele Jeff Hicks LeeAnn Larsen Lisa Shultz Sarah Smith Karen Cunningham

Brett Baker Cheri McDevitt Cameron Irtifa Carrie Anderson Dave Bouchard John Burns Carmin Ruiz

District Administration Members Present: Jerome Colonna Superintendent Carl Mead Ron Porterfield Claire Hertz Sue Robertson Steve Langford Maureen Wheeler Gayellyn Jacobson Jessica Ho

Deputy Superintendent Deputy Superintendent Chief Financial Officer Chief Human Resource Officer Chief Information Officer Public Communication Officer Budget Manager Senior Accountant

Visitors: Betsy Miller- Media: 0 Jones, OSBA

Board Vice-Chair LeeAnn Larsen welcomed everyone to the meeting. She briefly reviewed the agenda and the process that would be used for the meeting.

WELCOME

Jerome Colonna: Presented ideas from superintendents across the State to improve the K-12 education system:

• We need to realign the state governance system. There are no connections between educational boards. We should be advocating for one pre-K–16 super board.

o The State Superintendent should be appointed by governor and not elected.

• We need to improve accountability and assessment systems. o There should be internal and external reviews of entire state

assessment system (i.e. testing system, measures of student success) o We should be tracking graduates, as well as non-graduates, in addition

to current students. o We should look at who’s beating the odds, what school districts and

individual schools are beating the odds, and then we should assess putting these ideas into system.

• There should be a statewide system of measure to indicate the performance of educators. There should be a statewide delivery system for quality professional development at the state level instead of 197 districts deciding to go 197 different directions.

OPENING REMARKS


• Oregon’s mentorship program should be made more available to new teachers. Currently only about 5% of educators are in a mentorship program.

• We should consider adopting a rigorous international competitive curriculum by accepting National Standards and move away from current benchmarks.

• We should work on closing the achievement gap including implementation of full-day kindergarten and pre-K programs.

• The new governor should base the state’s long term recovery on an investment in pre-K-20 education and admit that the current business model doesn’t work.

o Ideas that take money from transportation, security, elderly, human services, etc. towards education, do not work.

o Next governor needs to reform Oregon’s revenue stream to adequately sustain Oregon’s public services.

Betsy Miller-Jones:

• Helium Stick – The group participated in an team activity learning that once there was a little success, then the group will come together. However, focus was lost while celebrating. The group needs to keep the focus and come back to the issues at hand. There is no one perfect strategy but the group needs to come up with one that everyone is willing to follow. Betsy said that every group is different but the point is to apply problem solving skills. She also pointed out that when things are difficult we tend to blame others. We need to get out of the blame cycle.

• Jerry made comments about two studies we should keep in mind:

o Malcom Gadwell - No one is successful because they are born that way. o Teach for America – Those who are successful are the ones that have

persistence. Budget Roles:

• A major issue is the lack of clarity of the actual role of the budget committee.

Budgeting and Governance: • The Board's role is to be a compass for the District. Our Board adopts Fiscal

Management Goals under BSD Policy DA. We will be reviewing these fiscal goals today, and they will go to the Board to adopt. We should use these as the yardstick to evaluate the budget and consider how the budget meets the District goals.

• Jerry Colonna commented that the Budget Committee really needs to focus on the Board’s strategic plan. Betsy suggested we have a very clear yardstick which are the goals set by the Board in the strategic plan.

• John Burns commented that topics are being discussed out of context and we are not using common agreement on definitions and using a common yardstick. We need to use the policies that we have until we adopt something different.

• Betsy Miller-Jones explained we should operate with a common set of agreements, standards and goals that were set by the State Legislature.

• State statute says the Budget Committee shall hold one or more meetings for the purposes of:

o Receiving the budget message. o Providing members of the public with an opportunity to ask questions

and comment about the budget. • Lisa Shultz questioned whether the Committee has to answer and whether the

public comment can be limited. Betsy responded the Statute is silent on these matters but a reasonable time limit can be set, as well as reducing the number

HELIUM STICK BUDGET STATUTE

BOARD POLICY BUDGET COMMITTEE

ROLE


of repetitive comments. • The Budget Committee shall approve the budget document, revise and prepare

it for the Board. The Budget Committee shall specify the ad valorem property tax amount or rate for all bonds.

• Betsy Miller-Jones commented that if the budget committee doesn't approve the budget, the Board can be personally liable for spending without a budget.

• Beaverton does not have a DBK policy – Budget Authority. o Decision making is done at the major function level. If the committee

votes on anything below the major function level, it is only a suggestion.

• Cameron Irtifa commented that in order to make any decision, the committee needs to see the details. Budget members want detail at the school level. How can we resolve this issue so that we can see this information down to the function level, object level, area of responsibility, cost center level?

State statute ORS 294.435 is where the appropriation level is set.

• John Burns discussed ORS 294.356 budgeting activity vs. appropriation activity.

• Claire Hertz explained our budgeting is site based, and through an allocation model.

• Mary VanderWeele commented that the public input needs to be directed to the appropriate decision makers. Current practice is problematic as the budget committee can only hear concerns, not necessarily make decisions about the concerns.

Absent a board policy that directs otherwise, the binding authority is at the major function level through appropriation.

• Claire Hertz commented that the budget assumptions focused mainly on revenue.

• Lisa Shultz noted that the committee should have an understanding of what makes up the function and the dynamic needs.

• Betsy Miller-Jones suggested that the committee look at last year’s actual budget to see the variance and then discuss major issues.

• The Budget Calendar was discussed. A concern was raised if the process is started earlier, there is less information and accuracy.

• Can not discuss specifics of the budget until the first meeting when the budget message is delivered.

What is "not" the Budget Committee role?

• The budget committee does not set salaries, benefits or contract terms for employees or administrators.

• The budget committee does not set staffing levels or make organizational structure decisions.

• The budget committee does not decide whether or not a program or service should be provided.

• The budget committee does not make or alter district goals or policies. • Budget committee's job is to match funds to the staffing levels to verify

appropriateness of the budget and raise the red flag if they don't agree. • John Burns and Mary VanderWeele discussed PE reductions from last year. • Dave Bouchard commented the Budget Committee was making votes on

management issues last year. Budget committee needs a clear understanding on what they should be voting.

• Jerry Colonna commented on the administration gives their best thinking and then asks the budget committee for their advice.


• Problems arise when we don’t understand what the ground rules are. • Carrie Anderson stated the public comment is addressed to who they think are

the decision makers and is unfair from a public relations perspective. • John Burns commented it has been in the context of we have to make cuts and

the district needs to present a balanced budget. The role of the budget committee is only a recommendation, and the requirement that we are approving a balanced budget.

• Betsy Miller-Jones commented if the committee gets down to a detail level your precision is greater than your accuracy.

• Cameron Irtifa commented on the last budget cycle when administration provides the proposed list, we are trying to shorten the process but it is not sufficient information. He asked for the information to be at least at the operational unit level.

• Betsy Miller-Jones stated it is up to the group as a whole to decide this. Information Requests – Some members need or want a great deal more information than others.

• The authority is as a committee as a whole and it was determined that the committee should only act by voting.

• When information is requested, the committee needs to vote as a group to support the information request from taff.

• Things that should be taken into consideration: o How much time will it take and how much will it cost to compile?

• Individual requests for "push the button" reports are billed at a per page cost. Other individual requests will receive a cost estimate for the time to research the information.

• Jerry Colonna pointed out this can be a big issue because we are so lean administratively.

• Brett Baker also commented that information requests were a big issue last year.

• Cameron suggested that the requests should go through the chair. He also commented that we have the means to break down the information to the operational unit level. He would like to see the information on the website or viewing rights given to the Budget Committee members. John Burns agrees with Cameron.

• Karen Cunningham commented that in a District with 50 schools, seeing 50 different budgets would be more confusing and less illuminating. She suggested that the Committee is given an overview of what staffing levels are, what funding levels are and how they are determined. This is more enlightening than what specific dollars are at each school.

• Sarah Smith commented that it was debated and very confusing last year. If we are getting the information down to a level that we are not responsible for, it gives the appearance we can make those decisions.

• Claire Hertz and John Burns discussed the level of detail that is required legally.

• Mary commented that some more detail might be helpful but it does not necessarily mean we can make decisions at that level. She suggested that we look at other districts of our size and talk with Portland and Salem-Keizer.

• Lisa Shultz noted that we are drawing on individual expertise that the Board doesn't necessarily have but some members may need that information to make a more informed decision or to evaluate the budget to help the budget process.

• Cheri McDevitt commented that once we finish our process and go back out into the community we need to be able to answer the questions. There are differences between what the community sees as our role and what the District


sees as our role. • LeeAnn Larsen noted that reductions cause the tension because of the

ramifications of the cuts to be made. • Cameron sees staffing levels as management decisions but still wants to see

the detail. Otherwise, what is the role of the budget committee? • Sue Robertson commented about the staffing levels. We can't begin our

staffing process until the budget decisions are made by the budget committee. The job posting process has been held up and trying to hire people has been delayed. Timing has been a very big issue in the District.

Jerry Colonna made a request of the group noting that we were hearing a few voices over and over and voiced concern that others aren't speaking. There aren't any foolish questions. We should be more balanced in the number of people who are speaking. We need to attempt to get more group input. LeeAnn Larsen noted the meeting was behind schedule and may not make it through everything. The committee should touch on the topics that are most important to us. This would help us to be a better committee.

• Betsy Miller-Jones spoke briefly about the 2010-11 Budget Committee Ground Rules sheet and explained that they should be reviewed individually and then discussed in groups of three.

GROUP AGEEMENTS AND INFORMATION

REQUESTS

Discussion of Ground Rules: • Brett Baker voiced concerns about Sunshine Laws. • Mary VanderWeele commented that information requests are one thing, and

debate is another. • Karen noted that seeing the body of requests together is important. • Betsy Miller-Jones suggested a buddy administrator system which could be

used for quick information, definition of terms before and between meetings. • The intent would be all requests requiring work are given at meetings for

approval. If you are not sure if the request needs work, then go to the Budget Committee Chair who goes to Chief Financial Officer.

• Information requests that land at the meeting level come with a specific need, what will be done with it, and intent.

• Process for budget meeting: 1) Clarification and understanding of request 2) Explanation of time involved for data research 3) Committee votes on request

• Information provided to one committee member is provided to all committee members.

• Committee members requested review last year's decisions and their impact, current budget status briefing, and a class on how to read budget document added to old #8 (new #5).

• LeeAnn Larsen discussed listening sessions be separated from budget decision making meetings.

• Betsy Miller-Jones suggested we could post two meetings as budget committee meetings and that is where the public comment section is done and not take comment at any of the other meetings.

• Carmin Ruiz suggested a process used at city planning commission meetings where community members submit questions and comments before the meeting. Then if it is a question, an answer is available that night.

• John Burns commented all the committee does is a recommendation, and a straw vote could be taken to get the recommendation.

• Good practice would be to summarize at the end of the meeting including information requests, recommendations, consensus consent, and votes.

• A suggested guideline and not necessarily a rule: Don't vote at the same meeting an item is presented.


• Lisa Schultz suggested using the Robert's Rules of Order to get things done in a timely way.

• Claire Hertz explained board policy says the Board will adopt fiscal policies. • Jerry Colonna expressed even with declining resources we will still offer the

highest quality programs as possible. • Mary VanderWeele expressed there is a healthy tension in the committee to

cover the basics and then look hard at anything extra. The Board and budget committee are at the higher level in support the district goal of all students are college and career ready. The budget committee must be broader than the strategic plan such as keeping the buildings open, etc.

• Karen Cunningham perhaps ensuring solvency isn't what needs to be said but operation of the District to keep buildings open and schools functioning with basic education. These Financial Goals will be our yardstick.

STRAGEGIC PLAN AND FINANCIAL

GOALS

Budget Calendar for 2011-12 • It was suggested that there be more time between the proposed and approved

budgets. • Cheri McDevitt asked if the variance document could be available sooner?

Answer: No, it is the last thing that is done in the budget document process. • John Burns discussed the implication of the cycle on information requests, and

the need to have a proposed document in March or April. • Dave Bouchard noted the earlier the budget proposal the lower quality of

information, and would be subject to change. He suggested that build the budget based on the February forecast numbers.

• Cameron Irtifa agreed with the February forecast and including the variance analysis with the actual expenditures.

• Lisa Schultz mentioned the Portland Public Schools model where they review areas of operations such as transportation and I.T., and gives the budget committee members time to understand it. She continue with the committee doesn't want general information about departments, but rather trends or variances with explanations.

• John Burns stated thorough review of the past year should partially cure the timing issue. When the proposed document is delivered there is only the need to review new items and not trends or bigger picture.

• Mary VanderWeele commented on the need to talk about what the budget committee should decide, and not what they shouldn't decide. The District will get what you ask for with the committee. If they are asked to pick things, they will pick.

• John Burns suggested the sharing of more detailed information and also agreeing with Mary in that if they are asked, they will need information to help understand it.

• Lisa Schultz noted the committee should review and ask for explanations. It helps them to understand decisions that are difficult to understand and makes it easier to make decisions when they have the bigger picture.

• Cheri McDevitt suggested two agenda items Discussion of District Budget Priorities in February and Budget Recommendations be moved earlier in the process.

• Claire Hertz explained the need to hold off as long as possible to avoid loss of position or individuals looking for work outside the district.

• Mary VanderWeele asked what timeline OSBA suggests, and Betsy Miller-Jones responded saying that the OSBA calendar is similar to Beaverton's. Mary continued with the suggestion to talk in terms of outcomes instead of programs.

• Jerry commented on the debate of what level to budget, and as a large district

SCAVENGER HUNT

PROCESS TO USE TO ANALYZE BUDGET

BUDGET CALENDAR

FOR 2011-12

BUDGET DOCUMENT FORMAT


it signals to the legislature, community, etc. In coming years we are going to try to have a more unified message between the larger districts.

• Claire Hertz noted two suggestions to move the proposed budget to March using the Governor's Budget, or to leave it as is and base it on the February forecast. There will be a new governor this year so basing on the governor's budget is riskier this year than in other legislative years. 86% of the District's budget is salaries and benefits.

• John Burns suggested receiving information sooner allows the committee to go more in depth while we are waiting for the February forecast, and reduces the number of things we are trying to assimilate later in the process. He could support this calendar if the District worked on getting the committee's knowledge up earlier.

• Claire Hertz noted the consensus to have the proposed budget delivered at the April 12th meeting based on the February forecast.

• Cheri McDevitt commented we know we will need to reduce positions this year. The matter is defining District priorities and what are basic services. How can we allocate the resources to the recommendations we are making?

• Sue Robertson explained the effect the timing issues had on Human Resources and hard to fill areas. There is no perfect scenario. If we reduce too soon we risk losing people. It is a different situation this year with reduction of stimulus funding as well. Because we are so large, we do have enough attrition for most of these positions. The areas that would be most helpful would be making the difficult decisions of what programs or sections that are going to be cut. This would give us more planning ability. Staffing has been very difficult, but we have maintained more employees than other districts in the state.

• Lisa Schultz asked about the timing of the budget if the Board does a local option levy or a bond?

• Claire Hertz responded to have an approved tax levy for 2011-12 would require approval by voters in May 2011.

The committee reached consensus for an April 12th proposed budget. The committee requested specific items to be reviewed in the budget process: Grant funding (Title and IDEA), English as a Second Language, Operations, Facilities and Capital Projects, and Strategic Plan with Teaching & Learning.

• Cameron Irtifa commented that he would like to see information at the Operational Unit level.

• John Burns wants to see it in the style of the CAFR, as well as an update on how we are doing this year. What are the federal dollars that expire and when? What is the general fund side in staffing?

• LeeAnn Larsen commented that we need an evaluation when we tried something and if it did or didn't work. What are our clear criteria that we are getting the results we expected?

• Carrie Anderson would like to see a comparison on the budget that the committee approved and where are we now.

Next steps:

• Board Policy dictates the Board approves the budget calendar, and it will be presented to the Board in December.

• Board Community Outreach Subcommittee will review the public comment process and will report back to the Board and Budget Committee.

• A Budget Committee member/staff "buddy system" will be created to give each committee member a staff contact to answer clarifying questions and support


information sharing. • Training on how to read the budget document will be offered to the Budget

Committee. • The Budget Committee will be updated on the current year's budget status at a

future workshop.

BUDGET DOCUMENT FORMAT: • For the 2011-12 budget process, the District is considering the Association of

School Business Officials and the Government Finance Officers Association peer review and budget award programs. Brett commented that the decision should be left up to the Business Office on which program to use.

• Claire Hertz requested Budget Committee members submit suggestions for the Budget Document format to her by January 31, 2011.

Jerome Colonna and LeeAnn Larsen thanked the committee for attending the full day workshop.

CLOSING COMMENTS

Meeting adjourned at 3:50 pm. LeeAnn Larsen Jessica Ho Budget Committee Chair Recording Secretary

Updated November 23, 2010

STAFFING PLANNING CALENDAR

Date Event Responsible

3rd Wednesday in November Enrollment projections distributed to all administrators Facilities

2nd Monday in December K-12 open enrollment begins—ends last Monday in January Inter-district transfer begins—ends last Monday in January (schools with declining enrollment & subject to annual approval)

T & L T & L

1st Friday in January Initial SPED specialized program student counts, by school, due to Business Office Centrally identified secondary schools notified of poverty / mobility consideration—begin planning process

SPED SC / T & L

January principals’ meetings Non-salary allocations provided to schools Business Office

4th Thursday in January School Information Fair(s) Boundary adjustment meetings completed / results shared

T & L Facilities

February 1 – March 31 Initial licensed staffing meetings HR 1st Friday in February Application deadline for options

MS and options’ informational open houses completed

T & L Schools

Prior to 2nd Friday in February K-12 open enrollment and inter-district transfer results distributed to all schools

T & L

2nd Friday in February Non-salary and salary allocations to central cost centers Business Office

Prior to 3rd Wednesday in February FINAL elementary enrollment projections distributed Facilities

Last Friday in February Schools’ forecasting processes completed Schools

1st week in March FINAL SPED specialized program student counts, by school, due to Business Office

SPED

3rd Wednesday in March Enrollment lists for ACMA, HS2, ISB, RLC, SST, Summa, TNHS to all schools, HR and Facilities—includes 1st and 2nd considerations

T & L

3rd Friday in March FINAL secondary enrollment projections distributed FINAL poverty / mobility allocations to centrally identified secondary schools

Facilities SC / T & L

1st Wednesday after spring break FINAL program, management, licensed and classified staffing distributed to all schools SPED & ESL school assignments distributed to all schools

Business Office SPED & ESL

April 1 – 3rd Monday in April Licensed temporaries hired HR

April 1 – May 15 Classified staffing meetings HR

1st two weeks in April Licensed staffing adjustment principals’ meetings HR

3rd Monday in April Licensed posting season begins HR

End of 2nd & 3rd weeks in September

Principals’ meetings for licensed class size adjustments Transfers determined

T & L HR / Principals

% %Objects Budget Actual Spent Budget Actual Spent100 Salaries 181,257,436 179,881,987 99.2% 173,553,667 176,499,166 101.7%200 Benefits 77,324,834 76,839,262 99.4% 75,862,437 76,899,999 101.4%300 Services 15,825,587 14,537,169 91.9% 16,985,109 14,398,005 84.8%400 Supplies 13,613,484 11,042,203 81.1% 14,778,290 9,999,415 67.7%500 Capital Outlay 697,968 648,726 92.9% 356,956 261,320 73.2%600 Other 337,133 42,049 12.5% 409,111 362,349 88.6%700 Transfers 8,011,891 7,948,829 99.2% 3,543,794 3,543,794 100.0%800 Contingency 21,566,528 - 0.0% 11,866,124 - 0.0%Total 318,634,861 290,940,225 91.3% 297,355,488 281,964,048 94.8%

2010-11 % ofCost Centers Budget Budget100 Salaries 187,253,839 60%200 Benefits 79,464,094 26%300 Services 15,996,458 5%400 Supplies 9,260,352 3%500 Capital Outlay 120,904 0%600 Other 471,416 0%700 Transfers 4,795,621 2%800 Contingency 12,390,112 4%Total 309,752,796 100%

2008-09 2009-10

Beaverton School DistrictExpenses by Object

Beaverton School DistrictSummary of Budget Reductions

2008 - 11

Year Description Sustainable Non-Sustainable Total2008-09 Property Tax Adjustment (2,200,000)

Transfer from Pension Trust Fund (1,700,000) Recapture Unused APU (434,081) Additional Property Tax Received (300,000) Fund 281 ESD Revenue (100,000) Unallocated ESD Service Credit Revenue (300,000) Central Office Positions Temporarily Not Filled (75,336) Utility Savings (778,042) Health Insurance Premium Savings (2,908,089) PERS UAL Savings (300,000) Unallocated Equipment Replacement Fund Balance (30,676) Reduce Textbook Allocation (484,645) Return Seed $ from SB1149 to General Fund (356,000) Hiring Freeze (506,799) Donation From Nancy Ryles (10,000) Freeze Non-Essential Out of State Travel (95,811) Freeze Non-Essential Equipment Purchases (106,597) Freeze Food Expenses (51,548) Reduce Leadership Academy Expenses (4,000) Delay Purchase of Technology (60,000) Transfer from Sustainability Fund (2,398,944) Additional Saving from Central and School Budgets (1,236,357) Reduce Contingency (3,156,491) Reduce Non-Salary Budgets by 10.4% (2,703,253) Reduce ELL Textbook Adoption (200,000) Central Office Positions Removed from Budget (199,399) Transportation AVL System (297,844) Accountability Office Reductions (140,015) Reduce QCC Activities (50,000) Reduce Professional Development (158,000) Reduce Administrator and Assistant from General Fund (211,456) Reduce Extended Pay for Specialists (160,000)

(4,119,967)$ (17,593,416)$ (21,713,383)$

2009-10 Freeze Administrator Salary at 2008-09 Level (3%) (527,215) Energy Conservation Reimbursement to General Fund (200,000) Resignation/Retirement Incentive Package (250,000) Sustainability Fund Transfer (3,343,000) Certified Half Year Salary Freeze Plus 3 Non-Instructional Unpaid Days (4,549,354) Freeze Classified Salaries at 2008-09 Level (3%) (1,534,328) Delay Salary Step to Mid-Year for All Employees (2,377,089) Employee Attrition, Hiring Freeze and Temporarily Unfilled Positions (5,343,737) Ending Fund Balance Increase to 5.0% 1,650,000 Revenue Generated from Tuition-Based Full Day Kindergarten Program (100,000) Elimination of 8 Administrator Positions (1,030,782) Elimination of Instructional Coaches (5,353,605) Central Office Non-Salary Budget Reduction (15% of Total) (3,923,081) Reduction of Central Office & Program Staff (18.5 Positions) (1,566,900) School Non-Salary Budget Reduction (10% of Total) (490,856) Reduction of Contracted Translator Services (250,000) Increase Athletic Participation Fees (290,000) Increase Student Activity Fees (87,300) Reduce Substitute Employee Use (500,000) Non-emergency Classified Overtime Reduction (31%) (250,000) Reduce Extended Contract Days (4,512,848)

(16,705,372)$ (18,124,723)$ (34,830,095)$

N:\Business_Office\Finance\BUDGET\2011-12 Budget\Internal Budget Committee\Three Year Budget Reduction SummaryBusiness Services

1/12/2011

Beaverton School DistrictSummary of Budget Reductions

2008 - 11

Year Description Sustainable Non-Sustainable Total2010-11 Reduce Ending Fund Balance from 6.5% to 4.0% (10,607,397)

Reduce Health Insurance Reserve Fund (1,918,000) Reduce Worker's Compensation Insurance Reserve Fund (500,000) Savings from Unfilled Positions (500,000) Elimination of 4 Administrator Positions (418,626) Summer School Program (167,019) Central Office Non-Salary Budget Reduction (297,000) Reduction of Central Office Staff (12.7 Positions) (821,032) 5% Reduction Athletics and Student Activities (211,192) Middle School World Language Teacher Positions (6.0 APU) (466,057) Guidance Counselor Positions (5.5 APU) (424,204) Prevention/Intervention Specialist Positions (3.0 APU) (231,384) Pre-K Programs (1.9 APU) (121,890) School Staffing Fund (Convertible) (3,820,925) Reduce Non-Salary Accounts by 10% (2,982,000)

(10,461,329)$ (13,025,397)$ (23,486,726)$

Combined Total for Three Years (31,286,668)$ (48,743,536)$ (80,030,204)$

N:\Business_Office\Finance\BUDGET\2011-12 Budget\Internal Budget Committee\Three Year Budget Reduction SummaryBusiness Services

1/12/2011

Beaverton School District$5.8 Billion Funding Projections (Flat Funding)

Projected 100% Sustainable ReductionsSustainable

2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 % 2012‐13 % 2013‐14 % 2014‐15 %

Beginning fund balance 9,708,337 17,182,975 26,486,138 18,100,000$ 15,507,755$ 15,940,222$ 15,677,692$

Revenue 287,666,668 287,771,333 287,613,862 292,055,099 303,296,680 297,613,627 308,899,296 Total resources 297,375,005 304,954,308 314,100,000 310,155,099 318,804,435 313,553,848 324,576,989

Expenses 280,192,030 278,468,170 296,000,000 340,273,012 320,943,727 330,951,217 323,906,546 Ending Fund Balance 17,182,975 26,486,138 18,100,000 15,507,755 15,940,222 15,677,692 16,228,849

Shortfall (30,117,913)$ ‐9.71% (2,139,292)$ ‐0.67% (17,397,369)$ ‐5.55% 670,443$ 0.21%

50% Sustainable Reductions

2011‐12 % 2012‐13 % 2013‐14 % 2014‐15 %

Beginning fund balance 18,100,000$ 15,507,755$ 15,940,222$ 15,677,692$

Revenue 292,055,099 303,296,680 297,613,627 308,899,296 Total resources 310,155,099 318,804,435 313,553,848 324,576,989

Expenses 340,273,012 334,851,380 336,777,833 335,515,660 Ending Fund Balance 15,507,755 15,940,222 15,677,692 16,228,849

Shortfall (30,117,913)$ ‐9.71% (16,046,945)$ ‐5.03% (23,223,984)$ ‐7.41% (10,938,671)$ ‐3.37%

Timing Considerations and Key Dates:January School Cost Centers will get their non‐salary worksheets at the January Principal's Meetings2/11/2011 Central Cost Centers get all their worksheets2/18/2011 School Cost Center non‐salary worksheets due to Business Office2/15/2011 State Economic Forecast3/11/2011 Central Cost Center worksheets due to Business Office3/17/2011 Reductions Identified by Internal Finance Committee and given to Business Office4/8/2011 Proposed Budget to Budget CommitteeThird Week of May State Economic Forecast

Actual Revenue/Expenses

C:\Documents and Settings\wohlmutde\Desktop\Revised Beaverton Fund Projections 2011‐15 For Jerry 1‐5‐11Business Services

1/12/2011

Revised January 11, 2011 2011-2012 Staff Reduction Scenarios

The model assumes personnel reductions only and does not consider any possible contractual alternatives.

Positions Positions Positions

Licensed (2340 FTE)1 70% $87,600 239.7 279.7 319.6

Classified (1471 FTE)2 23% $46,000 150.0 175.0 200.0

Administrators (114 FTE)3 7% $161,600 13.0 15.2 17.3

Total Reduction 402.7 469.8 537.0

1 Based on average classroom teacher 2 Based on average secretary and aide at 210 days3 Based on average principal and vice principal

Assumptions for 2011‐12

Class size will increase, and staff positions will decrease District‐wideAttrition of an estimated 100‐200 total positions will reduce layoffsUnemployment costs are budgeted

$5.4 B State Funding Level Reduce

$21,000,000

Employee Group

$28,000,000

$35,000,000 $40,000,000$30,000,000


$24,500,000

$2,450,000

% of Personnel Budget

Average 2011‐12 Salary & Benefits


$6,900,000

$30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000

Salary Salary

$2,100,000 $2,800,000

Salary

$8,050,000 $9,200,000

1/12/2011 Business Office

82¢ is spent for teaching, transporting, supervising and counseling

4¢ is used for library/media materials, staff training and curriculum development

9¢ goes towards operating and maintaining facilities

5¢ goes towards central and fiscal services, general administration and district technology

Key factors to consider when balancing the Beaverton General Fund budget: • At a $5.4 billion statewide funding level for the biennium,

as proposed by the Governor, the projected Beaverton budget shortfall for 2011-12 is $40 million or 13% of the General Fund budget

• Of the $40 million shortfall, $14.5 million is increased

PERS costs for 2011-12 due to the global market decline in October 2008

• The District has reduced $80 million in the last three years • Projections show if the District makes all sustainable reduc-

tions in 2011-12, there will only be a $2 million shortfall in 2012-13

• If the District makes 50% sustainable reductions in 2011-12,

there will be another reduction of $20 million in 2012-13 • For example, if the District closes school for a day it would

save $1,186,000 or twelve teachers equates to $1,000,000 • One student increase in class size district-wide per class

saves $4.3 million Key Dates: Governor’s Budget February 1 State Economic Forecast - February 15 Proposed Budget - April 12 State Economic Forecast - Late May Budget Adopted - June 7

Budget Information for 2011-12 as of January 10, 2011

2010-11 General Fund Operating Expenses

Contingency5%

All Other Costs9%

Personnel86%

2010-11 General Fund Salary Costs by Employee Group

Certif ied(Classroom teachers, librarians,

counselors, etc.)70%

Classif ied (Secretaries, bus drivers, custodians,

etc.)23%

Administrators7%

In 2010-11 each operating dollar in General Fund, is

proportionally spent on students in these areas:

District Office Input Collection Form January 2011

District office administrators want to get more input from our school-based employees. In order to do this, we are sitting in on staff meetings at every school every month. In addition, we are asking for voluntary written comments to the questions below. Please write your responses under each question. The questions for January are: 1. What values and beliefs do you think should be embedded in the development of the 2011-12 General Fund Budget process and decision-making? 2. What promising practices should be protected from reductions to the 2011-12 General Fund Budget? 3. Knowing that the projected General Fund shortfall is estimated at $30 million or 10%, how much of this amount do you think should consist of sustainable reductions (that is, they would carry over into the 2012-2013 and beyond budget years)? If you would rather e-mail your responses please send them to Mary Hawkins at [email protected]. All of the information collected will be reviewed by the Superintendent's Council and the District Level Administrators. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

(Please turn over for 2011-2012 Budget Information)

Beaverton School Board Community Outreach Subcommittee

Dec. 15, 2010

Meeting convened at 10:15 a.m. in conference room 3 Board Members in attendance: Sarah Smith and Karen Cunningham Guest: John Burns, Budget Co. Member Agenda:

1) 2011-12 Budget Input Process 2) Science Curriculum Review 3) Superintendent Search

Budget Input Process The group discussed community input process and timing. John Burns shared that he has met with Mark Murray at Portland Public Schools to see how they run their process. Oregon law says the Budget Co. needs to have take public input at one meeting during the entire process. Beaverton SD goes beyond that requirement and provides an opportunity at every meeting. There was a proposal to change the Budget Listening Sessions to Budget Committee Meetings. A possible schedule might look like this: January- make change to public input beginning with this meeting; this would be a work session only. February- this meeting would be a Budget Co. work session, no testimony. March- Budget Assumptions would be presented by Claire and Jerry with scenarios, public input would be taken for the remainder of the meeting. March- Budget Co. would deliberate about the proposed scenarios, work session only. April- Draft budget is presented, work session only. April- Public input taken for entire meeting. May- Budget approval with a period of time for public testimony. Science Curriculum Review Sarah shared that there have not been a lot of parents reviewing the materials. There will be a final opportunity for staff and parents/community to view science materials and discuss with publisher representative. The Communications & Community Involvement Dept. will do another push closer to the review night on Wed. Jan. 26. We also need to communicate on why we do curriculum reviews and the rationale for the choices that are made. Superintendent Search We may need to explain to parents and the public why this process is not more open after the initial community engagement phase in December. The reason is that candidates are not willing to risk losing their current job during the process. Meeting adjourned: 11:15 a.m.

Grant Funding

Overview

Craig Irwin Senior Grant Accountant

Beaverton School District Budget Committee January 18, 2011

1

Grants

Grants by SourceFY 09-10

92%

2% 3% 3%

Federal

State

County/ESD

Private

Major Federal Education Grants• Formula Grants:• IDEA – Supports the District’s Special Education

Program• Title I – Supports 14 elementary schools with highest

percentage of FRL• Title III – English Language Learners (ELL)• Title II-A – Improving Teacher Quality

• Competitive Grants:• Small Learning Communities Grant• Arts 4 Learning (i3) Grant

2

Annual Grant Revenues1991 to Present

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Millions

Year 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Year ARRA FundingAudited Expenditures

A.R.R.A.American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(Stimulus)

$18,006,142$41,218,323Total ARRA

$ 7,499,173$ 7,499,173Ed-Jobs$ 4,252,061 $21,361,844 SFSF

$ 6,254,908 $12,357,306 Total Program$ 43,790$ 63,504 Title X Homeless

$ 104,865 $ 275,000 Title II-D Technology$ 3,521,813 $ 7,299,631 IDEA$ 2,584,440 $ 4,719,171 Title I-A

FY 10-11Allotment

AvailableTotal

Use of Grant FundsFY 09-10

55.13%

21.81%

11.29%

6.74%

1.68%

3.35%

SalariesBenefitsPurchased ServicesSupplies and MaterialsCapital OutlayOther

3

Grant Budgeting Process

• The Grant Budget is prepared separately from the General Fund Budget.

• Three step process:– 1. Develop Appropriation Budget– 2. Clear Appropriation Budget and Rollover

continuing grants– 3. Enter new grants as awarded

Development of Appropriation Budget

• Projections using current year grants• Review of Federal Budget

– Determine funding levels of federal programs– Identify any changes in program status

• Review Oregon ODE Website– Projections of IDEA and major Title programs

• Pending Applications and Approvals

Transition from Appropriation Budget to Actual Budget

• July 1: Appropriation Budget is cleared from the accounting system.

• Budget estimations are replaced with actual data:– Continuing and multi-year grants are rolled over to the

new fiscal year– Individual budgets for new grants are entered into the

District’s financial system as they are awarded.– Each District grant has a unique budget and a unique

accounting code.

4

GrantsRequirements and Restrictions

Grants almost always have limitations thatrequire additional monitoring and reporting

– Use of Funds– Supplementation vs. Supplanting– Reporting

• Time and Effort Reporting– Auditing

Use of FundsThe Application Process

• The application process itself creates restrictions on how grant funds are used

• Pre-Award budgets detail for the grantor how the district will use grant funds

• Federal Formula Grants:– Require that a budget be submitted before funds are

actually released– Budgets are submitted as part of updating our

Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) and approved by ODE

Use of FundsGovernment Accounting Rules for

Federal Funds

• Key Cost Principals– Allowable– Reasonable– Allocable– Period of Availability

• Guidance can be found in federal laws, department regulations, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars (OMB Circular 122)

5

Supplementation vs. Supplanting

• Grant funds must be used to “supplement”existing programs and may not be used to meet otherwise required activities or in lieu of (supplanting) local or state funding.

• A loss or reduction of local or state funding generally CANNOT be replaced with grant funding.

Supplementation vs. Supplanting

• Types of reporting used by the state and the federal government to ensure that grant funds are used to supplement existing programs:

– Maintenance of Effort (MOE)– Excess Cost– Comparability

• Federal Funds generally cannot be used to support program activities that are required by federal or state statute or regulation.

Reporting

• Time and effort reporting– Charges for personal services to Federal

awards must be allowable and reasonable and supported by required documentation.

– PARs: Personnel Activity Reports (monthly)– Semi-Annual Certification

• ARRA (Section 1512) reporting– Quarterly reports– “Transparency and Accountability”

6

Audits• Single Audit Act of 1984

– Federal Grants are subject to individual audits– Grants are reported individually in the CAFR

• Grants are subject to audits by both federal and state auditors/monitors.

• Recent Audits and Monitoring:– Title III (ELL) – Title I-C (Migrant Education)– Title IV-B 21st Century Community Learning Centers– SFSF

Future Considerations

• Some Federal programs will be discontinued.– Title IV Safe and Drug Free Schools

• Some Formula based grants may become competitive.– Title II-A Improving Teacher Quality

Future ConsiderationsFederal Focus

• Competitive Awards– Beaverton needs to position itself to be able

to participate in a competitive grant environment

• Innovative Programs– i3 Grants

• Measurable Results• Performance Based Systems• Transparency and Accountability

– Broader application of ARRA required reporting

7

GrantsThank you