"Colorado Springs School District No"
Colorado Springs School District No. 11 Long-Range School Use Task Force Meeting November 13, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. at the FOTC 5240 Geiger Blvd., 80915 The meeting was called to order by Ken Carlsen at 5:30 p.m. Welcome Ken Carlsen, Chairperson Intro of new faces -- Ken opened the meeting welcoming Elaine Naleski who was attending for the first time. The agenda was adopted. Adoption of last meeting’s minutes -- A motion was made, seconded and approved to accept the minutes from the last meeting. School Finance Glenn Gustafson, Deputy Supt./CFO Colorado school finance Glenn Gustafson gave a power point slide presentation with handouts. A high level overview of school finance, capital side and data on how we compare with other school districts will be presented at a later date – couldn’t get the info. in time for this meeting. Glenn discussed: D-11 revenues and expenditures; voter tax initiatives – the D-11 bond and mill levy history; and how D-11 stacks up. School Finance Act – in 1988 D-11 was placed in the urban/suburban category and gave us less $$ than other school districts in Colorado. We were mis–categorized. It lasted 6 yrs. until 1994 when we repealed the act and adopted the 1994 act which is what we are now operating under. With Amendment 23, Gallager & Tabor, there has been lots of talk about a new School Finance Act. We may see one in the next 2 years or so. st o 1 thing is the total program of the formula, 90% of revenue which is the funded pupil count or FTE x per pupil revenue = total program funding. o There are 3 primary components - where $$ comes from. 1. Local property taxes (we may be down 4% this year). 2. Specific ownership taxes give us about 10M$ a year 3. State equalization taxes o These vary from district to district across the state of Colorado depending on the wealth of the community. o D-11 has seen a shift from a local tax burden to the state and we find that school districts in Colorado (local tax payers) are paying less and less to school districts and therefore feel less and less ownership. o Count date is Oct. 1 of each year. There is an 11-day window around this date. If students come in after count day, we get no funding for that child. o 6-7 years ago, we found that there was a declining enrollment across the state. We’re allowed a 2-3-4 year average. 30,842 is the number we get funded on for this year. There is lots of discussion at state legislature re funding “phantom” students. They are funding kids that are really not in our school districts. There are 178 school districts and over 100 of those with a declining enrollment. We may see an attack on 4-year averaging. The formula is: everybody starts with base funding of $4, 570 per pupil. The cost of living factor is an attempt to provide some equity across the state of Colorado. o It is harder to attract teachers in a lower income community. o Size factor – 1994 they made an assumption that the larger the school district is, the more economies of scale there are. You still need a lot more money in a small district because you still need the same administrative jobs to run the district. o Personnel cost and non-personnel cost factors, at-risk factor (free and reduced lunch students) -- 25% of our enrollment qualify for this = 189 x 8000 kids. $5755 per pupil x average pupil count 30,842 = $190,000,000 funding. o Reimbursements that we get from the state in no way meet all of the expenses. o Six additional funding streams compensate for other programs and expenditures 1. ELPA (English Language Proficiency Act) Long-Range School Use Task Force Nov 13, 2003 meeting minutes (continued) page 2 of 6 2. G/T (Gifted and Talented) 3. Small attendance centers (we do not qualify for this) 4. Special Education 5. Transportation 6. Vocational Education Expenditures: o School finance law = the number of expenditures that we are required to make o Instructional supplies and materials = materials used in the classroom o $262 per pupil and max of $800 per pupil on capital or risk related funds (insurances) o We have to provide building, liability, workers comp, general liability, etc. insurances at @ $78 per pupil for these insurances. o Capital reserve fund / capital projects o For FY04, $184 x 29,130 students = 5.36 M$ that went to the Capital Reserve Fund. o $200 x 30000 students = 6 M$ o We give every school between $12.34 to $22.36 per student to high schools for non- instructional supplies (copy machines, etc.). This is not required by state law, this is a district policy. o We’re required to spend 95% of our full day kindergarten funding directly on the kindergarten programs which makes it difficult to cover the rest of the expenditures with only 5%. o Amendment 23 passed in 2000 which was the biggest change in school finance funding in many years and began 7-1-01. Funding stream was a 3rd of a cent sales tax and was diverted to the new education fund. It would fund inflation + pupil growth + 1% for 10 years. o The state education fund is on the edge of going bust because of the poor economy. The first 2 years there was more money than they needed. The first year the legislature approved 115M$ of extra programs which lasted 2 years but it put a real drain on the funds. o The state will have to go to its general fund to fund schools and the root of the problem revolves around this education fund. o Last year the size factor was manipulated and we didn’t receive our 1%, in fact we lost about ½ of it. The state is looking for every way they can to save money. The state budget has some severe problems. It is highly likely that in the next 2 years we will see sales tax refunds and at same time cutting funds in the state budget. o Why was there only 700,000? They adjusted the size factor for the school district. They were able to meet the requirements statewide but some districts got less, some got more. We got less. District’s mill override fund o $26.9M was approved, 17% was authorized, but we’re no way near that because of the phase-in factor. o D-11 has an oversight committee that monitors these expenditures very closely. o D-11 can be proud that we have this committee and keep track of the mill override money separately and we also audit this. o Glenn recommended that people go to the D-11 website and look at the budget information. o A portion of the MLO goes to the Charter Schools. TABOR - Article X Section 20 in the Colorado Constitution. o Limits growth of government. o Our inflation will be below 2% and our pupil count will be down. We’ll have to cut other areas to make the spending limit. Spending limit – control it with the formula so our expenditures cannot grow and our revenue cannot grow. The burden comes back on the local taxpayer. o Reserving techniques are tied to the audit. 3% contingency fund is required by Tabor with strings attached which are -- if used, must be paid back in 6 months. o A ratchet down effect = mill levy can never go up but it can go down. Same way with the revenue and spending limits. o 2002-2003 D-11 spending limit did ratchet down. Gallager = property tax bill o It set a ratio of commercial and residential values. o In 1986 the residential property assessment was 29%, now down to 7.94%. It has dropped this much as a direct result of Gallager. Long-Range School Use Task Force Nov 13, 2003 meeting minutes (continued) page 3 of 6 o The Colorado Public Expenditures Council shows that we’re one of the lowest property taxed states. o The Gallager effects our bond and MLO areas. Feeling the squeeze in MLO as a direct result of Gallager. Budget o Because our budget is our expenditure plan we put a lot of time and effort into it. We have to plan wisely and get lots of process and input on the budget. On Jan. 31 we put out a preliminary budget document, about 7-8 pages. It’s our best estimate of new money we’ll get from the School Finance Act and our best guess on our expenditures for next year. This goes before committees to ask them, “what do you think are the most important things for D- 11 to be doing?” We get lots and lots of input. o Blackout period is in March. The BOE is asked to vote on the budget and it is locked in and then we come out with the Proposed Budget (May 31) which goes before committees and ultimately the BOE adopts a budget by June 30. o We’re operating under a pupil count projection model. This year we thought we’d be down 70 kids but we were actually down 570 kids. o An electronic file is sent to the state of Colorado then we sit down and ask what’s happening. People are having fewer kids, people moving to the suburbs, etc. o Once the BOE sets the appropriation we cannot exceed that amount. o There are also individual fund budgets. There are great summaries by programs and by objects. o In the October budget modification by Oct. 15, the budget can be amended so the budget will be more accurate. o There are other budget modifications at mid-year after we get our pupil count which allows us to do a final budget modification. o The audit is the verification after the fact and shows what actually happened to the funds. An independent CPA firm does our audit. GASB 34 is our regulatory agency. They issued a pronouncement that says we’d account for things in a different way. Look at the management discussion analysis and the audit to see what’s going on with the budget. o Why are you here? (capital and facilities) An annual operating budget, maintenance and operations programs of our general budget. 7M$ for custodial Building maintenance Utility bills Grounds maintenance people – 740 acres of grounds to maintain Total of $26.18M annually o By the time you figure the day-to-day operations there’s not much left for any capital projects. Capital reserve fund passed bond issue in 1996 and we’re just now spending the remainder of those monies. o Total resources 17.8M$ o Principal and interest on our leases and certificates of participation o Project Management Office o Reserves and contingencies for emergencies o Capital projects o Possible ways to fund capital improvements in Colorado Issue GO bonds -- is a general obligation bond – backed by all taxpayers in D-11 COPs (Certificates of Participation) lease- purchase Underwood Amendment – allows to levy up to 10 mils for up to 3 years max. for capital improvement (has never been passed in Colorado) MLO funds – a permanent plan – limited to the 20% max. – must be voter approved Questions/Comments: Senior citizens tax credit – did not get implemented as part of the budget cuts. Shift in mils – less money – why doesn’t the state change the SFA formula? State does not want to open the formula and unless they increase the total pot, there are winners and losers = politics. Long-Range School Use Task Force Nov 13, 2003 meeting minutes (continued) page 4 of 6 If $60 per student for insurance, are there differences depending on the building? No, it’s district-wide. Unless a catastrophic, uninsured loss, i.e., stop-loss insurances – what if there is a flood? The types of things that are insured do not include economic, salary and benefit issues. They are limited to “acts of God.” $60 relate to charter schools? We count them and then we fund them at 98%. Those that are not in district facilities are required to meet $262 CDE requirement on facilities and insurance. If in our facility, they give us the money and we buy the insurance. MLO – we’d have to go back to voters to increase it. Last night, Colorado 100 - what they said was, Colorado is in the bottom 5 tax and income th th rank; 4 most business friendly; 4 lowest property taxed state; on state income tax, we are th th 46 out of 50; gas tax we are 37 out of 50. El Paso County per capita is $190, next lowest is Arapahoe County. Colorado has one of the lowest tax rates in the entire country. Where we rank in the count in terms of educational funding: for actual funding per pupil, we’re nd th 32 . Education Week says we’re 45 in the country. We’re below the average. Companies are telling Rocky Scott that they will not come to Colorado because of the quality of life, not because the taxes are too high. Really don’t want to touch SFA – who in the legislature will help us? Subcommittee Updates Ken reminded the group that there is an administrative rep on each subcommittee and to get in touch with them if you need help. Capital Renewal Subcommittee Subcommittee Chair/Link o Eva Reynolds said they have been meeting every Wednesday night and their task is to recommend to the task force a long-term capital renewal plan. They have been looking at facilities and have taken the total picture and broken it down by site and priority; transportation – life cycle vs. age review; bus & support vehicles (have a couple more reports coming from transportation). Looked at technology, brought in 2 outside experts and looked at life cycle. Will put together a draft for outline report. Challenges are capital vs. maintenance, funding sources and fine -tuning. Timeline is on time. Is technology updated all the time? That’s what we’re looking at. Comment – What we’re dealing with is there’s still a lot of back log of maintenance that could not be covered in the last bond, i.e., aging infrastructure (West side). One building has carpet that is 42 years old. PC issue – keep track separately but also look at life cycle. Are we behind on the computers already? Yes. Utilization Subcommittee Subcommittee Chair/Link o Jennifer Devries handed out and presented a task matrix. o They are developing a recommendation on how the district should use its schools to support the district demographics and student enrollment. o Are waiting on information from Frank and findings re the Ed Spec – so are on hold for handout items b and c on task 1 o Are waiting on information from the demographer re how they see the district’s growing population over the next 5 years. We’ll recommend how to use schools within the district. His information will not be available until Dec. 10 or Dec. 17, at the latest. Have to have this information in order to move on to task 3 & 4. o Have discussed Jan. 6 deadline and some committee members expressed concern re admin. & BOE acting on recommendation by subcommittees and task force as a whole and want these recommendations to impact decisions that are made re schools. The Westside study was in-depth. If the task force has information that would be useful – we welcome any information from that study. o We’re looking a the district capacity model and will bounce it up against the Westside study model. o We’re looking at the data needed and how others do it. We’re getting information from other school districts in the state and even nationwide. o Every single school district does it differently. There is no set guideline in the state of Colorado for how school districts use their schools. Long-Range School Use Task Force Nov 13, 2003 meeting minutes (continued) page 5 of 6 o Is there anything we can do to help get the information sooner? Only if the demographer comes in earlier with the information. o We did decide, under 2D, that it would not be a good idea to include portables as permanent usage facility. They must be temporary space – not permanent. Capital Improvements Subcommittee Subcommittee Chair/Link o Diane Alberico presented the objective which is to develop a plan that addresses what school capital improvement needs are needed and consider year round schools. o Philosophy – to think first about the ideal philosophy and then allow $$ to be considered. The Philosophy committee broke tasks down. Studied year round schools for 1 month and came up with pros and cons. Found that HS are not going year round. Elementaries are more year round. o Achievement – PROS and CONS PROS CONS Use of bldg Student achievement / not significant Capacity Teacher training Reduction of class size and burnout for Closing of schools students and teachers Transportation costs go up Personnel – regular teachers don’t burn out Maintenance costs go up – teachers like year round concept. ESL teachers burn out Less absenteeism with personnel. Support teacher burnout, their children in school Do not have to build more schools Teacher’s family not on same schedule Greater community use of building Storing of teacher supplies May be able to close some buildings Personal scheduling People can go on vacations Teacher contracts - salary costs up Buildings are open-safety Cost of upkeep Kids are off street Utilities go up SSplit custody families Capital construction cannot be done o CSAP is an issue Jobs for students Feeder system Summer camps Impact on athletics o o Concept of smaller schools will be studied next. Will study adding an additional HS and more schools in the Cimarron Hills area (NE area), community / neighborhood schools and a boundary study. o Increase your operating costs but you decrease your capital costs. Results: The committee reviewed all of this and felt they did the right research. Their charge was to look at student achievement: Final research showed that student achievement does not increase with year round schools, costs go up with year round schools. If you want to close schools, sell the bldg and then lease them back. Schools are pulling away from doing year round programs. Consensus was that year round schools not be considered. Physical Jerry Anderson presented the final product, a menu of things we want to have in high schools based upon current and future trends. Looked at ed specs of different districts in Colorado and what kinds of spaces and places do we need to have in buildings. Have studied all levels o A learning lab – trying to think about what we’d like to see available to schools. o Look at HS size. o How much space you have per student. o Some HS now are under capacity if you figure what is being recommended as the size of a HS. o What is practical, voter supported, look at where we are now and/or having another school, also. Long-Range School Use Task Force Nov 13, 2003 meeting minutes (continued) page 6 of 6 o Close schools? o f we want to have neighborhood schools or have more specialized schools – are we going to want students to travel between schools and share resources? o We put together a menu of what would be in a HS. Looked at size, grounds requirements also – Title IX. o It’s this subcommittee’s job to look at “what’s ideal.” Open Discussion Ken Carlsen, Chairperson Citizen/visitor comments Ken Carlsen, Chairperson Housekeeping items Ken Carlsen, Chairperson Plus/Delta analysis Plus Delta Started on time, excellent presentation by Glenn Cold room Subcommittee reviews Overhead projector Cookies Chance to hear needs of a subcommittee from Coffee another subcommittee Expertise of committee members Overlap of comments / duplication Open discussion Matrix get handouts from other groups Attendance Attendance Matrix get handouts from other groups Are we doing work to no avail - will BOE listen to Facilitator – Ken Carlsen our recommendations? Ken adjourned the task force at 7:45 p.m. Next Meeting: Dec 11, 2003 5:30-7:30 p.m. at the FOTC, 5240 Geiger Blvd., 80915