1. LAPS 2011/12 Proposed Budget April 21, 2011

2. Long-range Financial Planning Committee Members Original Members  Gene Schmidt  Paula Dean  John Wolfe  Melanie McKinley  Kevin Honnell  Ellen Mills  Ken Johnson  Kim Selvage  Kelly Myers  Mike Schick  Shawn Hailey Expanded Members  Gerry Washburn  Rex Kilburn  Sandy Warnock  Jennifer Guy  Jenny Diesburg- Lathrop  Wyatt Dumas  Sally Shockey  Anita Boshier  Debbie Elliot  Ken Holmes  Cheryl Smith-Ecke  Dawn Jalbert  Keith Rosenbaum  Stephanie Rittner  Ereyna Benelli  Naomi Unger  Dawn Jones  Jenn Schmierer  Kate Kettering  Lisa Mietz  Suzanne Lynne  Ronda Harmon  Vicki Nelms  Jeff Sargent  Dean Obermeyer

3. How Schools Are Funded in NM State Equalization Guarantee (SEG) – Based on 80-day and 120-day student count from previous year – Has been reduced for the past two years. Was reduced in February of 2010 after the 2009/2010 budget had already been in effect for over 7 months! Was reduced in August of 2010 after the 2010/2011 budget had been approved and was in effect for 1 month. Federal stimulus funds are being used to offset the largest part of the reduction. These go away in 2011/12. –We are anticipating a reduction of $600,000 for the 2011/12 school year.

4. Additional LAPS Funding $8 million from DOE – Has remained the same since 1999 – Continues through 2014 $8 million from DOE – Has remained the same since 1999 – Continues through 2014

5. Lease-revenue Funds In 2007, Board decided to make a concerted effort to discontinue the use of lease- revenue funds for operational expenses Have been used the last two years to help offset the cuts in the SEG. Should net approximately $1.5 million per year IF the leases continue (can be cancelled at any time with 6 month notification). In 2007, Board decided to make a concerted effort to discontinue the use of lease- revenue funds for operational expenses Have been used the last two years to help offset the cuts in the SEG. Should net approximately $1.5 million per year IF the leases continue (can be cancelled at any time with 6 month notification).

6. What About Bond Funds? Bonds – Must be approved by the community every 4 Years. – Can only be used for large capital expenses (bricks and mortar). – Can NOT be used for operational costs. Bonds – Must be approved by the community every 4 Years. – Can only be used for large capital expenses (bricks and mortar). – Can NOT be used for operational costs.

7. Referendum – Must be approved by the community every 6 Years. – Can only be used for building maintenance/repair, technology hardware, other large expenses. – Can NOT be used for operational costs. – Must be approved by the community every 6 Years. – Can only be used for building maintenance/repair, technology hardware, other large expenses. – Can NOT be used for operational costs.

8. Funding Summary Funding SourceUses State Equalization Guarantee (SEG)Can be used for any expenses…always one year behind compared to enrollment DOE $8 millionCan be used for any expenses…has remained the same since 1999…no cost of living adjustments! Leased FundsCan be used for any expenses…can be cancelled at any time with 6-months notice Bond FundsCan only be used for large capital expenses (bricks and mortar). CANNOT be used for salaries! Referendum FundsCan only be used for building maintenance/repair, technology hardware, other large expenses. CANNOT be used for salaries!

9. Operational Funding for 2010/11 SEG: $23,564,227 Stimulus: $937,955 DOE: $8,000,000 Miscellaneous: $470,814 Leased funds: $897,000 NOTE: For 2010/11 an additional $179,000 was spent on teacher/staff bonuses and an additional $256,800 will be spent for renting the administration building. These amounts come from the leased funds.

10. Direct Student Costs include costs for classroom teachers, specials teachers, nurses, counselors, OTs/PTs and IAs All shades of blue indicate personnel costs. Utilities, communication services, and liability insurance accounts for approximately $1.5 million of the “Other Costs”. How is the money spent now?

11. Budget Process Create an Austerity Budget Identify Additional Program Elements and Costs Develop a Method for Evaluating Programs Evaluate Programs Identify Recommendations Public Meeting School Board Approves Budget

12. Creating the Budget Just legal – funded by SEG Essential for Student Achvmt Important to meet district goals Adds desirable elements Makes LAPS best in the land

13. Only contains those program elements required by law. Very bare bones budget. NOT HOW WE WANT OR PLAN TO RUN OUR DISTRICT!! What is an Austerity Budget?

14. Athletics/Activities Smaller class sizes/teaching loads Elementary Specials (Art, Music, PE, Librarians) Middle School librarian Nurses/Counselors/Principals at every site IA’s (except kindergarten IA’s) Adequate technology support Adequate maintenance and custodial support Reading/Math/Technology Specialists Lots of others…too many to list!! What is the Austerity Budget Missing?

15. The sobering reality? – The Austerity Budget would require approximately $24.4 million of funding. – The SEG (including Federal Stimulus Funds) is providing us with $24.5 million in 2010/11! – In other words, the state barely gives us enough money for the minimum required by law. – This begs the question, “Is New Mexico really funding an adequate education for students across the state?” Fortunately we still have the $8 million from DOE. Without it, our students’ educational future would be bleak indeed! Austerity Budget

16. Program Evaluation Six Surveys – Elementary Programs – Middle School Programs – High School Programs – Athletics, Technology, Transportation, and Facilities – Student Services, Curriculum, and Assessment – Central Office (Superintendent/Board, Business Office, Human Resources) 171 Individual Program Elements in All Rubric that asked people to think about the difference each program element made to the educational process.

17. Survey Participation Over 1,000 different email addresses requested the surveys. Between 55% and 68% of the people that requested the surveys completed them. Good participation from all categories and all schools.

18. Survey Results Results broken into six different groups – All Responses – Teacher Responses – Parent/Former Parent Responses – Site Staff Responses – Other Staff Responses – LRFPC Responses

19. Survey Results Calculation of “fifths” – For each group, the results were evaluated by taking the top score, subtracting the bottom score, and dividing the resulting number into five parts. – Then the 171 program elements were placed into five groups based on their scores.

20. Did the Surveys Make a Difference? YES!! – The surveys identified the “keep” line for our most valued programs! – We now know how the $8 million should be spent.

21. Recommendation for Spending the $8 Million Top two groups (or 40% based on score) included 54 program elements based on the “All Responses” category. The total for these two groups is slightly more than the $8 million from DOE. These were some of the most expensive program elements. This was considered the “keep” line. We need to look at providing some of these services in a more cost efficient manner.

22. Athletics/Activities and Athletics/Activities Director Class size/common planning/teacher load Coordinator of Technology Counselors and nurses at every level Custodians Elementary IAs (including reading IAs) Elementary principals Elementary specials including band/orchestra ELL Staffing What’s Included in the Recommendation?

23. Facilities Supervisor Instructional Supplies/Software Middle school assistant principal Network administrator School Resource Officers (SROs) Substitutes Tech Support Transportation Mechanics and Supervisor Miscellaneous others Recommendation (page 2)

24. 117 program elements in the other three groups. All of these are being evaluated for potential elimination/reduction. These tended to be lower cost elements. Many of these will be kept through the use of lease money at the discretion of the Board. In the 2010/11 budget, the Board elected to use ~$900,000 from leased funds. Other Layers?

25. Help from the County The county can help through the reduction of fees. Main Ideas – Aquatic Center Use ($44,000) – School Resource Officer ($88,000) – Warehouse Workers ($122,000) Total: $254,000 Since we are currently anticipating a $600,000 cut, this help would make a HUGE difference!

26. 2011/12 Budget Recommendation Program Element 2011/12 Budget2010/11 Budget Elementary Teachers 88 LAMS Teachers 32 LAHS Teachers 64 Elementary Specials 11.1 Librarians 66.8 Elementary Band/Orchestra No change Principals 10 Site Secretaries 77 Attendance Clerks 77 Counselors 11 Nurses 88 Regular Ed IAs/Reading IAs/Dept. Secretaries 46

27. 2011/12 Budget Recommendation Program Element2011/12 Budget2010/11 Budget Superintendent11 Assistant Sup11 Business Office1211 Human Resources65 Specialists (Math, Curriculum, etc.) 35 Technology Staff12 Athletics/Activities$240,000 Maintenance1719 Custodians31 Professional Development$0$29,950 Supplies$414,900$461,000

28. 2011/12 Summary of Proposed Cuts Overall – 10% cut in supplies (~$46,000) – Professional Development (~$29,950) – Library Technical Services (~$42,000) – Mental Health Vouchers (~$17,000) Elementary – Subscriptions (~$3,500) – Instructional Coach (~$66,000) – Shared Librarian (~$45,000) [net savings including an additional full-time library aide] Middle School – Cafeteria (~$35,000) – Educational Technologist (~$33,000) High School – Educational Technologist (~$33,000) Athletics/Activities – No Additional Cuts Technology – No Additional Cuts Student Services – No Additional Cuts

29. 2011/12 Summary of Proposed Cuts Facilities – No Additional Cuts Transportation – No Additional Cuts Curriculum/Assessment – K-2 MAP testing (~$8,300) – 0.2 FTE Reduction (~$12,000) Superintendent’s Office/School Board – PAC-8 (~$2,000) – Memberships/Training/Travel (~$10,000) – Lobbyist (~$11,500) Business Office – KRONOS everywhere but maintenance (~$4,850) – AESOP at elementary level (~$4,000) – Energy Manager (~$10,000) Human Resources – No Additional Cuts

30. 2011/12 Summary of Proposed Cuts Three changes of note: – Assets Manager for Leased Facilities: ~$60,000 increase – Grant Writer (Re-allocation of part of curriculum position): No change in cost – HR Secretary (Re-allocation of Facilities Secretary): No change in cost Net Reduction: – ~$353,100

31. Questions? Just legal – funded by SEG Essential for Student Achvmt Important to meet district goals Adds desirable elements Makes LAPS best in the land