Budget Update January 15, 2014

Budget Calendar

TEN YEAR ANALYSIS General Fund

Enrollment History Source: Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

Straight Line Growth Rate Total Salaries & Benefits Per Pupil* (FY Base Year) *Employee Benefits does not include the on-behalf contributions for TRS & PERS, which began in 2008 Source: Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development and Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

Straight Line Growth Rate Comparison Certificated Salaries Per Pupil (FY Base Year) Source: Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development and Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

Straight Line Growth Rate Comparison Non-Certificated Salaries Per Pupil (FY Base Year) Source: Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development and Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

Straight Line Growth Rate Comparison Employee Benefits Per Pupil* (FY Base Year) *Employee Benefits does not include the on-behalf contributions for TRS & PERS, which began in 2008 Source: Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce Development and Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

Health Insurance The total Health Premium has risen steadily since 2003 with an overall increase of almost 160% Through bargaining however, the District has set a priority to attempt to maintain these increases and our costs have increased about 133% Source: Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Department of Human Resources

LONGTERM FORECAST Financing the Future

Revenue Assumptions Borough Revenue continues to INCREASE at 3% Federal Revenue Maintains with ZERO INCREASE or DECREASE State Energy Relief Funding continues at $100 per Adjusted ADM Student Safety and Security Grant ends after FY14 ZERO INCREASE or DECREASE in the State Foundation Formula Intensive Count maintains at 321 students Other Local Receipts maintains with ZERO INCREASE or DECREASE

Expense Assumptions Certificated Salaries are maintained with an average annual step INCREASE of 1.8% Non-Certificated Salaries are maintained with an average annual step INCREASE of 3.2% Health and Life insurance INCREASE at an annual rate of 8% with the INCREASE split 50/50 between employee's and the District (Overall INCREASE to District costs equal 4%) All other deduction factors are maintained with any INCREASE due to INCREASE in Salary factors Utilities INCREASE at an annual rate of 10% Insurance Bonds & Premiums INCREASE at an annual rate of 1.5% Indirect rate is maintained at 5.58% annually and amounts are based on Grant projections included in the FY14 Budget Book All other Non-Personnel accounts are maintained with ZERO INCREASE or DECREASE

Long Term Forecast

Three Year Projection

Structural Deficit

HAY GROUP STUDY State Managed Group Health Insurance Program for Alaska Public School Employees

Purpose Conduct and provide an analysis of the current health benefit plans for each of the 53 school districts in Alaska. Establish an actuarial value of the various benefit plans offered Estimate the projected premiums and costs of consolidating public school employees in Alaska under a state- managed plan

Hay Groups Study Surveyed all 53 school districts – 100% participation NEA Alaska Health Plan Aetna, Premera, TPAs Dept. of Administration Dept. of Education and Early Development Unions – Teamsters, Local 71

Health Insurance in Alaska’s School Districts Enrollment by district size There are approximately 19,000 employees total, 17% opt out of coverage

Health Insurance in Alaska’s School Districts Costs by district size

Health Insurance in Alaska’s School Districts Plan offerings currently available in Alaska’s school districts

Health Insurance in Alaska’s School Districts 21 district’s have 0% employee cost share 32 district’s have some cost share the average being 13% Public sector national average is 15%

Health Plan Cost Drivers Three key drivers of a plan’s costs 1.The extent to which plan pays for the costs of care. 2.The utilization of those benefits by plan members. 3.The non-benefit costs that are required to administer the plan.

Plan Costs Broken Down The argument for self insurance/pooling

Saving through Pooling Cost savings for a consolidated pool can be broken down to four main areas –Provider Networks –Overhead –Plan Design –Cost Sharing

Consolidation Outcomes Positive OutcomesNegative Outcomes Improves vendor contract termsReduces district staff administration Increase in complianceEliminates district decision-making Reduces annual volatility in costs Consistent benefits offering to all districts Reduces duplicative resources Efficient health management

Options 1.Optimize Program Performance 2.Leverage AlaskaCare Plans 3.Centrally Managed School District Program with Standard Health Plan Options and Cost Sharing 4.Centrally Manage School District Program with Standard Health Plan Options Only 5.Bring all School District Plans under State management

1. Optimize Program Performance Savings achieved through provider networks and overhead $17.1M - $28.8M Positive OutcomesNegative Outcomes Cost savings with same level of benefits Increases State administration Simplifies bargaining Districts allowed to set contributions

2. Leverage AlaskaCare Consolidate all health care coverage under the existing AlaskaCare plans increase of $8.7M – savings of $34.9M Positive OutcomesNegative Outcomes Cost savings but different benefits Disruption in plan design Districts allowed to set contributions Bargaining restricted Leverages State resources already in place

3. District Pool with Standard Plan and Cost Share Provides an independent pool for school districts with three standard plan options and a standard cost share savings of $22.6M – $33.7M Positive OutcomesNegative Outcomes Cost savings but different benefits Disruption in plan design All Districts have same contributions Bargaining restricted

4. District Pool with Standard Plan Provides an independent pool for school districts with three standard plan options $9.4M – $64.9M Positive OutcomesNegative Outcomes Cost savings but different benefits Disruption in plan design Districts allowed to set contributions Bargaining restricted

Recommendations State pursue pooling as described in option 3 –Significant savings through optimization of plan performance, plan design consolidation and standardized cost sharing. To achieve maximum benefit and savings the transition would need to be mandatory