FY 2019-20 Proposed

Overview and Budget

Highlights

Presented by John Petach, Finance Controller

April 29, 2019
2
Agenda
I. A Sample of Budget Updates From Around the State
II. District Overview and the Process from Mission to Budget
 District Overview Basic Facts
 Board of Directors - Mission and Board Goals
 Superintendent - Key Strategies
 The Cabinet - Strategy Implementation – Allocating Resources Via the Budget
 Everything Begins With People – 5 Year Staffing Trend
III. Key trends “Seeing the forest through the trees”
 Glimpse into Four Key District Trends with profound long term financial impacts
 Enrollment – 5 Years and 10 Years
 Special Education Child Count (SECC) – 5 Years
 Public Employee Retirement System Costs – 4 Years
 Chromebook Count/Implementation – Five Years
 Key Student Performance Metric – Graduation Rates 2010-2018
IV. The 2019-20 Proposed Budget Summary Overview
 Summary level discussion of the 2019-20 Proposed Budget
3
Section I
Budget News From A Few Districts Around the State
4 2019-20 Budget News From Around The State

 Some districts haven’t had any public meetings on their 2019-20 Proposed Budgets yet
 Portland Public 1J (41,326 Students) - $17 million shortfall
 Adding 27 FTE to Licensed Special Education Staff, cutting 45 FTE Licensed non-special
education staff, cutting 17 other FTE, and “other” cost reductions
 Beaverton (41,135 Students)- $35 million shortfall
 Reducing 200 licensed positions and approximately $15 million “other” cost reductions
 Hillsboro (20,206 Students) - $9.6 million shortfall
 Reducing 38 licensed FTE, 37.5 Classified FTE, 3 Administrators and “other” cost reductions
 Bend LaPine (18,325) – Assuming increasing enrollment
 Maintaining staffing and days
 Salem Keizer (41,326) – Assuming increasing enrollment
 Adding 9.75 FTE to Middle School, adding 22 FTE Special Education and adding 15 FTE
Transportation (boundary adjustments)
5
Section II
District Overview and the Process from Mission to Budget
 The District
6 Overview Basic Facts
 Medford School District 549c was formed in 1959 encompassing approx. 370 square miles:
 23 school sites, 1.9 million square feet of facility space, over 276 acres of grounds
 The District is currently comprised of 14 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, 2 high schools, 1
secondary alternative high school and 4 charter schools
 The District is forecasting 1,290.36 FTE employees for fiscal 2019-20
 Our food service vendor, Sodexo, serves approximately 1.6 million meals and equivalent meals each
year
 Drivers for our transportation vendor, First Student, drive over 1.0 million miles per year transporting
district students
 The District staff and above listed facilities are projected to serve 14,270 students in 2019-20 for which
the District receives 1.0 base weightings for state funding
 According to the most recent 2016 US Census Small Area Income Poverty Estimate (SAIPE) for school districts, the
District has approximately (18.6%) living in poverty or 2,665 students for which the District receives an extra 0.25
weighting for each qualifying student or 666.14 weightings (4.65%) for funding
 50.3% of our students qualify for free or reduced lunch
 In the end, the district effectively gets extra funding for about 9.3% of students on free and reduced lunch
 Approximately 900 students are projected to be English Language Learners (ELL) for which the District receives
an extra 0.50 weighting for each qualifying student for funding
 The District receives an extra 1.0 weighting up to 11% of total enrollment for students eligible for special
education services. Based on recent growth trend, approximately 2,300 students or 16.1% are projected to be
eligible for special education services for 2019-20.
7 Board of Directors
 The District is governed by a publicly elected seven member Board of
Directors who sets the District Mission, sets District Goals and hires and
manages the District Superintendent

District Mission
 We are a high quality teaching and learning organization dedicated to
preparing all students to graduate with a sound educational foundation,
ready to succeed in post-secondary education, and to be contributing
community members.

District Goals
1. Foster Academic Excellence
2. Assure Equity for All
3. Improve 3rd grade reading proficiency
4. Increase high school graduation rate
8
Superintendent

 The Superintendent, in collaboration with Board of Directors, Cabinet

and Staff develops strategies to achieve Board Goals
 The Superintendent has developed Six Key Strategies:

1. Increase quality student-teacher contact time

2. Continue to expand Career Pathways
3. Continue to expand dual and articulated credit offerings
4. Continue to expand instructional technology to improve 21st
Century Learning
5. Improve education and operational effectiveness and efficiency
6. Educate the whole child by providing a multitude of social-
emotional, behavioral and mental health supports
9
The Superintendents Extended Cabinet

 Dr. Brian Shumate, Superintendent

 Michelle Cummings, Chief Academic Officer
 Brad Earl, Chief Operations Officer
 Deborah Simons, Director of Human Resources
 Tania Tong, Director of Special Education and Student Services
 Kevin Campbell, Director of Secondary Student Achievement
 Jeanne Grazioli, Director of Elementary Student Achievement
 Terri Dahl, Supervisor of Federal Programs and School Improvement
 Amy Tiger, District Athletic Director/Safety Coordinator
 The Superintendent’s Cabinet - Strategy Implementation
Everything Begins With People
10
Staffing Trend 2014-15 to 2019-20 PB (Page 24)
 The Cabinet, in collaboration with the Superintendent, Ad-Council and Staff prepares
action plans and allocates budget resources to successfully implement key strategies
 The District is a service organization and as such people are its primary resource
with over 80% of all spending on Wages and Payroll Benefits when charter school
revenue pass through’s are excluded
 To achieve the goals set out by the Board, The Cabinet has allocated resources to
increase staffing by 197.47 FTE or 18.07% over five years
 Largest FTE increase is in Instruction with 146.05 FTE or 18.27% increase
 Largest percentage increase is in Direct Student Support up 21.48 FTE or 38.18%

All District Funds Staffing By Function
Staffing 
FY19‐20  FY18‐19  Change  Variance 
Proposed  Amended  FY19‐20PB  FY19‐20PB 
Function Description Budget Budget  FY17‐18   FY16‐17   FY15‐16   FY14‐15  VS 2014‐15  VS 2014‐15 
TOTAL INSTRUCTION                945.36             941.86           901.71           866.64             845.49                799.31           146.05 18.27%
Subtotal Direct Student Support                  77.75               73.75              61.94              63.72               63.94                   56.27             21.48 38.18%
Subtotal Direct Staff Support                  31.03               30.56              39.04              30.43               31.40                   29.79               1.24 4.15%
Subtotal General Support                 236.22             233.22           225.44           217.48             217.69                207.52             28.70 13.83%
TOTAL SUPPORT SERVICES                345.00             337.53           326.42           311.63             313.03                293.58             51.42 17.51%
GRAND TOTAL            1,290.36         1,279.39        1,185.66        1,178.26         1,158.52             1,092.89           197.47 18.07%
11
Section III
Key trends “Seeing the forest through the trees”
 Enrollment trend: Minimal Growth for 2019-20 (Page 17)
 District enrollment has grown 2,729 ADMr or 23.6% over the last decade with Charter School enrollment growing from 100 to 1,633
and non Charter School enrollment growing 1,096 or 9.6% over the decade. If you exclude the estimated 500 ADMr increase in
12 enrollment over the last decade from the movement to full day Kindergarten, non charter growth has been 596 or 5.2% over the
decade resulting in a compound annual growth rate of 0.51%.
 Statewide enrollment dropped in 2018-19. In light of this and trends we are seeing at the Medford School District, our growth
projection for 2019-20 Proposed Budget is conservative.
 The projected consolidated ADMr for the District in 2019-20 is up 20 or 0.14% from the 2018-19 projection of 14,250. Of the 20
ADMr increase, all growth is assumed to be in online school enrollment and will fund a 2.0 licensed FTE addition for that program.
 Enrollment trend: Special Education Child Count (SECC*)
(Page 34)
13 As of December xxxx
 
Year *SECC Count SECC % of ADMr 1 Year Change 2 Year Change 3 Year Change 4 Year Change 5 Year Change
2019F** 2,301 16.10% 7.00% 18.95% 25.44% 34.61% 42.53%
2018 2,150 15.07% 11.17% 17.23% 25.80% 33.21%
2017 1,934 13.66% 5.45% 13.17% 19.83%
2016 1,834 13.13% 7.31% 13.63%
2015 1,709 12.55% 5.89%
2014 1,614 12.05%
 
District Enrollment 1 Year Change 2 Year Change 3 Year Change 4 Year Change 5 Year Change
2019F 14,291 0.14% 0.97% 2.35% 4.95% 6.74%
2018 14,271 0.83% 2.21% 4.80% 6.59%
2017 14,154 1.37% 3.94% 5.71%
2016 13,963 2.54% 4.29%
2015 13,617 1.70%  
2014 13,389  
**Note 2019F for SECC count is based on trend for illustration purposes only. 2019‐20 Budget assumes zero increase.
 Reasons for SECC increase:
 More students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP) are moving into the District (two year analysis
being prepared by Student Services)
 The Student Services assessment and evaluation team are identifying students more accurately and
comprehensively than before
 There is a significant increase in students eligible for Autism services
 There is a hypothesis that there are some students currently eligible for SpEd (IEP) that should instead
be on 504 plans
 Actions:
 Conduct an audit to identify and address cases in which students need 504 plans instead of an IEP
 Review eligibility criteria for special education eligibility
 504 Plan vs Individualized Education Plan
14

 There is some confusion regarding the similarities between a 504 plan and
an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). While both are intended to help
children with disabilities learn with adaptations to their needs, they take a
different approach.
 A 504 plan is intended for children with a wide range of disabilities who are,
nevertheless, able to participate and succeed in a general education
classroom. An IEP, on the other hand, is intended for children with a specific
set of diagnoses who require special education services.
 A 504 plan may include just one or two accommodations (a peanut-free
environment, for example) that the school agrees to provide. An IEP is a
legal document which includes objectives, goals, accommodations, and a
description of an agreed-upon educational setting.
 Enrollment trend: Special Education Child Count (SECC)
(Page 34)
15
How does 549c SECC % compare to other districts?
School District ADMr IEP % IEP
Salem Keizer        41,326        6,815 16.49%
Reynolds        10,859        1,787 16.46%
North Clackamas        17,170        2,776 16.17%
Portland 1J        46,608        7,411 15.90%
Medford 549c        14,250        2,148 15.07%
Hillsboro        20,206        3,040 15.05%
Phoenix Talent           2,575            383 14.87%
Klamath City           2,955            425 14.38%
Eugene        16,920        2,432 14.37%
Central Point           4,834            684 14.15%
Springfield        10,876        1,420 13.06%
Gresham Barlow        11,527        1,500 13.01%
David Douglas           9,687        1,225 12.65%
Eagle Point           4,150            520 12.53%
Beaverton        41,135        5,046 12.27%
Three Rivers           4,621            564 12.21%
Ashland           2,944            330 11.21%
Tigard‐Tualitin        12,399        1,295 10.44%
Bend LaPine        18,325        1,880 10.26%

Sample Total      293,368      41,681 14.21%

Source: State Controllers 2019-20 ADMw forecast 03/15/19

 Enrollment trend: Special Education Child Count (SECC)
Financial Impact of 11% Cap on Individual Education Plans (IEP)
16
(Pages 33-34)
Medford 549C
SpEd Costs By Year
$ Variance % Change
2019‐20 vs 2019‐20 vs
($ Millions) 2019‐20 PB 2018‐19F 2017‐18 2017‐18 2017‐18
GF SpEd Exc. Transportation $                   16.66 $                   15.64 $                   13.36 $                     3.30 24.7%
GF SpEd Transportation                         2.48                         2.40                         2.33                        0.14 6.1%
Total General Fund Spending $                   19.13 $                   18.05 $                   15.69 $                     3.44 21.9%
   
549c Special Revenue Spending (Primarily IDEA)                         2.30                         2.24                         2.20                        0.11 4.9%
   
SOESD SpEd on Behalf of Medford 549C                         2.00                         1.92                         1.55                        0.45 29.2%
Total SpEd Spending $                   23.44 $                   22.21 $                   19.44 $                     4.00 20.6%

 Special Education spending across all sources, has grown $4.0 million or 20.6% over the last two years
alone.
 Special Education Child Count (SECC enrollment page 9 of this presentation) has grown 33.21% or 5 times
as fast as total enrollment over the last four years, and is projected to increase 42.53% or 6.3 times as fast as
total enrollment over the December 2014 to December 2019 five-year period.
 Students eligible for Special education are projected to make up 16.1% of all students in 2019-20 up from
12.05% just five years ago. The extra state weighting for funding of special education (IEP) is limited to 11%
of enrollment, therefore the District will not receive an extra weighting for funding for approximately 1/3 of
the projected students eligible for Special Education in 2019-20.
 Assuming 7% SECC growth for 2019-20, if the District were to receive an extra weighting for all special
education students above the 11% cap, it would result in approximately (2301 SECC-(14,291*.11)) = 729
more weightings times $8,178/ADMw equals approximately $6.0 million unfunded mandate in 2019-20.
 Enrollment trend: SECC and Non SECC
December 2014 to December 2018
17
Total SECC Non‐SECC
District Wide District Wide District Wide
December 2018              14,271                 2,150              12,121
December 2014              13,389                 1,614              11,775
2014‐2018 Change in Enrollment                    882                    536                    346
Est. 2015‐16 Enrollment Increase Due to Shift to Full Day K                    500                       75                    425
2014‐2018 Change in Enrollment Excluding Shift to Full Day K                    382                    461                     (79)
% Change Excluding Impact of Shift to Full Day K 2.9% 28.6% ‐0.7%

Non‐SECC Non‐SECC Non‐SECC

District Wide Charter * Non‐Charter**
December 2018              12,121                 1,703              10,418
December 2014              11,775                 1,328              10,447
2014‐2018 Change in Enrollment                    346                    375                     (29)
Est. 2015‐16 Enrollment Increase Due to Shift to Full Day K                    425                       75                    350
2014‐2018 Change in Enrollment Excluding Shift to Full Day K                     (79)                    300                   (379)
‐0.7% 22.6% ‐3.6%

* Charter meaning four district charter schools (Madrone Trail, LOGOS, Kids Unlimited Academy, The Valley 
School of Southern Oregon). The 1,703 December Non‐SECC Charter enrollment is an estimate is an 
extrapolation of full year data 0630xx instead of December data

**Non Charter  meaning the 19 district schools ‐ 14 Elementary, 2 Middle Schools, 3 High Schools
 Enrollment Summary
18 (Pages 12-17 of this presentation)
 District wide non-charter enrollment growth over the last decade, excluding the increase
from the movement to full day kindergarten in 2015-16, has been about 596 students or
0.51% growth per year
From 2014-2018, Excluding 500 ADMr Growth From Shift to Full Day Kindergarten in 2015-16:
 District wide enrollment has grown 382 students with more than 100% of the growth (461
students) coming from SECC
 Non-SECC enrollment is declining. District wide non-SECC enrollment has dropped 79
students and non-SECC non charter has dropped 379 students or about 95 students per
year
 SECC enrollment has grown rapidly over the last five years, much faster than overall
enrollment
 The State of Oregon caps additional funding for SECC students at 11% of enrollment
 The District SECC enrollment is over 11%, resulting in a projected unfunded mandate for
2019-20 services it is providing to special education students of approximately $6 million
 The current unfunded mandate as of December 2018 is approximately $4.8 million
 The State of the Oregon
19 Public Employee’s Retirement System (PERS)
Unfunded Actuarial Liability(UAL)
 Milliman is the actuary for Oregon PERS
 Milliman provided an update to the PERS Board in Dec. 2018 on earnings
through 09/30/2018. The PERS system earnings were 0.48% for the previous
year versus the targeted rate of 7.2%, bumping the UAL from $22.0 B to $26.6 B,
and overall PERS system funding to 69% funded.
 Why does the percentage the PERS system is funded matter? – PERS is limited in
how much they can increase the employer contribution rates each biennium
based on how much the plan is funded per PERS rate collar methodology
 When the PERS plan is 70% or more funded, the rate employers pay can
be increased by the greater of 3% of payroll or 20% of the current base
rate each biennium
 Between 60% and 70% funded – a graduated double rate collar is in
effect meaning as the plan funding drops from 70% to 60% funded, the
amount employer rates can increase each biennium goes up from 20% at
70% funded to 40% per biennium at 60% funded
 When plan funding falls below 60% funded, the rate collar doubles to
allow an increase of 6% of payroll or 40% of the current base rate
whichever is greater
 The State of the Oregon
20 Public Employee’s Retirement System (PERS)
Unfunded Actuarial Liability(UAL)

Hypothetical PERS Biennial Change Scenarios at Various Funding Levels

A PERS Plan Funded 70% Funded 20% of Base Rate OR 3% of Payroll Rate Increase Base Wages $ Increase

A Employer Blended Rate 24.0% 28.8% 27.0% 4.8% $67,000,000     3,216,000

B PERS Plan Funed 65% Funded 30% of Base Rate OR 3% of Payroll Rate Increase Base Wages $ Increase

B Employer Blended Rate 24.0% 31.2% 27.0% 7.2% $67,000,000     4,824,000

C PERS Plan Funed 60% Funded 40% of Base Rate OR 6% of Payroll Rate Increase Base Wages $ Increase

C Employer Blended Rate 24.0% 33.6% 30.0% 9.6% $67,000,000     6,432,000
 The State of the Oregon
21
Public Employee’s Retirement System (PERS)
Why does the earnings rate of PERS matter so much?

Projected Earnings Rates PERS Funding Sources

To PERS Board April 2017

• The Oregon PERS Fund earned

approximately 5.5% over the last
decade
• Almost three quarters of all
• Why did the PERS Board choose funding for Oregon PERS from
to reduce the earnings rate from 1970-2015 came from
7.5% to only 7.2%? investment earnings
 The State of the Oregon
22
Public Employee’s Retirement System (PERS)
Medford 549c’s GASB 68 Share of UAL 06/30/18
and Sensitivity to Earnings Rate Changes
1% Discount 1%
Decrease Rate Increase
(6.20%) (7.20%) (8.20%)
District's proportionate share of
the net pension liability $ 187,962,120 $ 112,472,096 $ 50,161,259

• Sensitivity of the District’s proportionate share of the net pension liability to

changes in the discount rate – The preceding presents the District’s
proportionate share of the net pension liability calculated using the
discount rate of 7.20 percent, as well as what the District’s proportionate
share of the net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a
discount rate that is 1-percentage-point lower (6.20 percent) or 1-
perentage-point higher (8.20 percent) than the current rate.
• A 1% drop in the assumed earnings rate increases the liability 67%
• PERS earned 0.48% versus target earnings of 7.2% last year. If the PERS fund
earns 6.2% long term, the Districts share of the UAL is $188 million or 123% of
the total general fund expenditures plus transfers out to other funds
budgeted for 2019-20.
 The State of the Oregon
23 (PERS)Unfunded Liability – What is driving it?
PERS Payout Projection
 Oregon PERS UAL (Page 26)
24 How is it impacting the
Medford SD 549c General Fund?
Annualized  
($ Millions) 2019‐20B 2015‐16 * Increase % Growth Comments
Total Salary and Wages $                     67.7 $                     58.5 $                     9.2 15.7% Increased FTE, Steps, COLA

Total Employer Paid PERS** $                     21.9 $                     13.8 $                     8.0 58.0% $5.9 Million due to rate Increases

$2.1 Million due to higer wage base
*2015‐16 adjusted to reduce substitute wages not subject to PERS

**Include employer contributions, UAL contributions, and employee contributions for employees 
where District pays employee portion.

• Over the last four years, employer paid PERS contributions by the District have grown
$8.0 million or 58.0% or 3.7 times as fast as salary and wages. In terms of dollars, PERS
has grown $8.0 million, almost as much as salary and wages, which have grown $9.2
million or 15.7% over the same timeframe
• If PERS employer contribution dollars had grown at the same rate as wages, 15.7%
over the last four years, the District would be spending $5.9 million less per year on
PERS in 2019-20
• PERS Sneak Peak 2021-23 - Costs are projected to go up an additional $5.2 million for
each year or $10.4 million for the 2021-23 biennium assuming equal payroll based on
projected increases in employer contribution rates
 Impact of SpEd Unfunded Mandate and PERS Cost Increases
Over the last 4-5 Years
25 How much State School Funding is needed to Offset?
What does this mean for the future?
• There has been a $12 million loss in resources at Medford School District 549c in the last five
years due to the combination of an estimated $6.00 million unfunded mandate for services
provided to students eligible for special education and a $5.9 million increase in mandated PERS
costs
• How much additional K-12 State School Funding is necessary to backfill Medford 549c to make
up for the preceding $12 million loss in resources?
• If we assume Medford 549c is approximately 2.4% of all weighted enrollment (ADMw) in
Oregon and additional funding would be allocated on this basis, the legislature would need
to increase funding approximately $1 billion over the biennium from its current projected
level of $8.8715 billion to $9.8715 billion to offset Medford 549c’s $12 million loss in resources
over the last 4-5 years. ($500 million/per year additional funding times 2.4% = $12 million SSF
increase for Medford 549c)
• Assuming K-12 funding continues to grow 4-4.5 % per year over time, assuming PERS cost
increases continue to grow at the current or higher rate and/or assuming SpEd unfunded
mandates continue to grow in line with recent trends, the District is going to have to
restructure/reduce overall services/staffing beginning with the 2021-23 biennium to balance the
budget in 2021-22
 21st Century Learning
Implementation of Chromebook Technology In the
26 Classroom

• The availability of classroom technology has increased rapidly over the last five years. The
District has gone from 297 to 13,757 Chromebooks in five years.
• The Non-Charter portion of the District has more Chromebooks 13,757 than students 12,517
• The total number of Chromebooks, Laptops, PC’s, printers and other mobile devices
managed by NTS has more than doubled to approximately 23,000 but NTS staff has only
increased 3 FTE over the same timeframe
• Replacement cost of current Chromebook inventory $4.2M
• Assuming a 4 year replacement cycle, Chromebook replacement costs will average
$1.05 million per year assuming there is no additional increase in inventory
 21st Century Learning
27 Chromebook Curriculum and 1to1 Pilot

• What is the value of a Chromebook to students without quality digital

curriculum aligned to state standards?
• There is a seven year cycle or curriculum adoptions (page 122)
• The District has been purchasing/aligning digital curriculum typically
buying books and digital curriculum with each new subject adoption
• While there is more work to be done, most, but not all subjects,
now have digital curriculum available
• Digital Curriculum plus books costs about $100-$120/student or
$1.3-$1.5 million per adoption
• Electronic Curriculum, Books and technology cost approximately
$2.35-$2.55 million per adoption
• $1.3-$1.5 million for curriculum plus
• $1.05 million for Chromebooks
• Ninth grade one-to-one Chromebook pilot will launch in 2019-20
• Expands time in the learning day
• Removes technology barriers for economically disadvantaged
students
 Key Student Performance Metric
28 – Graduation Rates (Pages ii,7)
 Despite the challenging and changing trends noted in the preceding pages, four
year graduation rates have increased from 65.21% to 80.50% over the last five years
 Said another way, in 2013-14 more than 1 out of 3 students were failing to graduate
in four years. By 2017-18, more than 4 out of 5 students are graduating on time
29
Section IV
The 2019-20 Proposed Budget Summary Overview
 2019-20 Proposed Budget Highlights
30
General Fund
 The 2019-20 Proposed Budget is balanced
 This budget is primarily focused on maintaining existing services
 District wide enrollment assumes very little growth
 SpEd budgets assume relatively flat SECC, if SECC does increase substantially in
line with recent trend, additional staffing will be necessary
 The combination of $5.91million in increased funding and a $4.30 million
reduction in transfers to other funds provides or frees up enough resources
to maintain staff work days and increase staffing 16.47 FTE
 Employee payroll benefit costs are increasing at a financially unsustainable
rate driven primarily by higher PERS contributions and healthcare costs
 Employee payroll benefits will increase $4.93 consuming 83% of this years
revenue increase
 No additional contributions to the PERS reserve are included in the Proposed
budget
 General Fund – Financial Summary
31 Proposed Balanced Budget for 2019-20
2019‐20 General Fund Proposed Budget Financial Summary

($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance

Revenue $ 151.11 $ 145.19 $ 5.91 4.1%
Transfers In From Other Funds 1.40 1.40 - 0.0%
Beginning Fund Balance Reserves 9.23 10.58 (1.35) -12.7%

Total Resources $ 161.74 $ 157.17 $ 4.57 2.9%

Salaries and Wages $ 67.72 $ 64.78 $ 2.94 4.5%

Employee Payroll Benefits 45.46 40.53 4.93 12.2%
Purchased Services 28.48 27.63 0.85 3.1%
Supplies and Materials 5.56 5.31 0.25 4.6%
Capital Outlay 0.16 0.23 (0.07) -28.4%
Other Expense Objects 0.85 0.89 (0.03) -3.7%

Subtotal Expenditures $ 148.23 $ 139.36 $ 8.87 6.4%

Transfers Out To Other Funds 4.28 8.58 (4.30) -50.1%

Contingency 9.23 9.23 0.00 0.0%

Contingency % of Revenue & Transfers In 6.1% 6.3%

Total Requirements $ 161.74 $ 157.17 $ 4.57 2.9%

 General Fund Financial Summary
32 Revenue ( Page 14)

($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance

Revenue $ 151.11 $ 145.19 $ 5.91 4.1%

• The Oregon State School Fund Co-chairs 2019-21 budget assumes $8.8715 billion or an 8.2%
increase over the 2017-19 $8.2 billion budget, growing at 4.05% per year
• For the District, Revenue is estimated to increase $5.91 million or 4.1% over prior budget and
includes the assumption of a $0.5 million 2018-19 true up in 2019-20. In 2018-19, there was a
$0.99 million or $0.49 million higher prior year revenue true up. If the prior year true ups were
equalized in both years, adjusted revenue would be up $6.32 million or 4.4%.
• Local sources, primarily property taxes, are up $1.25 million or 3.1%.
• Primarily Property taxes up $1.16 million or 3.1%
• Interest Income up $0.08 million due to higher interest rates
• Intermediate sources are up $0.04 million or 1.38% essentially flat to prior year
• State sources are up $4.6 million or 4.5%.
• Net State School Fund (SSF) is up $4.6 million or 5.5%
• All other state sources are flat year over year
 General Fund Financial Summary
33 Transfers in from Other Funds (Page 14)

($ Millions) 2019‐20PB 2018‐19B   Change Variance

Transfers In From Other Funds $               1.40 $               1.40 $                 ‐ 0.0%

Transfers in from other funds are equal to last year at $1.4 million.
• $1.4 million is being transferred in from the PERS reserve fund
• After the $1.4 million transfer in 2019-20 there will be $2.0 million
left in the PERS reserve fund
 General Fund Financial Summary
34 Beginning Fund Balance (Page 14)

($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance

Beginning Fund Balance Reserves $ 9.23 $ 10.58 $ (1.35) -12.7%

• Beginning Fund Balance Reserves are estimated at $9.23

million down $1.35 million or 12.7% from prior year due to
deficit spending in the prior year driven primarily by one
time transfers out to other funds in 2018-19 that will be
reduced in 2019-20 as detailed on page 44 of this
PowerPoint presentation
 General Fund Financial Summary
35
Total Resources (Page 14)

($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance

Total Resources $ 161.74 $ 157.17 $ 4.57 2.9%

• Total Resources available are projected up $4.57 million or

2.9% due to combination of Revenue up $5.91 million, no
change in transfers in from other funds and Beginning
Reserves down $1.35 million as detailed on preceding pages.
 General Fund Financial Summary
36 Salaries and Wages (Page 21)
($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance
Salaries and Wages $ 67.72 $ 64.78 $ 2.94 4.5%

• Salaries and Wages are up $2.94 million or 4.5% due to the

combination of:
• Step Wage Increase $1.2 million
• Cost of Living Adjustment (2%) $1.2 million
• Additional 16.47 FTE $0.82 million, includes 4.5 FTE
transfer from Measure 98
• Instruction 8.0 FTE
• Direct Instruction Support 5.0 FTE
• General Support 3.47 FTE
• Lower average Salaries due to attrition -$0.28 million
savings
 Staffing Changes for 2019-20
37 Across All Funds (Pages 22-24)

 Total Proposed FTE of 1,290.36 is up 10.97 or 0.86% from Current FTE of 1,279.39
 General Fund FTE of 1,169.2 is up 16.47 FTE or 1.4% from current FTE of 1,152.75
 Special Revenue Fund FTE are down 5.5 FTE or 4.3% to 121.15 from 126.65
 4.5 FTE shifted from Measure 98 to the General Fund and one open position eliminated

 The 10.97 FTE increase across all funds includes 6.0 FTE in Special Education and
4.97 FTE in non Special Education assignments
 The 6.0 FTE increase in Special Education assumes no increase in SECC count and
includes:
 2.0 FTE student success specialists in Early Intervening Services, 1.0 FTE Behavior Support in
Psychological services and moving 3.0 FTE in Psychological Services in house (offset by
reduction in professional contract services)
 If the increasing SECC count trend continues in 2019-20, additional staffing may be necessary
 The 4.97 FTE increase in non Special Education areas includes:
 2.0 FTE for Online School teachers in High School, 1.0 FTE Dual Language Coordinator, 1.0 FTE
IT Analyst II, 1.0 FTE Help Desk Supervisor in Network and Telecom Services, 1.0 FTE Career
Center and 0.47 FTE IMC Tech partially offset by a reduction of 1.0 FTE unfilled Check &
Connect position and a 0.50 reduction in Certified at NMHS
 General Fund Financial Summary
38 Employee Payroll Benefits (Pages 25-26)

($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance

Employee Payroll Benefits 45.46 40.53 4.93 12.2%

• Employee Payroll Benefits are up $4.93 million or 12.2%

• The $4.93 equates to 83% of the total revenue increase
• PERS is up $3.84 million or 21.3% to $21.87 million
• Approximately $3.2 million of the increase is due to increases in
employer contribution rates
• Approximately $0.64 million of the increase is due to higher
wages 2019-20
• Healthcare is up $0.79 million or 5.1% based on preliminary estimates
• Social Security and Medicare benefits are up $0.28 million driven by
the higher 2019-20 wage base
• All other benefits are up $.02 million year over year in total
• Throughout the 2019-20 Proposed Budget book you will see the functional
narrative regarding cost increases say “driven by ……and increases in
PERS and other employee payroll benefits.” The increases to PERS and
Healthcare noted above are the reason for this comment
 General Fund Financial Summary
39 Purchased Services (Page 27)

($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance

Purchased Services 28.48 27.63 0.85 3.1%

• Purchased Services are up $0.85 million or 3.1%.

• Charter School Payments are up $0.45 million or 3.5%
based on statutory pass through formula
• Transportation is $0.18 million or 3.0%
• Utilities are up $0.16 million or 7% based on
expected rate increases
• Travel & Training is up $0.06 million – PLTW, Skills USA,
PD for Dual Language Program, Teachers College
Writers Revolution, CPM (Algebra)
• All other purchased services are equal to prior year
in total
 General Fund Financial Summary
40 Supplies and Materials (Page 28)

($ Millions) 2019‐20PB 2018‐19B   Change Variance

Supplies and Materials                  5.56                  5.31                  0.25 4.6%

• Supplies and Materials are up $0.25 million or 4.6%

• Software is up $0.275 million or 27.7% due primarily
to $0.175 million for the new Synergy Student
Information System, $0.076 for a new ELL software,
$0.05 million PowerSchool maintenance transferred
from other expense objects (page 28) partially offset
by $0.026 in reductions spread across several smaller
software packages
• Excluding software, overall supplies and materials
are down $0.025 million or $0.5%.
 General Fund Financial Summary
41 Capital Outlay (Page 28)

($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance

Capital Outlay 0.16 0.23 (0.07) -28.4%

• Capital Outlay is down $70K due primarily to replacing

a 35 year old delivery truck for $85K in the 2018-19
fiscal year.
 General Fund Financial Summary
42 Other Expense Objects (Page 29)

($ Millions) 2019‐20PB 2018‐19B   Change Variance

Other Expense Objects                  0.85                  0.89                (0.03) ‐3.7%

• Other objects are down $0.03 million or 3.7%.

• $0.05 million transferred to software for
PowerSchool maintenance
• Excluding the Power School costs transferred to
Software (page 26), costs are up $0.02 million or
2.0% due to inflation of dues/fees/memberships.
 General Fund Financial Summary
43 Total Expenditures (Page 20)

($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance

Subtotal Expenditures $ 148.23 $ 139.36 $ 8.87 6.4%

• Total expenditures are up $8.87 million or 6.4% due

primarily to the combination of a $2.94 million increase
in Salaries and Wages (33%), $4.93 million increase in
Employee Payroll Benefits (56%) and $0.85 million
increase in purchased services noted in the
preceding pages. Supplies and Materials, Capital
Outlay and Other Objects make up the remaining
$0.15 million increase (1%)
 General Fund Financial Summary
44 Transfers Out to Other Funds (Page 29)
($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance
Transfers Out To Other Funds 4.28 8.58 (4.30) -50.1%

• Transfers out to other funds are down $4.30 million or 50.1%.

• Transfers to Capital Projects are down $2.92 million
• $2.6 million less for Chromebooks
• $0.59 million less for Synergy Student Information
System
• Partially offset by $0.27 more for other projects
• Transfers to the PERS reserve are down $1.38 million
based on 2018-19 transfers to PERS reserves not being
budgeted for 2019-20.
• The $4.28 million in transfers out to other funds for 2019-20
are going to Project Reserves $3.628 million (pages 116-122),
Secondary Athletics $0.375 million (page 113), Physical
Education Expansion (PEEK) $0.250 million (page 112)and
Food Service Guarantee $0.025 million (page 110)
 General Fund Financial Summary
45 Contingency (Page 29)

($ Millions) 2019-20PB 2018-19B Change Variance

Contingency 9.23 9.23 (0.00) 0.0%
Contingency % of Revenue & Transfers In 6.1% 6.3%

• Contingency is projected to be equal to prior year in

dollars at $9.23 million but lower as a percentage of
Revenue plus Transfers in for 2019-20 at 6.1% versus
6.3% in 2018-19.
 Special Revenue Requirements Highlights
46 (pages 105-124)
 Requirements = Spending plus Reserves/Contingency
( $ Millions) 2019‐20 2018‐19
Requirements by Program Proposed Budget $ Variance % Variance Comments
Federal Programs Pages  $                  8.02 $                  8.02 $            ‐ 0.00% Federal Programs Budgeted to be flat year over year
107‐109
State and Local Programs Page 110 $                  1.08 $                  1.27 $        (0.19) ‐14.81% The first $0.15 milllion of capital for Food Service will be spent 
directly in Food Service Fund rather than transferred to the Food 
Service Gaurantee Fund
PERS Reserve Page 111 $                  3.42 $                  4.82 $        (1.40) ‐29.07% PERS reserve resources are projected to drop $1.4 million after 
transfer to General Fund with no incremental Transfers In

Physical Education Expansion (PEEK) Page 112 $                  0.50 $                  0.51 $        (0.01) ‐1.01% Essentially flat year over year

Secondary Athletics Page 113 $                  0.69 $                  0.70 $        (0.01) ‐1.04% Essentially flat year over year

Food Service Operations Page 114 $                  7.02 $                  7.03 $        (0.01) ‐0.15% Essentially flat year over year

Seismic Upgrades Page 115 $                  1.50 $                  1.73 $        (0.23) ‐13.04% This is a rough estimate. Seismic retrofit projects in this fund are 

Project Reserves
Measure 98 ‐ High School Success
Pages    $                  5.17 $                  9.06 $        (3.89)
116‐122
Page 123 $                  1.70 $                  2.72 $        (1.02)
grant funded
‐42.94% Down due to combination of $2.6 million less in Chromebook 
purchases, $1.0 million less for Griffin Creek Expansion and $0.59 
less for initial purchase of Synergy Student Information System 
partially offset by $0.38 million increase in all other projects
‐37.47% Down due to carry over funding in 2018‐19 from 2017‐18.

Measure 99 Outdoor School Page 124 $                  0.23 $                  0.23 $        (0.00) ‐0.47% Slight reduction, but still awaiting final numbers from State

Total Requirements by Program $                29.33 $                36.07 $        (6.75) ‐18.71%

 Other Funds Requirements Highlights
47 (pages 125-131)
 Requirements = Spending plus Reserves/Contingency

( $ Millions) 2019‐20 2018‐19

Requirements by Program Proposed Budget $ Variance % Variance Comments
Debt Service ‐ General Obligation Bonds Page 126 $                13.59 $                  13.60 $        (0.01) ‐0.11% Debt Service Per Payment Schedule

Debt Service ‐ Pension Obligation Bonds Page 127 $                  4.25 $                     4.08 $          0.17 4.19% Debt Service Per Payment Schedule

Bond ‐ Capital Projects Fund Page 128 $                  0.23 $                     0.22 $          0.01 5.41% Funds from payments for West Side 

School by Madrone Trail
Health Insurance Fund Page 129 $                22.27 $                  21.36 $          0.91 4.24% Reflects cost of Medical Inflation

Trust and Agency Fund ‐ Student Scholarships Page 130 $                  0.74 $                     0.74 $          0.01 0.96% Essentially flat year over year

Trust and Agency Fund ‐ Student Body Activity Funds Page 131 $                  3.52 $                     3.43 $          0.09 2.56% Essentially flat year over year

Total Requirements by Program $                44.61 $                  43.44 $          1.17 2.69%

48 Next Steps

 Email any questions or comments you have to Brad Earl by noon Wednesday
May 8th
 Brad will email all of you with the group email list in the next 24 hours
 Next Budget Committee Meeting is Monday May 13th at 6 pm
 3rd Budget Committee Meeting (If needed) - Tuesday May 21st at 6 pm
 Board Meeting: Public Hearing on the FY2019-20 Budget – Monday June 3, 7 pm
 Board Meeting: Adoption of the 2019-20 Budget – Monday June 17, 7 pm