Budget Analysis By: Georgina Grogan

 Located south of Appleton  5 elementary schools  1 middle school  1 H.S.

 3,770 students (according to actual September 3 rd Friday Count)  According to WINNS data from 09-10: ◦ 52% of students are low income  75 % Caucasian  15% Hispanic  5% Asian  4% African American  1% Native American

School YearGeneral Fund Expenditures Projected DeficitPercent (%) of Budget ,895,3391,465, % ,070,1321,696,9963.9% ,062,5591,921,3134.4% ,074,5962,164,3524.8% ,154,8952,474,7345.4%

DescriptionFTENet Adjustment TypeAdd or Reduction Operational or One- time Teacher Staff 32.80*669,525Exp.ReductionOperational Admin and Support Staff ,620Exp.ReductionOperational Freeze Supply Allocations NA 60,000Exp.ReductionOperational ARRA Funding NA147, 600Rev.AdditionOne-Time Total49.401,465,745

Budget Shortfalls Initial Projection (Jan. 2010) (1,465,746)(1,696,996)(1,921,313)(2,164,352)(2,474,734) Approved Plan (Apr. 2010) 0(254,198)(348,303)(454,811)(621,626) Preliminary Budget (218,258)(472,456)(566,561)(673,069)(839,884)

Budget General Fund39,801,606 Special Projects Funds 7,915,728 Debt Services Fund (38 &39) 1,854,647 Other Capital Projects Fund 875,000 Food Service Fund 1,442,393 Community Services Fund 695,339 Package/Cooperative Program Fund 166,365 Total All Funds52,751,078

Budget 09-10Budget 10-11($) Change(%) Change General Fund40, 381,13040,019,865(361,265)-0.9% Special Projects Fund 7, ,915, , % Debt Services Fund (38 &39) 1,784,631 1,872,379 87, % Other Capital Projects , ,863 * Food Services Fund 1,293,139 1,393, , % Community Services Fund 774, ,339 11, % Package/Cooperative Program Fund 137, ,365 28, % Total All Funds51,756,81153,028,5551,271,7442.5%

Sep 09-10Sep Change% of prior year Administrators (1.6)89.7% Administrative Support Unit (0.5)96.1% Teachers (24.3)92.2% Secretaries (0.4)97.8% Maintenance (1.0)93.3% Food Service9.28.9(0.3)96.3% Paraprofessionals (6.0)90.9% Total FTEs (34.2)92.4%

 Salary and Benefits represent 68% of general fund expenditures: ◦ Administration: 3% ◦ Administrative Support Unit: 3% ◦ Regular & special education teachers: 69% ◦ Paraprofessionals: 15% ◦ Secretaries: 5% ◦ Maintenance: 3% ◦ Food Service: 2%

 Purchased Services represent 14 % of the district’s budget or $5,403,410. ◦ Personal Services $ 273,979 ◦ Property Services $1,562,196 ◦ Utilities $1,077,090 ◦ Transportation $992,066 ◦ Communications $99,848 ◦ Intergovernmental Transfers $1,367,181

 The district spends 3% of the district’s budget on non-capital objects or $1,159,013. ◦ Supplies & materials: $640,429 ◦ Non-Capital Equipment: $16,010 ◦ Media $198,339 ◦ Textbooks $183,260 ◦ Non-Instructional Software $167,988  Is it appropriate to cut expenditures in this category?

 2% of the school district’s budget is spent on capital objects or $784,335.  Is it appropriate to cut expenditures in this category?

Only $144,238 is spent on staff development. This represents a small amount of the districts’ budget.

 $47,540 is spent on dues and fees.  This category is too small to make significant changes in the budget.

 The majority of the resources are allocated on staffing, mainly teaching staff.  The district can’t cut its staff anymore:  Class sizes increased K-12 for the school year: ◦ Elimination of SAGE ◦ EEN caseload increase ◦ GT staff reduction ◦ Media specialists reduction ◦ Elementary specialists reduction ◦ Paraprofessionals reduction

 Shared services through collaboration with other districts or entities  Facility use rate increase  Fee increase with sliding fee schedule (free/reduced)  Strategically work to gain political support to pass a referendum to find building renovation projects and other expenditures.

 As class sizes increase, it is important that educators continue to receive constant staff development and support on differentiating instruction: ◦ Increase staff development budget ◦ Continue to increase literacy and technology coaches in the district so that eventually each building has a literacy or technology coach.