1. Lansing Central School District Budget Update April 11, 2011 Dr. Stephen L. Grimm, Superintendent Ms. Mary June King, Business Administrator

2. HISTORICAL BUDGET CHANGES 08/09 – 10/11 (3 budget years) 2008-20092010-2011$ change% change General Support $ 2,984,620$ 2,909,334$ - 75,286- 2.5 % Instruction $ 11,981,900$ 12,494,429$ 512,5294.3 % Pupil Transportation $ 1,072,849$ 1,037,615$ - 35,232- 3.28 % Undistributed Benefits $ 6,798,910$ 7,936,529$ 1,137,61916.73 % TOTALS $ 22,838,279$ 24,377,907$ 1,539,6306.74 %

3. HISTORICAL BUDGET REDUCTIONS 08/09 – 10/11 (3 budget years) Administrative staff reduced 25% Teaching staff reduced 13% Support staff reduced 14% Instructional M&S reduced 52% Instructional contractual reduced 22% Instructional equipment reduced 12% Central Services reduced 7.65% Transportation dept reduced 3.3%

4. HISTORICAL BUDGET INCREASES 08/09 – 10/11 (3 budget years) Teaching Regular School increased 3.4% Programs for SPED increased 13.3% – BOCES portion increased 71% BOCES Occupational Ed increased 24.8% BOCES Comp-Assist Instruct increased 60% Retirement benefits increased 8.58% Health insurance increased 20.17% Debt service increased 22% – Most of this increase has matching offsetting revenue

5. TAX LEVY, RATE AND BUDGET HISTORY Tax-related calculation for 2008-2009 uses AES as PILOT. 2008-20092009-2010% CHG2010-2011 % CHG AVG % CHG BUDGET22,838,91223,944,3154.8 %24,377,9071.8 %3.4 % COMB. LEVY 15,175,92915,785,6334.0 %16,028,4711.5 %2.8 % TAX RATE17.7617.60- 0.01 %18.484.9 %2.0 %

6. TAX HISTORY CONSIDERATIONS 2008-20092009-20102010-2011 PROJECTED TAX RATE $17.96$17.76$18.64 ACTUAL TAX RATE $17.76$17.60$18.48

7. ROLLOVER v. PROJECTED 2011-2012 ROLLOVERPROJECTEDDIFFERENCE GENERAL SUPPORT$ 3,058,547$ 3,005,547$ - 53,000 INSTRUCTION$ 12,839,185$ 12,434,185$ - 405,000 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION $ 1,056,960$ 996,960 $ - 60,000 UNDISTRIBUTED EXPENDITURES $ 8,838,810 $ 0 TOTALS$ 25,793,502$ 25,275,502$ - 518,000

8. BUDGET CUTS BUILT IN 2011-2012 BUDGET CODEITEMDECREASE IN $$CAVEATS 1310-490 School Lunch Super 53,000Offset revenue 2110-120/130/150Teach Regular Sal210,000Grade 1/Science 2110-160Teach Regular Sal20,000TA 2250-150SPED Instruct Sal55,0001 FTE 2250-490SPED BOCES110,000Decreased RFS 2340-490Inc Youth/BOCES10,000Decreased costs 5510-160Transportation Sal60,000Adj. for current exp TOTALS$ 518,000

9. 2011-2012 PROPOSED BUDGET STAFFING REDUCTIONS 0.4FTE, HS Science position 1FTE, 7-12 Math position 1FTE, Sp Ed teaching position 1FTE, Teaching Assistant position 1FTE, K-12 teaching position

10. BUDGET STATE AREA TOTALS, 11/12 UNDISTRIBUTED EXPENDITURES 2010-20112011-2012 % CHANGE Employee Benefits $ 5,785,403$ 6,535,412 12.96 % Debt Services$ 2,151,125$ 2,303,398 7.08 % Debt Service is offset by matching revenues (state aid) 2010-20112011-2012$ CHANGE% CHANGE IN 11/12, AS % OF BUDGET General Support $ 2,909,334$ 3,005,547$ 96,2133.31 %11.89 % Instruction$ 12,494,428$ 12,434,185$ - 60,243- 0.48 %49.19 % Pupil Transportation $ 1,037,616$ 996,960$ - 40,656- 3.92 %3.94 % Undistributed Expenditures $ 7,936,529$ 8,838,810$ 902,28111.37 %34.97 % TOTAL:$24,377,907$ 25,275,503$ 897,5953.68 %

11. COMPARATIVE BREAK-DOWN: Budget Expenses

12. 3.68% INCREASE BY CATEGORY GENERAL SUPPORT = 0.39% INSTRUCTION = (0.25)% PUPIL TRANSPORTATION = (0.17)% UNDISTRIBUTED EXP = 3.71%

13. BUDGET, 11/12 (another, but familiar, perspective) 2010-20112011-2012$ CHANGE % CHANGE IN 11/12, AS % OF BUDGET SALARIES$ 10,869,287$ 10,673,464$ - 195,823- 1.8 %42.23 % NON- SALARIES $ 2,318,596$ 2,424,468$ 105,8724.57 %9.59 % BOCES$ 3,253,495$ 3,338,759$ 85,2642.62 %13.21 % BENEFITS$ 5,785,403$ 6,535,412$ 750,00912.96 %25.86 % DEBT SERVICE $ 2,151,125$ 2,303,398$ 152,2737.08 %9.11 % TOTALS$ 24,377,907$ 25,275,503$ 897,5953.68 %

14. COMPARATIVE BREAK-DOWN Budget Expenses

15. 3.68% INCREASE BY CATEGORY SALARIES = (0.8)% NON-SALARIES w/o BOCES = 0.43% BOCES = 0.34% BENEFITS = 3.07% DEBT SERVICE = 0.62%

16. BUDGET INCREASE SPECIFICS 2011-2012 Total proposed budget increase =$ 897,595 ERS/TRS increase = - 306,764 (with cuts) Debt Service increase = - 207,344 (with matching revenue) Funding Cliff = - 149,290 (ARRA-related costs re-added to budget) Remaining budget increase = $ 234,197 $ 234,197 = 0.93 % Budget increase for all other costs of doing the business of providing education

17. REVENUE TRENDS Tax-related calculation for 2008-2009 uses AES as PILOT. Calculations for 2011-12 assume levy increase of 2.6%. 2008-2009 (actual) 2009-2010 (actual) % CHG 2010-2011 (anticipated) % CHG 2011-2012 % CHG STATE AID7,176,0266,383,245-11.16,412,2460.56,471,3110.9 FEDERAL AID17,7271,051,4825931455,847-56.730,000-93.2 MISCELLANEOUS2,705,802784,800-71.0802,3292.23499,446-37.8 APPROPRIATED0368,0001,371,000372.61,830,53533.5 PILOTS 2,803,7843,014,7457.52,677,315 -11.22,393,907-10.6 TAXES 12,372,14512,770,8883.213,351,156 4.514,050,3045.2 25,075,48424,373,16025,069,89325,275,503

18. FUND BALANCE PROJECTION 2008-20092009-20102010-2011 (est) REVENUES$ 991,649$ 798,523$ 691,987 EXPENSES$ 925,778$ 1,094,055$ 478,708 FUND BALANCE$ 1,917,427$ 1,892,578$ 1,170,695

19. REVENUE PROJECTIONS 2011-2012 (assumes 2.6% combined levy increase) 2010-2011 (anticipated) 2011-2012$ CHANGE% CHANGE IN 11/12, AS % OF BUDGET STATE AID$ 6,412,246$ 6,471,311$ 59,0650.92 %25.60 % FEDERAL AID$ 455,847$ 30,000$ -425,847- 93.42 %0.12 % MISCELLANEOUS$ 802,329$ 499,466$ -302,86320.40 %1.98 % APPROPRIATED FB $ 1,371,000$ 1,170,695$ -200,305-14.61 %4.63 % APPROP RESERVES 0 $ 660,535 2.60 % PILOT$ 2,677,315$ 2,393,907$ -283,408-10.59 %9.45 % TAXES$13,351,156$14,060,304$ 709,1485.31 %55.62 % TOTALS$25,069,893$25,275,503$ 216,3250.82 %100.00

20. COMPARATIVE REVENUE BREAK-DOWN

21. THE AES STORY At the current tax rate (18.48), every $5 million decrease in AES is a ‘loss’ of $92,400 in tax levy for the District. To maintain the tax levy, the tax rate must increase to make up for the decrease in AES value. Projection assumes: 1% taxable value increase, 0% levy increase. Lansing budget is similar to similar-sized schools. Combined Levy % chg levy Tax Rate Tax Rate Chg Chg for 100000 home Proposed Combined Levy 16,028,4710.00%$18.7421.42% $ 26$16,028,471

22. IMPACT OF AES VALUE DECREASES 2010-2011 REDUCTION OF AES $30,000,000 150 HOMES AT $200,000ea LEFT DISTRICT 2011-2012 REDUCTION OF AES $17,500,000 87 HOMES AT $200,000ea + 1 HOME AT $100,000 LEFT THE DISTRICT

23. COMPARATIVE COMBINED LEVY BREAK-DOWN

24. Multi-Year Financial Projections * Assumes a 2% PTCap 24 2011 - 20122012-2013 Budget25,275,50026,800,000 Revenue23,500,00024,000,000 Budget Gap (Deficit) 1,775,5002,800,000 Additional Tax Levy465,000330,000 Appropriated FB1,170,0001,000,000 Reserves605,500600,000 CUTS ($520,000 embedded) 870,000 Remaining Gap($0)

25. Multi-Year Financial Projections 25 2012-20132013-2014 Budget26,800,00027,100,000 Revenue24,000,00024,330,000 Budget Gap (Deficit) 2,800,0002,770,000 Additional Tax Levy330,00340,000 Appropriated FB1,000,000 Reserves600,000 CUTS870,000830,000 Remaining Gap($0)

26. Reduction Scenarios (List is in alphabetical order) 26 Athletics - Non- Varsity (.3) $ 100,000 Class Size at Elementary School (25) 5 Teachers $ 300,000 Class Size High School (27) 4 Teachers $ 240,000 Class Size Middle School (25) 4 Teachers $ 240,000 Co-curricular Offering (.5) $ 75,000 Encore/Electives $ 60,000 Enrichment (1.5) $ 90,000 Library Staff $ 75,000 Nursing $ 40,000 Other $ 100,000 SPED Teacher 1.0 FTE District Wide $ 50,000 Support Staff - Cleaning & Grounds $ 120,000 Teacher Leadership Stipends/Positions $ 40,000 Teaching Assts (13) $ 520,000 Technology Staff $ 60,000 Transportation $ 100,000 Total $ 2,210,000

27. Key Questions What quality of education are we responsible to deliver to this generation of children in Lansing? What quality of education are we willing to support in Lansing? 27

28. Key Questions What is an appropriate class size at each of the schools? How much transportation should the district provide? 28

29. Key Questions Should we support a comprehensive educational and social experience in our schools? Can the Town provide “pay to play” extracurricular and encore opportunities? If so, which ones? 29

30. Key Questions Are we willing to sacrifice the general conditions of our buildings and grounds? If so, by how much? Can we provide programs for our most needy students on campus instead of paying BOCES tuition? 30

31. Next Steps Community Engagement Advisory Team –Community Members –Board Members –Professors –Teachers –Staff –Administrators –Parents –Students –Other Experts –Other 31

32. Next Steps Advisory Team Goals –Answer the key questions –Explore other cost savings opportunities –Explore other ways to deliver education –Recommend and/affirm the scope of educational opportunity our schools should provide –Recommend a level of financial support the community may be willing to provide 32

33. Next Steps July – Organize Advisory Team August – Organizational Meeting Sept – Meeting/Research/Analysis October – Meeting/Research/Analysis November – Meeting/Research/Analysis December – Produce Recommendations January – First Draft Budget Projections 33

34. Area Tax Levy Rates Approximate and Unofficial 34 Candor 6 to 9% Dryden 6% Groton 4 to 6% Ithaca 2.9% Newfield 6% South Seneca 2.8% Spencer Van Etten 11%

35. Recommended Budget Summary Approved 2010-2011 Budget$ 24,377,906 Proposed 2011-2012 Budget$ 25,275,503 Proposed 2011-2012 Increase$ 897,597 Proposed % Increase 3.68 % 35

36. REVENUES w/ $2,247,250 APPROP and $0 ADDITIONAL LEVY Proposed Budget Budget to Budget Change Proposed Combined Tax Levy % Chg Combined Tax Levy Tax Rate Tax Rate Chg Chg for $100,000 Home 25,275,5033.68%16,028,4710%18.741.43%$ 26 BUILT-IN CUTS TO BUDGET = $ 518,000 USE OF PROJECTED FUND BALANCE = $1,170,000 USE OF RESERVES TO FILL GAP = $1,077,250 REMAINING RESERVES = $ 1,567,172 PROPOSED BUDGET FINANCED WITH NO LEVY INCREASE

37. REVENUES w/ $1,942,728 APPROP and $304,522 ADDITIONAL LEVY Proposed Budget Budget to Budget Change Proposed Combined Tax Levy % Chg Combined Tax Levy Tax Rate Tax Rate Chg Chg for $100,000 Home 25,275,5033.68%16,332,0181.9%19.103.34%$ 62 BUILT-IN CUTS TO BUDGET = $ 518,000 USE OF PROJECTED FUND BALANCE = $ 1,170,000 USE OF RESERVES TO FILL GAP = $ 772,728 REMAINING RESERVES = $ 1,871,674 PROPOSED BUDGET FINANCED WITH 1.9% LEVY INCREASE

38. REVENUES w/ $1,830,535 APPROP and $416,715 ADDITIONAL LEVY Proposed Budget Budget to Budget Change Proposed Combined Tax Levy % Chg Combined Tax Levy Tax Rate Tax Rate Chg Chg for $100,000 Home 25,275,5033.68%16,444,2112.6%19.234.05%$ 75 BUILT-IN CUTS TO BUDGET = $ 518,000 USE OF PROJECTED FUND BALANCE = $1,170,000 USE OF RESERVES TO FILL GAP = $ 660,535 REMAINING RESERVES = $1,983,887 PROPOSED BUDGET FINANCED WITH 2.6% LEVY INCREASE

39. SUMMARY FACTS & TRUST: – We have focused on significant cost cutting for past 3 years FACTS & TRUST: – We have appropriated fund balance back to taxpayers each year FACTS & TRUST: – Projected tax rate has been reduced from projected rate at annual vote every year once final assessments are received.

40. BOE DECISIONS, 4/11/11 We are asking tonight for: – Approval of the proposed budget at $25,275,503 – Approval of a proposed funding plan (only for publication purposes, these are all estimates at this time): (remaining reserves amounts include 4% undesignated fund) 0% COMBINED LEVY INCREASE 1.9% COMBINED LEVY INCREASE 2.6% COMBINED LEVY INCREASE CUTS$ 518,000 RESERVES$ 1,077,250 $ 772,728$ 660,535 ADDITIONAL LEVY$ 0$ 304,522$ 416,715 REMAINING RESERVES $ 1,567,172$ 1,871,674$ 1,983,887