For those of you following this blog I apologize for not updating sooner. Having said that, let me attempt to catch you up with the most current information.
First, since my last post the Legislature has approved a budget. Based on the information we currently have, we will be cut the following amounts if the sales tax increase passes on May 18th: $52,673 for teacher experience index; $41,750 for tuition; $204,512 for loss of enrollment; $152,527 for soft capital; and $177,138 for full-day kindergarten. This is a total cut of $628,600, of which $476,073 is M&O. These cuts are in addition to the continued suspension of building renewal money and excess utility money. Building renewal money is a $420,000 loss to us. (Remember, $210,000 of the building renewal money was first suspended in the 2007-08 school year, with the full $420,000 suspended each year since. This is the money that was designated for maintenance and repair of our buildings.) Excess utility money has also been suspended since the 2007-08 school year when it totaled $193,000 to us. (Remember, excess utilities represent the difference between what we currently spend on utilities compared to what we spent in 1985.) In addition to these cuts to our budget, we will lose another $100,875 in state grant dollars that pay for gifted education and preschool programming. Finally, the state is delaying their financial payment to us for April, May, and June, totaling $1,459,659. This will cause a cash flow problem and will require us to borrow from and pay interest to a bank until the state releases our funds (expected in July).
If the sales tax increase fails on May 18th, we have all of the cuts listed above plus: an additional $82,125 in soft capital; $274,909 in hard capital; and $137,171 in our base level support. These additional cuts, combined with those listed above, make the grand total $1,122,805.
I will be sending out a letter with more information regarding what these cuts mean to us and describing the specific categories, but wanted to give you an idea of the enormous challenge we face.
Regarding the more immediate issue within our district, the Governing Board will be holding a meeting tomorrow night, March 30th, at 6:30 in the District Auditorium to discuss and possibly take action on financial savings for the District. Options to provide financial savings to the District will be considered, including designating Mammoth Elementary School (one wing) as a STEM School and First Avenue Elementary School to serve students throughout the District; salary reduction; reduction in force; reorganization of school resources; and reduction of school programs. I encourage anyone who has an opinion on this topic to address the Board in “Call to the Public.” In order to do so, any individual wishing to address the Board must fill out a request prior to the beginning of the Board meeting. Requests can be obtained in my office and will also be available at the front door prior to the beginning of the meeting.
Finally, separate from the issue to be discussed tomorrow night, we must prepare for the event that the sales tax does not pass on May 18th. In order to do so, the Board voted to hold a public hearing on April 13th, 2010 in order to hear public comment on the possible closing of a school or schools next year. THIS PUBLIC HEARING WILL NOT TAKE PLACE ON APRIL 13TH. At the April 8, 2010 Governing Board meeting, it will be rescheduled for a later date. Once the new date for the Public Hearing has been sent I will post it in this blog, on our web site, in each school, and will send home a written announcement with each student so that everyone is clear about the revised date.
March 29, 2010 at 4:21 pm |
I’m confused. Is the April 8th meeting postponed, and I special meeting being held on April 13th? Or is there a meeting on both the 13th and the 8th?
Thanks~~
March 29, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
No, the April 8th meeting is not being postponed. We have a Special Governing Board meeting tomorrow night and we have a Regular Governing Board meeting on April 8. There is no meeting on April 13th. (April 13th is the second Tuesday of the month, which is our normal meeting date. However, the regular meeting was changed to April 8th due to a calendar conflict that prevented a Board member from attending on the 13th.)
I hope this helps. I know it is very confusing.
March 30, 2010 at 4:29 pm |
Thanks for the clarification. Yes it helps a lot!!
March 31, 2010 at 12:31 pm |
To my understanding a solution was presented that met the requirements to keep mammoth and san manuel schools open within the budget. If everything you are doing is to benefit the kids why would you not keep both schools open if it can be done within the budget?
April 1, 2010 at 6:09 pm |
There have been a lot of suggestions to keep both schools open. The Governing Board chose the one they believed was the best for the entire district.
March 31, 2010 at 6:08 pm |
First of all Mr. Rickel I want to let you know that I have many questions and as a parent of children attending the Mammoth-San Manuel I believe I am entitled to answers. I know firsthand that you answer most all questions directed to you with out a yes or no. Answer my questions with a yes or no response . 1) Can both schools continue to be open at least next year with the budget cut presented by the citizens committee? Did the district pay $2,534 a year for trash bins that are not being used? First ave school has a total of 416 students enrolled pre-k through 6th and according to the school facility board the capacity is 438. Does adding mammoth elementary students minus the stem school students exceed the capacity of 438 for first Ave school? Let me remind you that I want my questions to be answered yes or no.
April 1, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
I can’t answer the first question because I was not given the dollar amounts in time to analyze that plan.
No, the district did not spend $2,534 a year for trash bins that are not being used.
Yes, with no loss in enrollment over the summer, First Ave could exceed the School Facility Board capacity. No, with no loss in enrollment over the summer, First Ave could not exceed functional capacity.
April 4, 2010 at 8:58 pm |
Dr. Rickel,
You are presenting good solid, infomation to all your readers for all of our communities, about how the State’s budget is effecting every school district in Arizona. You put the facts out, and in both situations it is not good for students in any school district. I do not know of any other Arizona school superintendent who is bogging through a public newspaper. We are all better informed for it. Thank you for your efforts to post in this format.
John Clark
April 7, 2010 at 8:02 pm |
Is the STEM Program the Board voted for on 3/30/10 being funded with Federal money? Many people I have spoken to in the San Manuel community are being led to believe that it is.
Please give specific details where this funding is coming from.
April 8, 2010 at 7:10 am |
The only additional cost associated specifically with STEM is a stipend for the teachers that are chosen to work there. That stipend is for the professional development work those teachers will do over the summer, and it will come from Federal grant dollars, not from our M&O budget.
STEM is a philosophy – a way of teaching children the same Arizona State Academic Standards that all children in the State are taught. The difference is the standards are taught using hands-on, real life experiences with an emphasis in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math. Thus, there is no new curriculum to be purchased.
As for the cost of teachers and supplies, the same number of teachers will be teaching in our district whether STEM was approved or not; whether one school was completely shut down or not; or whether one school was shut down and one remained open as a STEM wing. The same is true for supplies. Students will use supplies whether they are in a STEM classroom or a more traditional classroom.
Finally, some have argued that keeping a wing open in Mammoth is an additional cost. That is true, but that cost is not related to STEM. It was a conscious decision to help offset next year’s cuts. What has been lost in the emotion of this decision is that STEM is the reason to keep a wing open at MES, not the reason to close all but one wing. In one of the petitions that was circulated it states “Keeping a school open for only 80 students is not an economically wise decision.” If you have been following this blog and/or forums and Board meetings, you have repeatedly heard that the over all philosophy is to avoid drastic ups and downs – meaning we will stretch our resources as far as we can by doing the minimum we have to in order to absorb the cuts we face. The plan approved was a way to keep MES open and at the same time, prepare us for the “funding cliff” that we know is coming next year as a result of the Federal stimulus dollars going away. (The stimulus money was only funded for two years, with next year being the second year.) In our district we will lose approximately $200,000 in stimulus funding at the end of the next school year. By keeping a school partially open (with or without STEM) we were able to absorb the cuts we currently face and also prepare for the funding cliff we are facing at the end of next year. How? Assuming there is no drastic turnaround in the economy, we will most likely have to close either First Ave or MES next year. In addition to likely cuts from the State and from declining enrollment, we also know we will lose the $200,000 in stimulus dollars. And when that happens, the costs associated with keeping a wing open will help offset that loss. Had we closed a school entirely this year, we would have cut more than we needed in order to absorb this year’s cuts, and been left with nothing to help offset next year’s cuts.
April 8, 2010 at 10:41 am |
Dr. Rickel, your reply to my question is appreciated. Unfortunately, information regarding where the funding for the STEM Program is coming from has not been thoroughly communicated in the past, since numerous reumors are circulating, not only in the two communities involved, but even with your own school personnel and at least one board member.
You also state in your reply that “the same number of teachers will be teaching in our district whether STEM was approved or not.” I certainly hope this is the case, since based upon hearing numerous teachers speak, defending their positions at the March 30th meeting, it appears that many of your certified staff are not aware of this and fear loosing their jobs in the upcoming school year. Again, is this a lack of good communication?
April 8, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
Timely, accurate communication is always a challenge. I have found that even when I say something directly to someone, that communication can get distorted the more times it gets repeated to others.
I want to make sure I clarify my answer that “the same number of teachers will be teaching in our district whether STEM was approved or not; whether one school was completely shut down or not; or whether one school was shut down and one remained open as a STEM wing.” By comparing those scenarios to each other I was attempting to demonstrate that STEM is not an additional staffing cost It was not meant to compare the number of teachers this year to the number of teachers next year.
As the original plan stated, by having the majority of the student population attend First Ave and keeping a wing of MES open, our targeted class sizes will be maintained but the number of teachers will be reduced by four compared to this year. The final number of teachers that will actually be RIF’d will be determined after attrition takes place and whether the vote on May 18th (regarding the tax increase) passes.
May 4, 2010 at 11:10 pm |
Dr. Rickel,
I was just on the website and I noticed that there is a change in the agenda for the May 6, 2010 meeting. There was something on there about savings or budgets for this next school year and It is not there now. Can you please explain to me where this went and why? I would like to know just how much the school district is saving this year and where that money is coming from. Especially since we have all the money in the world, well at least enough to hire people back and give current employees a new contract with a “salary market increase”. Even more so since you keep telling us that you are doing all you can in this “Bad economy”.
May 5, 2010 at 3:48 am |
The agenda item was removed because of a technicality in procedure.
The cost savings of the district were outlined in my post on February 28 (found in the comments under the Feb 26 post).
Employees have been brought back because we have been able to take advantage of natural attrition.
I have said in public many times the only apology I make for our employee salaries is that they don’t make enough. That includes all three employee groups: support, administration, and teachers. I value all of our employees and believe we must pay competitive wages to attract and maintain the quality of people we need to provide the best education possible to our students.
Any raise that the Governing Board approves that impacts our administrative costs (including the salary adjustment you mentioned) comes from Indirect Costs – money outside of our Revenue Control Limit that is designated for administrative costs. In other words, it does not and can not impact our M&O budget.
Any raise that the Governing Board approves for teachers comes from Indian Gaming money – money outside of our Revenue Control Limit. Up to 50% of this money can be used on teachers salaries, but doesn’t have to be used that way. The other use could be instructional aids. However, as I said above, I value our employees and think our teachers deserve more than we can pay.
Any raise that the Governing Board approves for our support staff will come out of our M&O budget. Our support staff is comprised of hard working, dedicated people that with few exceptions are our community members. They are some of the lowest paid in spite of the fact that they, like the rest of our employees, have been asked to do more with less.
I make no apologies for any of my salary recommendations to the Board.