Clarkston Community Schools will seek an additional $820,000 in savings from the current year’s budget, with a target of $1.9 million to be trimmed from the projected 2004-2005 budget.
How that is to be accomplished is still up in the air, but a Monday school board workshop identified a long list of possibilities, including ‘pay-to-participate? athletics, elimination of school accreditation, an incentive plan for staff resignations and larger class sizes to reduce the number of teachers.
Whatever plan is eventually adopted will almost certainly include dipping into the district’s cash reserves, but trustees agreed to keep money set aside for the opening of new facilities in fall 2005 and to avoid the need to borrow funds each fall to counteract a state cashflow problem.
Bruce Beamer, executive director for business and financial services, had predicted a shortfall of $1.6 million for the current school year based on earlier projections of a $196 per student cut in the state ‘foundation grant.?
Because of a state budget agreement (which includes the delay of a scheduled income tax cut), the reduction is now $84 per student, reducing the anticipated Clarkston cut to just under $672,000.
Beamer said the current fiscal year is more comfortable, but even with the hoped for savings there will be a need for about $341,000 from fund equity to balance this year’s budget.
Officials continued to note variables such as energy and snow plowing costs, and a big variable for 2004-2005 is the state of the state budget and projected enrollment. Legal and contract considerations require the district to move quickly, however, if any potential layoffs are to be considered.
‘You’re going to impact people’s futures based on a number that probably won’t be definite until this time next year,? Beamer said.
Continuing a claim of ‘fiscally conservative? spending, officials said the past three years? budgets have seen a combined spending reduction of about $5 million. It helped the district reach the goal of more than 15 percent in fund equity, but continued budget pressures have made it more difficult to find ways to cut spending ‘without hurting kids.?
‘Frankly, my fear is that it’s not doing more with less, it’s doing less with less,? Superintendent Al Roberts said.
The numbers used at Monday’s workshop were based on a presumption that the district will gain about 100 additional students in 2004-2005, but will receive no increase in the proportional state foundation grant. An administrative task force produced three lists of potential reductions and one list of possible ‘revenue enhancements? for board consideration.
Three ‘plans? were offered, each with a different level of dependence on fund equity to balance a budget with a projected 2005 deficit of $2.5 million. Plan A would make enough cuts to prevent the need for use of fund equity, while Plan C has no cuts and would require a deep dip into fund equity.
The conceptual cuts were placed in three ‘priority? groups based primarily on their potential impact on core curriculum and service mandated by the state or federal governments.
Rejected outright were ‘Priority 3? cuts, which included the possible elimination of some special teaching positions, reduction in club expenses and unspecified ‘new transportation guidelines.?
Trustees reached consensus that the ‘Priority 1? list (projected to save between $1.2 and $1.45 million) is not sufficient to keep a 10 percent fund equity, and there was debate on whether some ‘Priority 2? items belonged on the ‘Priority 1? list and vice versa.
The only real agreement was that administrators need to bring more specific information on several of the proposals, including pay-to-participate athletics, a staffing reallocation to effectively eliminate 7.1 teaching positions, a ‘severance incentive plan? to encourage resignations and avoid layoffs and possible outsourcing of custodial services.
‘I question some of these items and maybe the amount,? Trustee Mary Ellen McLean said. ‘What directly affects kids in the core curriculum??
‘These do not signify a plan that is being recommended,? Roberts said. ‘We don’t like any of these things, [but] we have some financial problems that require us to look at some of these options.?
More specific deliberations are expected at the board’s Feb. 9 meeting.
Next week: More details on possible budget reductions.