Issaquah School District (HB 2242 & Local Levy Discussion)

Transcription

1 Issaquah School District (HB 2242 & Local Levy Discussion)

2 Maintains the Prototypical Funding Model/Drivers for % COLA (Local Levy cost of $1.8M) Increase in Health Benefit Allocation ($780 a month to $820) Pension Rate Increases: TRS from 13.13% to 15.20% (Local Levy cost of $1.6M for Pension and Health Benefits) State Salary Schedule Remains for :

3 Levy Cliff; Avoided for Calendar year 2018 (Allowing for full collection of our $54M Levy) o (Authority was $57.2M; leaving money on the table due to early implementation of Full Day K, etc.) K 3 Class Size Fully Funded at 17:1, regardless of actual demonstrated class size (for only) resulting in $3.8 million of one time additional funding.

4 Local M & O Levies are renamed to Enrichment Levies For 2019 Levy Collections,the Enrichment Levies are $1.50/1000 or $2,500 per student The District is relegated to the lesser amount; and given that $1.50 per thousand for the District in 2019 will generate an estimated $44.5M vs. the $2,500 per student which would be $51.5M, we will be at the $1.50/ Collections under the levy statute that expires would have provided the District with an estimated $59.7M in collections, a drop of $15.2M in a single calendar year

5 Beginning with a ballot proposition with a 2020 collection (so are pending levy from is in this category) a district must get approval from OSPI of the enrichment levy expenditure plan. Current M&O levies are 100% flexible and historically backfill all our shortfalls from the State and Federal Government One of the policy goals of HB2242 is to constrain the use of local levy funds for activities/expenses that are outside of Basic Education; We have had to provide a basic education with the use of our levy funds.

6 Beginning September 1, 2019, local revenues may only be used for documented and demonstrated enrichment of the basic education program, described as activities supplementing the: minimum instructional offerings in 28A. l or 260; staffing ratios or program components of RCW 28A , including providing additional staffing beyond the class size allocations and staffing ratios, as applicable; program components in 28A , 220, or 260; or professional learning per 28A

7 Examples in statute of permitted enrichment activities: extracurricular activities, extended days, or extended school year; additional course offerings beyond the minimum; early learning activities; salary costs associated with administering enrichment activities, which may not exceed the proportion of local revenues to other revenues; and other activities approved by OSPI via the preballot process.

8 Supplemental contracts are expressly made subject to these limitations. The list of permitted enrichment activities in Section 501 of HB2242 is non-exhaustive; and authorizes OSPI to develop recommendations for other permitted activities consistent with the limitations stated. The final result of this change is truly unknown, however initially we are losing levy funds, facing increasing regulations, and decreasing flexibility.

9 How do we pay for salaries above the state allocation for certificated staff as well as all other employee groups? What is enrichment? What is considered basic education? How/when will the additional salary funding come to the District and what impact will increase state funded salaries have on the local enrichment levy?

10 Our once shared common experience in education finance in the State of Washington has significantly changed We still need a significant amount of clarification from the Legislature, OSPI, the Supreme Court, etc.

11 » What we currently use our local levy for

12 What would the District do with Additional Funding? Spring Board Proposal for Additional Funding: Increased Mental Health and Counseling Services An estimated $700,000 for Additional Mental Health Counselors (Secondary) An estimated $750,000 Emotional/Mental Health Support for K 5 (Full Time Counselors) An estimated $400,000 for Additional Academic Counselors at High Schools Increased Instructional Offerings and Lengthened Staff Day: 7 th Period High Schools An estimated $5,000,000 for additional staff An estimated $2,000,000 for ½ hour Increased Staff Day by ½ hour grades K 8 An estimated $6,000,000 Increased Academic Student Interventions: (K 12) An estimated $2,000,000

13 What would the District do with Additional State Funding? Spring Board Proposal for Additional Funding Continued: Dual Language Elementary An estimated $1,000,000 (Staff, Training, and Curriculum) Equity and Family Engagement: An Estimated $450,000 increase Operational Needs: Custodial, Maintenance, Food Service, Security, Bus, Warehouse An estimated $1,500,000 Early Learning Opportunities: An estimated initial investment of $500,000 Teacher Mentoring/Onboarding Program: An estimated $1,250,000 General Wage and Inflationary Growth: $6 to 8 million per year. TOTAL: $27.5 to $29.5million

14 Estimated HB2242 Revenue and Estimated Expenses $1.50 for 4 years (as originally passed by the Board) Cumualtive Total State Funding 166,504, ,249, ,029, ,474, ,401,275 $ 1,052,659,057 Local Levy Funding (W/ 1st year revised & 1.50 Max thereafter 51,270,000 50,181,735 48,452,985 51,845,485 55,825,485 $ 257,575,690 Estimated Total of Local Levy and State Revenue 217,774, ,431, ,482, ,320, ,226,760 $ 1,310,234,747 Current & EST Program Expense ("Basic Education") 225,439, ,329, ,829, ,240, ,388,593 $ 1,231,228,103 (Less Cap Projects and Tech Transfer) 7,468,024 7,692,065 7,999,747 8,399,735 8,819,721 $ (40,379,292) Current & NET Estimated Program Expense ("Basic Education") 217,971, ,637, ,829, ,840, ,568,872 $ 1,190,848,811 Minimum Break Even Local Levy (No New Program) 51,270,000 27,388,277 12,800,846 19,365,790 27,167,597 $ 137,992,509 Potential Funds for New Program (Additional) Cumulative 0 22,793,458 35,652,139 32,479,695 28,657,888 $ 119,583,181 New Money Year over Year (Includes local levy) 0 22,793,458 12,858,681 3,172,443 3,821,807 $ 28,657,888 $1.13, $1.33, $1.50 thereafter (for modeling) Cumualtive Total State Funding 166,504, ,249, ,029, ,474, ,401,275 $ 1,052,659,057 Local Levy $1.13, $1.33, then $1.50/1000 per year 51,270,000 44,432,985 40,628,985 49,448,485 55,825,485 $ 241,605,940 Estimated Total of Local Levy and State Revenue 217,774, ,682, ,658, ,923, ,226,760 $ 1,294,264,997 Current & EST Program Expense ("Basic Education") 225,439, ,329, ,829, ,240, ,388,593 $ 1,231,228,103 (Less Cap Projects and Tech Transfer) 7,468,024 7,692,065 7,999,747 8,399,735 8,819,721 $ (40,379,292) Current & NET Estimated Program Expense ("Basic Education") 217,971, ,637, ,829, ,840, ,568,872 $ 1,190,848,811 Minimum Break Even Local Levy (No New Program) 51,270,000 27,388,277 12,800,846 19,365,790 27,167,597 $ 137,992,509 Potential Funds for New Program (Additional) Cumulative 0 17,044,708 27,828,139 30,082,695 28,657,888 $ 103,613,431 New Money Year over Year (Includes local levy) 0 17,044,708 10,783,431 2,254,557 1,424,807 $ 28,657,888 Estimates above are "state and local only" and do not include federal, or other pass through funds or tuition based programs Impact on Local Levy Funds Difference in Levy Revenue over a 3 fiscal years affected by two calendar year levies Current Board Approved Max $1.50/1000 over 4 years $ 257,575,690 Pending Board Action with $1.13, $1.33 then $1.50/1000 over 4 years $ 241,605,940 Impact on Local Levy Funds over affected period $ (15,969,750)

15 Issaquah School District Projected Tax Rates for HB year M and O Calculation Factors: Assessed Value Growth Assessed Value Changes: 15 year Average 2004 to % % 10 year Average 2008 to % % 5 Year Average 2014 to % % 3 year Average 2018 to % % % % % % % % % % % Actual % Actual % Estimated % Projected % Projected Bond Projected Levy Rates Levy Assessed Bond M & O Trans Tech Capital Total Bond M & O Trans Tech Capital Combined Levy Year Value Levy Levy Levy Levy Levy Levy Levy Levy Levy Levy Levy Rate Year 1998 $ 6,194,874 17,942 11,300-1,499-30, ,033,474 17,310 13,830 1, , ,005,651 18,591 15,000-2,775-36, ,381,373 20,093 15,753-3,300-39, ,647,076 20,100 16,626-1,850-38, ,606,510 20,075 17,938 1,800 3, , ,488,317 20,300 18,655-3,175 1,225 43, ,245,254 20,300 20,027-3,200 1,640 45, ,598,397 29,000 22,400-3, , ,317,649 30,720 23,741 2,800 4, , ,628,332 38,142 25,200-4,200 1,500 69, ,151,444 45,719 26,600-4,300 2,100 78, ,093,229 53,500 28,000-4,500 1,000 87, ,755,275 40,520 35,094 1,700 7,625 1,250 86, ,237,488 42,361 35,332-7, , ,161,567 33,000 37,242 8,738 2,425 81, ,772,789 36,800 39,305-8,730 1,250 86, ,273,124 35,500 43,511 1,700 9,390 2,030 92, ,321,007 41,343 46,355-9,750 2,300 99, ,321,713 44,500 48,755-10,740 2, , ,675,099 47,800 54,000-11,890 3, , ,049,107 48,360 36,300 2,000 12,275 4, , ,811,808 53,685 44,900-13,275 3, , ,671,458 55,915 54,000-13,850 3, , ,633,388 58,075 58,000-14,550 3, , ,703,224 58,860 60,900 3,000 14,841 4, , ,886,901 65,444 63,945-15,138 4, , ,190,681 69,218 67,142-15,441 4, , ,621,168 73,189 70,499-15,749 4, , ,185,333 74,363 74,024 3,000 16,064 4, , ,890,526 81,760 77,726-16,386 4, , ,744,505 86,379 81,612-16,713 4, , ,755,453 91,240 85,692 17,048 4, , ,932,002 93,353 89,977 3,000 17,389 4, , ,283, ,733 94,476-17,736 4, , ,818, ,390 99,200-18,091 4, , ,548, , ,160-18,453 4, , ,484,067 5, ,368 3,000 18,822 4, , ,635, ,836 19,198 4, , ,015, ,578 19,582 4, , ,636, ,607 19,974 4, , ,511, ,937 3,000 20,374 4, , ,654, ,584 20,781 4, , ,080, ,563 21,197 4, , M and O 2 Year /14/ :05 AM

16 $4.50 $4.40 $4.30 $4.20 $4.10 $4.00 $3.90 $3.80 $3.70 $3.60 $3.50 $3.40 $3.30 $3.20 $3.10 $3.00 $2.90 $2.80 $2.70 $2.60 $2.50 $2.40 $2.30 $2.20 $2.10 $2.00 $1.90 $1.80 $1.70 $1.60 $1.50 $4.06 $3.93 $0.71/1000 $3.22 Projected Total Combined Tax Rates: Levy Measures $3.41 $3.56 $3.56 $3.57 $3.55 $3.53 $3.51 $3.49 $3.47 $3.45 $3.43 $3.41 $3.39 $3.37 $3.35 $1.87 Total Tax Rate with M&O 28.97% (Pre Cliff) Total Tax Rate with M&O 24.97% (Historic Authority) Total Tax Rate with HB 2242 Full Levy Authority (Board Adopted) 2 Year Levy with Projected Rate with $1.13, 1.33 then $

17

18 » Closing Thoughts: For years the Issaquah School District has been on a quest to implement program similar to our surrounding Districts; holding us back was the structure of state/local funding This is our community s opportunity to have per student funding amounts at or similar to Bellevue and Mercer Island. We should no longer tolerate the per student revenue rankings reflected in the graph below and use HB2242 as an Opportunity for Positive Change