Explanation of Special Education Forecast Change: February 2018 versus November 2017

Similar documents
SPECIAL EDUCATION FUNDING UPDATE Senate Committee on E-12 Policy

Budget Consideration/Pressures

Kent C. Dickey Assistant Superintendent for Finance. July 22,

School Finance 101. Independent School District 882 Monticello Public Schools. December 2017

BROOKLYN CENTER SCHOOL DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING FOR TAXES PAYABLE December 14, 2015 Presented by: Sara Bratsch Finance Director

Paint Valley Local School District

School Funding AN OVERVIEW OF HOW OHIO FUNDS ITS SCHOOLS. Legislative Service Commission March 2017

School District Revenue History

Financing Education In Minnesota A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department

Budget Development #1 Process and Information

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Funding Scenarios. Board of Education May 2, 2016

Parnassus Preparatory School Long Range Budget Projection Model March 24, 2017

Springboro Community City School District

FY18-19 School Funding Overview. FY16-17 Funding Formula

Durham Public Schools FY BUDGET RESOLUTION

Financing Education In Minnesota A Publication of the Minnesota House of Representatives Fiscal Analysis Department


Money and Your School District

LANE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 4J (EUGENE PUBLIC SCHOOLS) LONG-TERM FINANCIAL FORECAST. January 2015

Paint Valley Local School District


Special Education Funding Formula

Cash Balance June 30 15,940,136 15,271,647 13,479,243 12,241,640 11,698,295 10,837,831 9,756,394 8,379,673

GUIDANCE. Funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of Made Available Under

Forecast Provided By Newark City School District Treasurer's Office Julio Valladares, MBA, Treasurer/CFO

Loveland City School District

Financial Readiness for Leaders

Worthington City School District

Chapter 70 Aid. FY14 Budget 7/12/2013

TECUMSEH LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT IRN # FIVE-YEAR FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS OCTOBER

FY16 Budget Community Forum. May 6, :30 to 8:00 PM

It s your Money: Understanding the Transportation State Subsidy Report and Maximizing your Reimbursement

Special Education Funding Formula

MMSD Current Working. Baird Budget Forecast Model TAX LEVY SUMMARY. Levy and Misc. Copyright Robert W. Baird & Co. 7/7/2016

State Aid. School Funding Reform Act of 2008

Budget Projections

CHAPTER 13 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING SECTION 1 COST ALLOCATION STANDARDS

Springboro Community City School District

Dianne Easterling, Coordinator Michigan Department of Education Office of Special Education October, 2017

Loveland City Schools

Five Year Plan Assumptions For Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2016 Through 2020

FY 16 Transportation Funding

Ohio School Funding Overview for Fiscal Years 2016 and 2017

Revised. SpaceGeneral Fund - 3,428 5,015 5,246 5,494 Total - 3,428 5,015 5,246 5,494 Biennial Total 8,443 10,740

Understanding the K-12 General Education Funding Program

SB1947 Evidence Based Funding for Student Success Act

ST.FRANCIS AREA SCHOOLS FINANCIAL FORUM SCHOOL / FISCAL YEAR

Aspen Academy Charter School No Savage, Minnesota. Communications Letter. June 30, 2017

When it was Discovered

TAZEWELL COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Budget Overview

NORTHRIDGE LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT - LICKING COUNTY SCHEDULE OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED ACTUAL

Truth in Taxation 2018 Proposed Property Tax Levy. Monticello Public Schools District Office December 4, :00 pm

GLOSSARY OF SCHOOL FINANCE TERMS

PRELIMINARY BUDGET PRESENTATION

VACO Education Steering Committee Fiscal Analytics, Ltd. August 16, 2013

School Finance Update

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS BPS FINANCIAL CONTEXT AND FY17 PLANNING

LANCASTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT - - FAIRFIELD COUNTY IRN:

ADOPTED BUDGET

School Finance Update

September 28, 2015 Great Oaks Institute of Technology and Career Development Center Ernie Strawser, PFR Consultant

Long Range Financial Plan

Process. Board of County Commissioners. March 27, 2012

5 Year Budget Forecast

Riverside Local School District

MISSISSIPPI ADEQUATE EDUCATION PROGRAM (MAEP) AN OVERVIEW OF HOW THE FORMULA IS CALCULATED

FY 15 IDEA Part B Allocations and Funding Issues

FY 2018 CITIZEN S GUIDE

FY 2017 CITIZEN S GUIDE

PARAGON MANAGEMENT, INC. d.b.a. Paradise Schools FINANCIAL, STATE PAYMENT AND ENROLLMENT REPORTS Quarter ended December 31, 2016

Five Year Forecast Financial Report

Ferndale School District #502 Business and Support Services Budget Summary Citizens' Budget General Fund

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 622 North St. Paul Maplewood Oakdale, Minnesota June 30, 2015

ROBBINSDALE AREA SCHOOLS BUDGET

Management Report. for. Independent School District No. 624 White Bear Lake, Minnesota June 30, 2016

AFFORDABLE CARE ACT EMPLOYER SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PROVISION PLAY OR PAY

Ann Arbor Public Schools Budget Update. April 2012

K-12 Education Budget Outlook

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO: FINANCIAL REPORT 12/31/2010

SCHOOL FACILITIES FINANCING WORKING GROUP

Five Year Forecast Financial Report

Education in Michigan: Finance and Reform

Monica Hunsaker, Director of Finance, Business & Operations

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET SUMMARY FY A Great Place to Live & Learn

FY18 School Committee Recommended Budget Town Meeting Presentation April 1, 2017

Senate Bill 175. Denise Ulberg, Executive Director MASBO 2013 MCEL Conference Billings Hotel October 17, 2013

Unfulfilled Student Achievement Objectives

BIG WALNUT LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT- DELAWARE COUNTY SCHEDULE OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30,

HUBER HEIGHTS CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY SCHEDULE OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE

General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Forecasts. Changes from Previous Forecast

Spring 2017 FISCAL WORKSHOP

SENATE BILL 1947 (PA ) THE EVIDENCE-BASED FUNDING FOR STUDENT SUCCESS ACT. Ensuring equitable funding to help all students succeed.

Five Year Forecast Financial Report

Botetourt County Public Schools Proposed School Board Budget FY

School District of Green Lake

Virginia s Economic Trends and Impact on Local Budgets

Daniel Romzek Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs

BUDGET KICKOFF: BUDGET 101 AIKEN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT JANUARY 15, 2019

Five Year Forecast Financial Report

Transcription:

Revised 02/06/2018 Explanation of Special Education Forecast Change: February 2018 versus November 2017 Total Change in Aid Entitlements and Appropriations Special education aid entitlement estimates have decreased as follows since the November forecast: Feb 18 vs Nov 17 FY Regular Excess Cost Cross Subsidy Growth Cap Hold Harmless T otal 2017 1,924,279 (1,578,514) - (1,055,811) (2,017,896) (2,727,942) 2018 334,869 (10,917,407) - 1,039,027 2,763,733 (6,779,778) 2019 (2,404,300) (12,982,003) - 2,455,297 2,840,920 (10,090,086) 2020 (3,037,343) (17,096,772) - 4,036,950 3,554,741 (12,542,425) 2021 (4,350,587) (18,877,528) - 5,583,385 3,542,191 (14,102,538) On an appropriations basis, the February forecast is $2.3 million lower for FY 17, $15.9 million lower for the current biennium, and $26.1 million lower for the FY 20-21 biennium than the previous forecast (amounts below exclude the payment shift for Monticello): Approp Impact current final total biennium 2017 (2,391,314) (2,391,314) 2018 (5,943,154) (336,628) (6,279,782) 2019 (8,844,970) (836,625) (9,681,594) (15,961,376) 2020 (10,994,690) (1,245,117) (12,239,806) 2021 (12,362,285) (1,547,735) (13,910,020) (26,149,827) Data Used in Forecasts Special education aid is affected by several factors, including state special education expenditures, special education child counts, district Average Daily Membership (ADM), poverty concentration, general education revenue, the extent to which services are provided by cooperatives or nonresident districts versus the resident district, and the amount and uses of federal special education aid. The primary cost driver is prior year state special education expenditures. State special education expenditures include program costs (primarily salaries and fringe benefits) and special transportation costs. The forecast methodology projects these two main components of special education expenditures separately. State special education program expenditures are projected by taking the most recent year of data (FY 16 preliminary data for the February 2017 forecast, FY 17 preliminary data for the November 2017 forecast and FY 1

17 nearly final data for the February 2018 forecast), adjusting for ADM change on a district by district basis, and applying an inflation factor based on recent trends in special education cost per ADM statewide. Near-final special education expenditures excluding transportation for FY 17 are down from the estimates used in November, and ADM are up. As a result, the growth in special education non-transportation expenditures per ADM for FY 17 is estimated to be 3.4%, compared with the estimate of 4.4% used in November. While the growth rate in FY 17 was below the four-year average, the relatively low growth rate in FY 17 appears to be due to the one-time accelerated growth in FY 16 rather than a slowing of the longer term growth trend, as the twoyear average growth for FY 16 and FY 17 is 5.2%. Therefore, the February forecast continues the methodology used in November of applying the four-year average growth rate to project special education non-transportation expenditure per ADM for later years. Based on the lower rate of growth in FY 17, the 4 year average has declined from 5.16% to 4.93%, as shown in the tables below: November 2017 Forecast: FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 Resident ADM 832,493 840,073 847,011 856,441 Cost per ADM excl Transp 1,882 1,977 2,116 2,209 Percent increase in non-transp cost/adm 4.1% 5.0% 7.0% 4.4% 4 year Average = 5.16% February 2018 forecast: FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 Resident ADM 832,493 840,073 847,011 856,878 Cost per ADM excl Transp 1,882 1,977 2,116 2,189 Percent increase in nontransp cost/adm 4.1% 5.0% 7.0% 3.4% 4 year Average = 4.93% Special transportation expenditures are projected by taking the most recent year of data (FY 16 final data for the November forecast and FY 17 final data for the February forecast), adjusting for state total public and nonpublic pupil enrollment change, and applying inflation factors based on recent trends in special education cost per public plus nonpublic school enrollee statewide. FY 17 pupil transportation cost, which is pulled from UFARS, was not used for the November 2017 forecast because it was incomplete when data was collected for the forecast in mid-october and not considered reliable for forecast use. Data used for the November forecast are as follows: 2

November 2017 Forecast F.Y. 2013 F.Y. 2014 F.Y. 2015 F.Y. 2016 F.Y. 2017 =========================================== =========== =========== =========== =========== Public ADM + NP Enroll 902,827 906,907 913,519 919,830 928,787 Sp Ed Bus Depreciation 3,227,042 3,466,620 3,699,006 3,655,182 3,868,417 Sp Ed Bus Depreciation Growth 1.104 1.074 1.067 0.988 1.058 Special Tran Oper Cost (Fin 723 + fin 728) 188,998,210 197,134,498 220,855,977 239,113,113 258,909,508 Sp Tran Oper Cost per pubilc & np enrollee 212.91 221.19 245.81 263.93 282.93 Sp Transp Operating cost Growth 1.066 1.039 1.111 1.074 1.072 Total Sp Transp Cost 192,225,252 200,601,118 224,554,983 242,768,295 262,777,925 Data used for the February 2018 forecast are as follows: February 2018 Forecast F.Y. 2013 F.Y. 2014 F.Y. 2015 F.Y. 2016 F.Y. 2017 Public ADM + NP Enroll 902,827 906,907 913,519 919,830 929,321 Special Ed Bus Depr 3,227,042 3,466,620 3,699,006 3,655,182 3,836,855 Sp Ed Bus Depreciation Growth 1.104 1.074 1.067 0.988 1.050 Special Ed Trans Oper Cost (Fin 723 + Fin 728) 188,998,210 197,134,498 220,855,977 239,113,113 262,251,464 Sp Tran Oper Cost per pubilc & np enrollee 212.91 221.19 245.81 263.93 286.33 Percent change 1.066 1.039 1.111 1.074 1.085 Total Sp Trans Cost (Oper + depr) 192,225,252 200,601,118 224,554,983 242,768,295 266,088,319 Based on actual FY 17 data, the cost of special transportation for FY 17 is up $3.3 million from the estimates used for the November forecast. The inflation rates used for future years have been adjusted to reflect the most recent four year averages, from 5.8% to 5.5% per year for bus depreciation and from 7.2% to 7.7% for transportation operating cost. The table below summarizes the change in estimates of prior year special education costs and prior year ADM between the November forecast and the February forecast: FY 17 Aid FY 18 Aid FY 19 Aid FY 20 Aid FY 21 Aid (FY 16 Data) (FY 17 Data) (FY 18 Data) (FY 19 Data) (FY 20 Data) PY Sp Ed Cost Excl Transp (6,090,654) (15,800,260) (22,936,181) (25,643,115) (30,631,187) PY Transp cost 201,668 3,310,393 3,056,034 3,368,852 3,768,137 Total Prior year Expenditure (5,888,985) (12,489,867) (19,880,147) (22,274,263) (26,863,050) PY ADM Served 336 315 751 1,185 Expenditure estimates for FY 18 and later are based on FY 17 data projected forward based on projected total ADM change and four-year average growth rates for expenditure per ADM. Analysis of Special Education Child Count and Non-Transportation Cost Trends There was very little change in projected special education child count from the November forecast since FY 2017 child count data was available for the November forecast, and FY 2018 child count data is not yet available. Analysis of staffing patterns and salaries per FTE was not updated for the February forecast. Formula Calculations Beginning in FY 16, the state special education aid formula includes four components: 1) Initial aid is the least of three calculations: a. A census-based calculation which is a function of total ADM, poverty concentration and child count by primary disability; 3

b. A percentage of old formula reimbursable costs; or c. A percentage of total nonfederal special education costs, including fringe benefit costs that were nonreimbursable prior to FY 16. 2) Excess cost aid is the greater of two calculations: a. A percentage of the old formula reimbursable costs less the initial aid less a percentage of general education revenue; or b. A percentage of the total nonfederal special education costs less initial aid less a percentage of general education revenue. 3) A minimum aid (hold harmless) provision which ensures that the total aid for FY 16 will not be less than what the total aid would have been in FY 16 under the old formula; for later years, the minimum aid is adjusted for ADM change and inflation. 4) A maximum aid (growth cap) provision, which limits the total aid to no more than the minimum aid plus $80 per ADM served for FY 16, $100 per ADM served for FY 17, and for FY 18 and later, the sum of the special education aid increase limit for the previous fiscal year and $40 per ADM. Initial and Excess Cost Aid The table below shows that initial and excess cost aid as a percent of prior year special education cost changed very little between the November and February forecasts. With projected cost declining between the two forecasts, initial aid is up slightly as a percent of the cost because the pupil-based portions of the initial aid calculations do not decrease as a result of the slower expenditure growth. Excess cost aid as a percent of prior year cost decreases due to three factors: 1) Because initial aid covers a slightly higher percentage of prior year costs, there is less unfunded cost going into the excess cost formula; 2) Because special education cost is growing slower than projected in November, the general education revenue deduct in the excess cost formula has more impact on net aid; and 3) The model used for the November forecast inadvertently left out compensatory revenue in calculating the excess cost aid deduction for general education revenue attributable to students served outside of the general education classroom for more than 60% of the school day. That resulted in understating the general education revenue deduct in the November calculations. 4

Initial Aid as Percent of PY Cost: November 17 Forecast 50.6% 50.7% 50.9% 51.0% 51.2% February 18 Forecast 50.8% 51.1% 51.2% 51.4% 51.6% Difference 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% Excess Cost Aid as Percent of PY Cost November 17 Forecast 13.7% 14.3% 14.8% 15.3% 15.8% February 18 Forecast 13.6% 13.9% 14.4% 14.7% 15.2% Difference 0.0% -0.4% -0.4% -0.6% -0.6% Total Initial + Excess Cost Aid as Percent of PY Cost November 17 Forecast 64.3% 65.0% 65.7% 66.3% 67.0% February 18 Forecast 64.5% 64.9% 65.6% 66.1% 66.8% Difference 0.2% -0.1% -0.1% -0.2% -0.2% $ Impact of Combined Difference 4,224,668 (2,457,937) (2,323,999) (5,363,302) (5,239,208) Combining these two effects, the total initial plus excess cost aid as a percentage of prior year special education expenditures decreased by 0.1% for FY 18 and 19, and by 0.2% for FY 20 and FY 21 between the November and February forecasts. To put this in perspective, the change in aid as a percent of cost decreases state total aid by about $2 million per year in the FY 18-19 biennium and by about $5 million per year in the FY 20-21 biennium. Minimum and Maximum Aid The maximum aid / growth cap limits the increase a district can receive in special education aid over what it would have received under the old formula for FY 16, adjusted for ADM change and inflation. Comparing the November 17 and February 18 forecasts, the savings to the state from the growth cap decline by $1.0 million in FY 18, $2.5 million in FY 19, $4.0 million in FY 20, and $5.6 million in FY 21. With less initial and excess cost aid being generated due to lower special education expenditures than forecast in November, fewer districts are over the cap and by smaller amounts. Maximum Aid (Growth Cap) November 17 Forecast 19,222,075 21,873,919 21,847,442 25,399,264 25,303,914 February 18 Forecast 20,277,886 20,834,893 19,392,145 21,362,314 19,720,529 Difference 1,055,811-1,039,027-2,455,297-4,036,950-5,583,385 The minimum aid / hold harmless establishes a minimum aid for each district based on the amount it would have received under the old formula for FY 16, adjusted for ADM change and inflation. Comparing the November and February forecasts, the cost to the state from the hold harmless increases by $2.7 million for FY 18. $2.8 million for FY 19, $5.6 million for FY 20 and $5.5 million for FY 21. With initial and excess cost aid being less than projected in November, more districts go into the hold harmless and for larger amounts. Minimum Aid (Hold Harmless) November 17 Forecast 8,597,486 8,178,452 5,502,145 3,781,238 3,372,770 February 18 Forecast 6,579,590 10,942,186 8,343,065 7,335,979 6,914,961 Difference -2,017,896 2,763,733 2,840,920 3,554,741 3,542,191 5