As we’ve come to learn, the budget proposed by the Governor Tuesday evening, is very different from the detailed budget proposal.  Although many speculated a $0 per pupil revenue limit increase, eliminating the per pupil categorical aid for FY2015-16 was a surprise.  It’s important to remember the Governor’s budget is nothing more than a proposal.  If you recall, Act 20 (the current FY2013-15 State Budget) is very different than the Governor’s February 2013 budget proposal.

Many districts are choosing to wait to see how legislators react but I understand that you may be interested in the “worst case” scenario. In terms of assumptions, I propose the following changes (“Original Assumptions” reflects those that I was previously using):

 

FY15-16

FY16-17

FY17-18

FY18-19

 

Original Assumptions

 

 

 

 

 

Secondary Aid Guarantee

$1,112,012 

$1,123,305 

$1,140,761 

$1,164,629 

 

Secondary Aid Guarantee – % Change

1.41%

1.02%

1.55%

2.09%

 

Per Pupil Revenue Limit Incr.

$75 

$75 

$75 

$75 

 

Per Pupil Categorical Aid

$150 

$150 

$150 

$150 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revised Assumptions

 

 

 

 

 

Secondary Aid Guarantee

$1,098,840 

$1,130,610 

$1,147,950 

$1,171,744 

 

Secondary Aid Guarantee – % Change

0.00%

2.89%

1.53%

2.07%

 

Per Pupil Revenue Limit Incr.

$0 

$0 

$75 

$75 

 

Per Pupil Categorical Aid

$0 

$165 

$150 

$150 

 

When looking at the outcomes incrementally, reducing the per pupil revenue limit increase from $75 to $0  has very minimal impact (a loss of $899) on total revenue due to the declining enrollment exemption.

The real impact can be felt when reducing per pupil categorical aid from $150 to $0 (713 FTE’s x $150 = $106,950).  If no changes are made to the Governor’s proposal the district will either have to reduce the annual budget by an amount of $107,000, utilize fund balance, raise fees, or a combination of the three.  

 A misconception is that the Governor’s proposal in year one increases education dollars available by further funding the school levy tax credit.  The school levy tax credit is distributed to municipalities and not schools causing no new revenue for operations.  Using the existing revenue limit to it full extent coupled with the proposed reduction in per pupil categorical aid will cause the tax levy to increase to a level not seen in my tenure as superintendent.  Another misconception is that the Governor’s proposal in year two increases education dollars available by further funding the equalization aid.  Funding equalization aid does reduce the property tax levy but does not provide additional revenue that remains capped for schools.

Detailed information of the proposed fund 10 and tax levy impacts for Mineral Point is attached.

Other bulleted items in the Governor’s Proposal:

Voucher Expansion

  • Enrollment caps for schools and kids are removed.
  • Beginning 2015-16, all new students in Racine and statewide programs are funded through a general aid deduction.
  • General aid for those students deducted from school districts, pooled and divided by the number of voucher students to arrive at a per-pupil voucher payment.
  • Public school preference for enrollment, income capped at 185% Free and Reduced Lunch.  Private school students can enroll before kindergarten, 1st grade and 9th grade.

Assessments

  • Smarter Balance eliminated and prohibited.
  • DPI must choose a new test for 2015-16.

Accountability

  • A-F Letter Grades.
  • Multiple assessments.

Chapter 220

  • Closed to new students, gradually phased out.

CESA State Aid

  • State aid eliminated, school participation voluntary.

Alternative Teacher Licensure

  • Bachelor’s degree
  • Relevant experience
  • Candidate must pass content assessment
  • Successful candidate can teach all subjects in grades 6-12.

Local Government Property Insurance Fund

  • Eliminates the LGPIF fund.  School Districts using this fund for property insurance may not renew premiums commencing January 2016.  (This impacts Mineral Point as LGPIF has consistently been low bid for the past 5 years).

Additional information will be provided as the district learns more through the legistlative process.