TO: All PVUSD Employees & Community March 13, 2009
FROM: Dorma Baker
RE: Budget Update
I will be continuing to give updates on the budget situation because even though the Board approved a budget that will meet the County Office requirements, there are many variables still to come. We will be waiting on the following:
* The May Revise. We’re hearing that the State deficit has already increased and that there may be additional reductions made to school district budgets.
* The initiatives on the State Ballot have to pass to support the current Budget plan.
* Finance will continue to explore class size for “K” and 3rd grade with the new State penalty formula, looking for an option to lower class sizes at those levels.
* Union negotiations: Any negotiated agreements by either CSEA or PVFT would have a positive impact on the current employee reductions in the budget.
* Federal Stimulus Package: We don’t have a confirmation about how much the district will receive, but there will be some additional funds from the Federal Government.
Listening to all of the suggestions or questions that community members or staff had, we will continue to investigate suggestions and/or concerns. Responses to some of those questions follow.
Who decides when to adopt new textbooks and do we have to adopt?:
* The STATE decides on the adoption of new textbooks, not the BOARD.
* The District has the option of asking for a waiver to postpone the adoption of new English Language Arts materials, which we are planning to do.
Could you save money by cutting Food Services?:
* The food service program is funded by Federal and State Categorical Funds only designated for that program. It does not encroach on the General Fund.
Would money be saved if TOSA’s (teachers on special assignment) were eliminated?:
* All “Teachers on Special Assignment” are funded through grants or special funds and do not encroach on the general fund.
Would consolidating smaller schools save money?:
The district is not declining in enrollment, in fact we are growing. The recent Facilities Report that was just completed projects the need to build an additional new school within the next 6 years. Most of the school sites are at maximum capacity for numbers of students and unable to add additional portable buildings. Consolidating schools only makes sense if a district is declining in enrollment.
Would there be a savings by moving the District Office to a school site or another location?:
* The “Management Audit Report” analyzed the issue of the “Towers” as the district office and found that the rent of the building is the lowest of anything in the area. We have researched more updated information with the city and have confirmed that that is still the case. In fact, the amount of rent is about half the going rate.
* The audit report also found that by consolidating district services in one building, there was less on-going cost, as well as being more efficient for employees.
* Regarding purchasing the property, the District has pursued that as an option, but at that time, the owners were not open to a sale.
* Are there extra classrooms that could house the “Towers”?
* The latest Facilities Report summarizes ALL of the data with the following: “The total need in six years will be as much as an additional 40 elementary classrooms, 3 middle school classrooms and 2 charter school classrooms. The figures showing “77” empty classrooms includes rooms that are actually in use for something other than a “core” class, i.e. Computer labs, RSP, Counseling, and other services. They are not “empty”. The district was recently required to give space to a new charter school and was unable to find enough available classrooms to house even the small charter. Adult Education programs had to be moved from the Porter Building to create the needed space for the charter. The infrastructure necessary to support the services in the district office, even if another location was available, would have to be “recreated” at any new facility and would be a substantial expense.
The district will continue to look to reduce cost in the present facility, but it is not a viable option to move from the current location.
* Who is in the “Towers”
* Extended Learning
* Migrant Head Start
* Pacific Coast Charter (270 students)
* Adult Education (approx. 10,000 students a year)
* Migrant Education
* SELPA – Special Education
* Payroll, Business Services & Technology
* Human Resources
* Child Development
* Student Services
* Food Services & Central Kitchen (pack out for 17 schools)
* District Warehouse
* Board members do NOT have offices in the Towers.
* Boardroom and meeting spaces for professional development.
Within the 3 floors that the District leases, there are a total of 325 employees. The district office does not use one floor of the building which is leased to other businesses. In addition, with the reduction of positions and departments, the district will be consolidating, eliminating some of the current space being leased.
The District should restructure the district office and where are the cuts at the D.O.?
* There are 5.50 administrative positions being reduced at the district office.
* The work load of these 5.50 reduced positions will now fall under the Assistant Sup positions.
* In addition, all departments in the D.O. are reducing personnel by 25%, reducing individual departments from 1 to 6 employees.
* In the last two years of budget reductions, the administrative positions at the District Office dealing with educational services will have been reduced by over 40% without any reduction of workload or mandates.
What is administration contributing?:
District administrators came forward and agreed to the following reductions:
* 5 Furlough Days
* Changes in the Benefit Package equivalent to 12%
* Freezing salary placement
This agreement is for all management, including the Assistant Superintendents and the Superintendent. In addition, the Assistant Sups agreed to give up the option of 10 additional days in their contracts, which makes their contribution a total of 15 days.