Western Placer Unified

School District

2013-14

State Budget Approval & District Budget

August 6, 2013

2013-14 State Budget

+ Signed by June 30, 2013 -- ON TIME!!

+ Governor wins on LCFF Funding model

+ Minor changes in other K-12 program funding

Themes for the Budget

Governor Jerry Brown has tackled the Budget problems that have dogged the state for the past decade and has made real progress

Proposition 30 enabled the state to avoid further cuts to education

The State Budget is legitimately balanced for the first time since 2002

Substantial progress is made toward reducing the “wall of debt”

Common Cores State Standards (CCSS) have been adopted

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) compromise was agreed to by the Legislature

But not all of the state’s problems are behind us

The level of funding for education is still nearly last in the nation

The feds are all over the state on prison overcrowding

Interest rate increases or international events could derail the recovery

There is still work to be done

The Budget in Broad Strokes

The 2013-14 State Budget is balanced and has the first real reserve in years

The structural deficit has been eliminated, at least for the duration of Proposition 30

Education gets its first slice of restoration of cuts that began in 2008-09

But not all districts benefit equally

And the level of funding for most districts remains well below 2007-08

The Governor uses the bulk of the unexpected 2012-13 Proposition 98 revenues for one-time purposes, like buying down deferrals and CCSS start-up allocations

No other area of the State Budget gets increased significantly

LCFF Policy Goals and Features The Governor’s policy goals in pursuing reforms to the state’s school finance

system have remained consistent throughout the budget process:

Increase transparency and reduce complexity

Reduce the administrative burden

Improve funding equity across school districts

Improve local accountability

To attain these goals, the LCFF

Eliminates revenue limits and almost all categorical programs

Establishes base grants for four grade spans, which will provide absolute dollar equalization at full implementation

Establishes supplemental/concentration grants to provide supplemental services to low income and English learner students

Base Year Funding and LCFF Target

A school district’s LCFF entitlement will be based on three key elements:

Its base year funding in 2012-13

The demographics of its student population, specifically the percentage of students who qualify for supplemental/concentration grants

The state appropriation for LCFF

In general, a school district is better off under the LCFF if:

Its base year funding is below the statewide average

The proportion of students qualifying for supplemental/concentration grants is above the statewide average

The state provides a significant amount for LCFF growth in a given year

2013-14 District LCFF Entitlement

A district’s LCFF entitlement for 2013-14 will be based on its 2012-13 base year funding level, its LCFF target, and the statewide funding provided to move toward the target

The state factor of 12% of growth toward target is based on the 2013-14 appropriation of $2.1 billion and the estimated statewide funding gap of $17.5 billion

There are two distinct phases of the LCFF: (1) the eight-year implementation phase, and (2) the fully funded phase – 2020

The eight-year implementation phase is not set in statute and can be longer or shorter than eight years, depending upon the annual LCFF appropriation

Numerous fiscal inequities could arise during the implementation phase if the state appropriates sufficient funds to support the statutory cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) applied to the base grant, individual districts are not guaranteed a funding increase equivalent to this adjustment

Categorical Programs and the LCFF

Over the years, a variety of programs and purposes were supported by categorical program funding

Some were general purpose, such as instructional materials and deferred maintenance

Some were intended to be targeted to meet the needs of specific students or circumstances, such as Economic Impact Aid (EIA) and Home-to-School Transportation

The LCFF replaces most categorical programs with two weighting factors applied against the LCFF base grant

Supplemental Grant - 20% of base grant $ for each eligible student

Concentration Grant - 50% of base grant $ for the eligible students exceeding 55% of total enrollment

Add-ons – Home-to-School Transportation and Targeted Instructional Improvement Grant (TIIG)

LCFF vs. Revenue Limit &

Categoricals

Base Grant

Supplemental Grant

Concentration Grant

K – 3 CSR Augmentation

9 - 12 CTE

Augmentation

Trans. Add-on

Entitlement Target TIIG Add-on

Hold Harmless Funding

2012-13 Revenue

Limit

2012-13 “Included”

Categoricals

2012-13 Trans. 2012-13 TIIG

9

What State Programs Excluded From

From LCFF Funding

Special Education, Child Nutrition, After School Education and Safety (ASES), medical Administrative Activities (MAA), Agriculture Vocational Incentive Grant and other federally mandated programs stay outside of the formula

Adult Education Funding continues – must maintain 2012-13 spending

Lottery Funds

Mandate Costs Revenues

SSC Financial Planning Dartboard

Factor 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18

LCFF Planning Factors SSC

Simulator SSC

Simulator SSC

Simulator SSC

Simulator SSC

Simulator SSC

Simulator

Statutory COLA 3.24% 1.565% 1.80% 2.30% 2.50% 2.70%

California Consumer

Price Index 2.15% 2.00% 2.30% 2.50% 2.70% 2.80%

10-year Treasuries 1.89% 2.50% 2.70% 2.90% 3.10% 3.30%

Reserves

State Reserve Requirement

District ADA Range LCFF Reserve Plan

The greater of 5% or $50,000

0 to 300

? The greater of 4% or

$50,000 301 to 1,000

3% 1,001 to 30,000

2% 30,001 to 400,000

1% 400,001 and higher

Local Control Accountability Plan –

Next Steps

On or before July 1, 2014, and every three years thereafter, local educational agencies (LEAs) must adopt the LCAP using the template adopted by the SBE

The Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) must include a description of the following:

Annual Goals - Based on state priorities for all students and “numerically significant subgroups”

Specific Actions

What steps the LEA will take to accomplish the annual goals

District-wide actions and actions by school site

Description of Expenditures

For each fiscal year of the plan, list and describe expenditures implementing specific actions included in the LCAP and describe expenditures serving “unduplicated” students and students redesignated as fluent English proficient

LCAP Timeline

January 31, 2014 SBE regulations on use of supplemental/concentration

grant funds

March 31, 2014 SBE template for LCAPs

July 1, 2014 First LCAPs with 2014-15 budget expenditures aligned to

the LCAP

July 1, 2015 First LCAP update with additional expenditure reporting

October 1, 2015 SBE evaluation rubrics

13

Summary of Changes in Funding Model to LCFF

for 2013-14

Total LCFF Eligible Funding - 2012-13 – Base Year $ 37,280,976

Target LCFF Eligible Funding – 2019-2020 Target Year $ 52,165,996 (includes Base, Add-ons & Supplemental Funding)

Increase in Funding to Target – GAP by 2020 $ 14,885,020 40%

Change to 2013-14 WPUSD Budget:

Projected Progress for 2013-14 - 12% of GAP $ 1,786,202

Less: Estimated COLA 1.565% on LCFF Eligible Funding at Adopted Budget $(502,427) Projected Net Increase Due To LCFF Funding Formula $ 1,283,776 (includes Base, Add-ons & Supplemental Funding)

Funding for Common Core

Distributed based upon prior year enrollment ($200 per pupil)

an increase of $250,000 for WPUSD

May be used for professional development, instructional materials, and technology enhancement

Funding must be spent by 2014-15

Funds subject to annual audit

LEAs must:

Create plan for use of funds, describe and adopt at a public meeting

By July 1, 2015, report detailed expenditure information to CDE

15

State Lottery 2013-14

The Lottery Commission has approved its 2013-14 budget, and it is projecting a 15% increase in sales above those in 2012-13

The 2013-14 projections for sales and the contributions to education are the highest since the Lottery’s inception in 1984

Lottery funding for 2013-14 is estimated at $156 per annual ADA

$126 per annual ADA for unrestricted

$30 per annual ADA for Proposition 20 (restricted)

Increased rate = additional $12,600 in Unrestricted Lottery Funds

Mandated Programs

LEAs that opt in to the MBG can plan for the rates in all three years of the multiyear projection (MYP)

The rationale for a higher rate for the 9-12 grade span is due to the

inclusion of the Graduation Requirements mandate within the MBG

Change in rates & grade span = Decrease of MBG revenue of $79,000

Grade Span School

Districts Charter Schools

COEs

K-8 $28 $14 $29

9-12 $56 $42 $57

Proposition 39

$2.5 billion from the State over 5 years focused on K-14

exclusively

Starting in 2013‐14 - $381 million for K‐12

CA Energy Commission (CEC) to develop guidelines,

application “form,” and approve applications. CDE to

distribute funding.

Funds allocated 85% on a per pupil basis and 15% on the

basis of the number of NSLP eligible pupils

Goal to get funding out in the budget year.

18

Proposition 39

Project Design Recommendations

Benchmarking

Sequencing of facility priority

Surveys and assessments

• Project Examples

– Lighting Retrofits

– Lighting Controls

– Heating & Cooling Equipment

– Heating & Cooling Controls

– Water Heating

– Building Envelope

– Water Efficiency

– Pool Equipment

– Demand Response

19

QUESTIONS