I have attached the 2018-19 Budget Vs Actual and Comparisons to 17-18 for February (page 1-2). Also attached are the February Budget Status Reports for all funds (pages 3-7) and the Sources and Uses sheet which projects revenues, expenditures and ending fund balance for 18-19 (pages 8-9). The March Enrollment Spreadsheets are attached as well (10-12).
Budget vs Actual Comparisons for February
Revenues in February
Revenues in December were $286,000 more than expected (page 2). OSPI finally calculated the actual transportation allocation. The monthly allocation for September through January was based on approximately $4,800,000.00. The actual allocation is $5,254,000. Last month's allocation was $489,000 and this month's allocation is $809,000 to make up for the previous 5 months at the higher rate.
Payroll in February
February payroll was only $1,267 greater than expected (page 2). Now that the payroll is more consistent it is much easier to project each month. One thing I want to mention that I looked at this month in regard to payroll is how different things are without the state salary schedule and funding based on teacher experience. It is now more important than ever to budget based on not what we know, but what we expect.
There can be large differences between budget and actual certificated staff salaries, but our funding does not change. In the past, if I budget a new hire at the top of the salary scale, the estimated funding is based on that. If we hire a replacement at the bottom of the scale, our LEAP factor would adjust and we would pay less for the teacher, but we would also receive less funding for the staff. Now if that happens (or the reverse) we either win (or lose) depending on the situation. (Because we receive the same amount from the state for all teachers without regard to experience or education.)
I took a look at the current staff and found there are three areas that can cause a difference between budget and actual for the certificated staff. First, staff may earn credits or degrees in the past year and we are not aware of this during budget time. We are paying $101,000 more than budgeted for this difference. Second, when staff go out on leave (FMLA, maternity, etc…) and we get subs, the sub can be either higher or lower on the scale and the staff member may have accumulated leave that they use before going into unpaid status. In this case, we are ahead by $2,865. Third, there are sometimes late hires that are not in the budget. I used to budget these staff at the average so that it would not affect the funding. However, now I try to budget on the high end, in case we hire someone at the top of the scale. For this year, I budgeted approximately $37,000 more than the two staff we hired. These three things together are a net of $61,000 greater than budget. This is something that I did not need to worry about in prior years.
We are also paying for one staff member who is no longer in the classroom. This and the 3 items noted above were all taken into account in the projections discussed below.
Accounts Payable in February
February accounts payable was $13,000 greater than expected (page 2). As usual, I reviewed all expenditures and the amounts paid do not look unusual.
Projected Revenues, Expenditures and Ending Fund Balance
I spent quite a bit of time reviewing and projecting out the district revenues, expenditures and ending fund balance (Pages 8-9). Now that I have the actual transportation allocation, I feel more comfortable in the total numbers. The updated projections have the district ending the year with a gain of approximately $181,000. The budget had the district ending with no gain and no loss of fund balance. There are a couple of reasons for the increase in fund balance. Basic Ed enrollment is very close to budget, but Special Ed and Bilingual enrollments are greater than budgeted, resulting in increased revenues. Total apportionment is about $73,000 greater than budget, with the majority of the difference being that Running Start revenues and expenditures are approximately $100,000 greater than budget.
In looking at the other programs, Special Ed is projected to be in the red by $269,000. They were budgeted to be $616,000 in the red, an improvement of $347,000. This is a combination of an additional $200,000 in revenues and $150,000 in decreased expenditures. We have a few paraprofessional positions that were budgeted, but not filled and also a Psychologist position that was not filled. (Which has finally been filled just this week)
Another big reason for the increase in fund balance is in the area of transportation. The transportation allocation is $725,000 greater than budgeted. This is enough to cover approximately $200,000 in capital improvements, the utilities, and the admin fees, with a total unfunded for the co-op of $41,000. Woodland’s portion is $16,000.
The capacity built into this budget in the area of benefits, subs and staff time over and above their base contracts was much greater than last year. I have budgeted a transfer of $250,000 in state forest funds from the Debt Service Fund (like we have done the past 5 years or so). This transfer is not included in the projections, as I would like to transfer that money to the Capital Projects Fund to give us a cushion for the future (roof replacements, HVAC upgrades, other capital upgrades).
I will review each month and make adjustments, if necessary as the year progresses.
Enrollment
The enrollment spreadsheets are also attached (pages 9-11); with summaries by headcount for September through March and a comparison of budgeted FTE to actual average FTE. For the first time since October, we had an increase in Headcount and FTE. It was only 2 heads and 1.85 FTE, but we’re hopefully headed in the right direction for the remainder of the year. The average FTE is now almost 11.0 FTE below budget. I will continue to keep you apprised each month and will let you know how this affects the district projections.
Please let me know if you have any questions.