In respect to budget considerations I have a few thoughts that I would

like to put before you for discussion at our next budget meeting.

..... Wavell



1.  A functional budget:  I gather from the Board minutes that there is

general agreement that rearranging the line item budget into a

functional form would be a useful exercise.   I would be quite happy to

create the spread sheet which would automatically redistribute a

standard line item budget into a functional budget, so there is no need

to put things off because of any perceived inadequacy of central office

staff.  What needs to be established are the functional categories

required in order to produce a functional output that is most

meaningful.  I would suggest that the categories I presented in my last

memo (summarized hereafter) be reviewed and that we try and come up with

an initial trial listing that we can use to begin the process.



Suggested categories:

1. Staff Costs  (including salaries and fringe benefits of teachers and

aids plus any contract services)

a.  Regular Education

b. Special Education

c. Remedial Education

2. Facilities  (including debt payments, custodian and maintenance

costs, electricity and heating, telephone, plowing, etc.)

3. Instructional  (including books, copying costs, materials and

supplies, field trips, etc.)

4. Administration  (including salaries and fringe benefits of principal

and exexutive assistant, school board, communication and legal costs,

etc.)

5. Support Services  (Contract medical and nurse, etc.)

6. Quality Improvement  (including in-service, course work, other action

plan execution costs)

7. Transportation

8. Harwood Assessment



2.  In respect to a ceiling tax rate for local budget being too risky in

view of the uncertainty of state funding:  Perhaps we should develop

what such an approach would look like assuming that the state maintains

its current level of commitment.  That is, we would come up with and

publish a logical tax rate ceiling target and seek to maintain spending

at or below this ceiling.  This would exclude the Harwood assessment,

considering only the elementary school budget and would only be exceeded

to accommodate an identified decline in the state funding commitment.

This would still require the community to vote to allow surplus funds to

be retained in a contingency fund rather than returned to the

community.  This should create an understandable approach to budgeting

based on a tax rate which the community would come to feel as

comfortable.  This approach should deliver an uncontentious and reliable

stream of educational funding probably at a higher average level than if

tax rate yoyoing is allowed to continue.