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.