The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
TO: LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 18, 1994 MA~ 1 8 1994 Oilice ol Desegregation Mon1:c, icg FROM: SUBJECT: Court Submission - May 18, 1994 Provided for your review is a copy of the District's Mai 18, 19941 Court submission. The following revisions have been made to the appropriate revenue and expenditure line items to reflect the strategies under consideration at this time: 4. $3,000,000 included for proposed draw down on settlement loan. $750,000 deducted from salaries and benefits for projected savings on 100 participants in the Early Retirement Incentive Program. $1,622,363 deducted from salaries and benefits for the proposed reduction in the teaching force. $1,316,771 deducted from salaries, benefits, services, supplies and equipment for the proposed temporary relocation of Stephens. $100,000 deducted from services, supplies and equipment for the proposed contnbution to the New Futures Program. J.-.l 6. $400,000 increase to the beginning fund balance due to the initiated spending freeze. ~~ t '/.~J1H ~ ~:: 17.z. HI( Also included are five-year revenue and expenditure projections and business cases addressing specific changes. J ... ~~ ~. 1 . . .., ,/. J _.JS''U/M ~ ~ ,,_ -1/tf/,T As we move tg_ward institutionalizing the Program Planning and Budgeting Process as outlined in the District's management tool, we are continually reminded of our desegregation obligations as well as the comprehensive long-range planning that must be done to fulfill our commitments. I look forward to the results that we can achieve through our continued utilization of this process. 810 West Markham Street Little Rocle, Arkansas 72201 (501) 8U2000 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Description Page No. Exhibit 1 Revenue and Expenditure Projections (Draft 2) 1-10 Exhibit 2 Previously Identified Budget-Balancing Measures 11-12 Exhibit 3 Status of Negotiations/Reduction In Force 13 Exhibit 4 Additional Budget-Balancing Measure 14 Exhibit 5 1994-00 Revenue and Expenditure Projection (Draft 1) 15-22 Exhibit 6 Business Cases: Safety and Security Department (Revised 4/29/94) 23-31 Teaching Assistants/Substitutes 32 Exhibit 7 Business Case for Stephens School Relocation 33-48 Exhibit 8 Schools Affected By Changes in Principalships 49 Exhibit 9 Settlement Loan Repayment 50 Exhibit 10 Budgeting Management Timeline 51-56 Exhibit 1
\ .. , .. ........... ,,.,: ... :tf?:}\t: ................ , ... ,.i/: .. ,:: .. :/ :,: ........... :,/. ... ,.. .. iMi.. ..: : .... .. .... .............. ........ ... :: ..... .............. : .....: : . \
.. ,:,: .......... JJJt '-' .. 1 1... ..... ......., .. !:I\! ,.. ...... ,.. ::,:..: .. .. ........ -::r .. :... ...: : ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 31,899,357 38,196,979 39,701,855 39,625,387 38,600,327 (1,025,060) 40% PULLBACK 20,601,593 21,081,833 22,220,949 22,040,190 21,420,949 (619,241) DELINQUENT TAXES 3,214,974 4,250,186 4,293,380 4,897,429 4,802,692 (94,737) EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 118,998 140,858 145,690 146,379 140,000 (6,379) DEPOSITORY INTEREST 317,646 241,476 360,734 303,000 300,000 (3,000) REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 120,412 224,667 245,162 182,353 180,000 (2,353) MISC. AND RENTS 317,978 406,878 574,918 484,050 475,731 (8,319) INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 141,376 354,446 208,519 319,042 322.232 3,190 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 91,322 100,857 87,005 87,005 87,005 0 <l:1 ::
:::. 1 } 1vt. \: .... :si:~si656: !
.~~~~~~\ :
r:a
a
,.r ~a:ii~jm: s~fs2aiS$: :m
REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,971 73,419 73,428 73,419 73,419 0 SEVERANCE TAX :> ..... :.. .......... ,:c..:..:f\ ..... :> ::::......................... .... .............. REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD 22,037,764 10,356,TT8 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 27 ,264,460 25,275,221 8,637,482 8,926,606 4,500,000 1,500,000 73,426 72,694 1,513,699 1,261,451 824,870 1,139,235 147,050 234,403 ORPHAN CHILDREN 8,820 3,000 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 2,885,960 2,379,879 3,1 98,252 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 609,943 858,743 563,602 MTOMTRANSFERS 1,007,481 1,TT0,486 2,127,216 ADULT EDUCATION 624,119 697,589 799,544 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES 25,569,811 26,778,326 8,094,112 6,042 591 0 [ 3,0,000 0 1,341,887 1,344,499 240,873 3,540 3,536,587 505,260 2,681,262 790,466 0 1,200,000 1,344,499 233,992 3,540 3,700,000 580,435 3,100,000 790,466 PUBLIC LAW 874 28,585 9,385 40,866 40,000 38,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 95,588 613,166 129,428 394,675 171,006 1,250,000 0 500,000 600,000 400,000 ..})\..:..... ... .......... ,. . TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING. ' 103.123:8-07 114,291:121' t1S,243,307
::,
,074,55{ 1:14,232,204 1 1,208,515 3 (2,051,521) .. 3,000,000 &.O""' 0 (141 ,887) 0 (6,881) 0 163,413 S 75,175 418,738 C. 0 (2,000) (650,000) 1 (100,000) I (75
~ REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS SERVICES.SUPP.EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY RESERVE FOR ENCUMBR TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 ACTUAL PROJECTED PROPOSED CHANGE 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 2,886,618 3,275,099 4,288,755 4,311,404 4,406,404 95,000 ? 227,900 224,423 215,020 122,666 122,666 0 468,964 558,810 589,011 624,024 624,024 0 974,090 1,164,511 1,221,200 1,091,051 1,400,000 308,949 , 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,811,482 256,812 10 65,192,947 73,191,213 71,912,128 75,849,121 75,680,852 (1 68,269) ! 8,032,967 8,992,742 9,908,175 9,290,055 10,650,467 1,3 60,412 ! 22,735,854 22,470,043 20,080,366 21,283,431 22,149,419 8 65,988 ! 6,646,769 7,950,100 9,554,535 8,850,123 8,533,631 (3 16,492) 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 1' 000,000 714,896 4,190,920 5,132,152 5,992,216 7,035,052 6,547,138 (487,914) 12,571,785 13,887,841 13,548,434 14,554,670 14,811,482 256,812 881,922 1,m,714 1,394,9TT (2,084,086) (3,TT6,208) (1,692,122) 185,838 552,490 643,181 964,951 79,044 (885,907) 119,574 634,844 2,321,867 4,985,188 3,787,009 (1,198,179) 552,490 643,181 964,951 79,044 / 85,000 5,956 634,844 2,321,867 3,395,074 3,787,009 4,845 (3,782,164) 2 FUNCTION SALARIES 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0115 CERTIFIED INSTRUCT. ASST. 0117 STIPENDS 0120 REGULAR NON- CERTIFICATED 0121 MAINTENANCE 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME 0130 SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS- SHORT 0140 SUBST NON-CERTIFIED-SHORT SALARIES TOTAL w BENEFITS 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0220 TEACHER RETIREMENT 0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME 0240 INSURANCE 0250 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 0290 OntER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BENEFITS TOTAL ~ .
.. PURCHASED SERVICES 0310 PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL 0311 INSTRUCTION SERVICES 0312 INSIBUCTIONALPROGIMPROV 0313 PUPIL SERVICES 0314 STAFF SERVICES 0318 BOARD OF ED SERVICES 0319 OntER PROFESSIONAL & TECH LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual 1992193 $52,899,585.23 $5,386.52 $326,649.66 $15,668,717.99 $1,167,691.67 $69,487.74. $1,363,632.01 $410,9TT.09 $71,912, 127.91 $5,497,924.65 $7,755.35 $166,240.10 $3,985,992.66 $192,426.52 $57,835.84 $9,908,175.12 $295,885.37 $18,610.84 $768,382.37 $279,291.40 $61.60 $595,179.47 $64,266.08 Budget 1993/94 $57,841,367.85 $0.00 $305,885.31 $14,962,781.62 $1,136,945.28 $0.00 $1,226,321.00 $416,844.45 $75,890,145.51 $5,381,489.39 $6,882.48 $147,104.28 $3,467,184.64 $195,000.00 $60,000.00 $9,257,660.78 $626,800.00 $21,015.00 $741,357.00 $53,440.00 $1,000.00 $752,500.00 $75,100.00 Budget 1994/95 $56, 192, 126. 79 $0.00 $291,797.11 $16,247,301.12 $1,089,626.75 $60,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $400,000.00 $75,680,851.77 $5,637,189.03 $0.00 $155,000.00 $3,788,278.00 $200,000.00 $870,000.00 $10,650,467.03 $737,480.00 $11,115.83 $631,371.00 $54,752.00 $0.00 $1,172,000.00 $59,300.00 FTE 1994/95 1542 0 0 1298 50 0 0 1 2891 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +? LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual FUNCTION 1992/93 0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL ssa1.209.n 0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC $2,232,084.12 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGE/ $149,273.82 0324 CLEANING SERVICES $207,407.65 0325 REPAIRS-BUILDINGS $259,257.67 0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT $531,707.94 0327 RENTAL OF LAND & BUILDING $135,447.85 0328 RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT & VEH $12,944.93 0329 OTHER PROPERTY SERVICES $18,924.55 0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION $645,404.74 0332 TRAVEL-PAYROLL $1,286.44 0333 TRAVEL $112,709.23 0339 OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERV $1,258.82 0341 TELEPHONE $338,295.60 0342 POSTAGE $91,2TT.58 0350 ADVERllSING $21,046.31 0360 PRINTING & BINDING-INTERN $91,146.74 0361 PRINTING AND BINDING-EXTE $116,235.20 0362 FREE PAINTED ITEMS . $404.24 0365 COPIER LEASE 'i-ltd~ $362,507.86 0370 rumoN $1,292,991.82 0380 FOOD SERVICES $144,413.73 0390 OTHER PURCHASED SERVICES $165,837.05 PURCHASED SERVICES TOTAL $9,534,750.79 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 0409 SUPPLIES ($64,411.96) 0410 SUPPLIES $1,180,159.22 0411 SUPPLIES - SP TRACKING $870,780.43 Budget 1993/94 $826,700.00 $2,879,165.00 $209,950.00 $400,000.00 $200,300.00 $505,785.09 $135,700.00 $15,050.00 $128,650.00 $628,067.30 $24,160.00 $60,843.63 $0.00 $386,500.00 $104,016.20 $18,006.00 $151,142.39 $153,645.50 $515.00 $503,000.00 $1,195,000.00 $178,062.69 $59,380.00 $11,034,850.80 $0.00 $1,041,625.83 $784,000.00 Budget 1994/95 $725,500.00 $2,824,615.00 $189,200.00 $250,000.46 $330,700.00 $646,911.00 $142,012.00 $21,502.00 $67,000.00 $350,820.00 $0.00 $124,676.18 $0.00 $406,000.00 $88,717.06 $16,300.00 $170,721.02 $126,169.54 $0.00 $530,000.00 $1,440,621.16 $105,027.00 $162,500.00 $11,385,011.25 $0.00 $1,311,499.11 $764,642.13 FTE 1994/95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + Ul LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual FUNCTION 1992/93 0412 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN $17,966.31 0413 SOFTWARE $31,128.18 0414 SUPPLIES $1,098.52 0415 TEST MATERIALS $39,900.00 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER $479,578.46 0417 SUPPLIES-SUPPLY CENTER $1,075.62 0418 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES $0.00 0420 TEXTBOOKS $0.00 0421 TEXTBOOKS-LOCALSOURCES $167,488.65 0430 LIBRARY BOOKS $0.00 0440 PERIODICALS $22,988.87 0450 AUDIOVISUAL MATERIALS $3,898.09 0451 AUDIO-VISUAL MATERIALS $24,869.01 0481 PLUMBING $18.54 0482 CARPENTRY $486.02 0483 ELECTRIC $708.32 0485 AIR COND/HEAT $172.70 0486 BOILERS/SM ENGINES $15,453.14 0488 PAll'mNG $282.25 0489 ROOFING $0.00 0490 OTHER SUPPLIES $17,943.27 0491 UNIFORMS & SUPPLIES $79,376.33 0492 STADIUM OPERATIONS $82,828.00 0494 GAME RELATED EXPENSES $0.00 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES TOTAL $2,973,787.97 CAPTIAL OUTl.A Y Budget 1993/94 $32,157.04 $33,405.00 $2,000.00 $53,000.00 $466,941.10 $2,044.55 $714,896.22 $862,542.00 $362,420.00 $1,120.80 $26,498.35 $2,150.40 $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,300.00 $80,974.40 $71,275.80 $2,224.80 $4,594,576.29 Budget 1994/95 $13,378.00 $100,050.60 $136,660.00 $42,000.00 $455,969.70 $353.00 $0.00 $817,000.00 $407,338.28 $375.00 $23,180.00 $6,515.00 $20,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $15,500.00 $5,000.00 $10,100.00 $200.00 $500.00 $18,000.00 $85,967.85 $64,540.00 $0.00 $4,299,768.67 FTE 1994/95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER $654,966.90 $600,575.24 $671,824.19 0 i- 1------------------------t---------t---------t---------t-----1 0541 EQUIPMENT PER PROP SP TRA $6,461.34 $10,000.00 $10,250.00 0 LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTTIICT Actual Budget Budget fTE FUNCTION 1992193 1993/94 1994/95 1994/95 0542 EQUIPMENT (NOT INVENTORIE $0.00 $0.00 $200.00 0 0543 EQUIPMENT (REAL PROPERTY) $67,025.70 $60,000.00 $69,106.94 0 0545 EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE $1,546,013.55 $926,742.00 $1,253,100.40 0 + 0548 EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER $61,031.26 $52,093.00 $21,351 .00 0 0551 VEHICLES LEASE PURCHASE $618,895.35 $0.00 $0.00 0 CAPTIAL OUTI.AY TOTAL $2,954,394.10 $1,649,410.24 $2,025,832.53 0 OTHER OBJECTS 0610 REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL $4,951,180.35 $4,074,616.00 $4,063,012.00 0 0620 INTEREST $4,597,390.58 $4,785,507.40 $4,462,619.00 0 0630 DUES&FEES $52,817.64 $58,539.50 $42,806.45 0 0635 DUES & FEES - NCA $15,023.01 $17,000.00 $19,000.00 0 0640 INSURANCE $920,983.15 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 0 0642 LIABILITY INSURANCE $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 0 0649 OTHER INSURANCE $52,791.12 $54,ns.oo $54,000.00 0 0660 IMPROVEMENT TAX $14,769.~ $15,000.00 $15,000.00 0 0690 OTHER EXPENSES $3,567,012.06 $5,148,290.00 $4,914,000.00 0 OTHER OBJECTS TOTAL $14,171,967.76 $14,553,727.90 $13,972,437.45 0 - UTTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL .. .-. $111,SS,203.65 $116,980,371.53 $118,014,368.70 ... ... ... I 2891 Function Description 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1125 ELEMENTARY MAGNET 1127 SPECIALTY PROGRAMS 1129 SPECIAL TY PROGRAM 1130 MIDDLE\JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 1132 JUNIOR HIGH 1135 JUNIOR HIGH MAGNET 1137 JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURE 1140 HIGH SCHOOL 1145 HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET 1151 BOYS ATI-lLETICS 1152 GIRLS ATI-lLETICS 1154 FOOTBALL/MINOR SPORTS 1155 VOLLEYBALL 1156 BASKETBALL 1157 TRACK.TENNIS.GOLF & SWIMM 1158 BASEBALL 1190 O11-lER REGULAR 1193 TRAVELING TEACHERS 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1199 SUBSTITIJTES-INSTRUCTION 1210 mNERANT INSTRUCTION 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1230 SPECIAL CLASS 1240 HOMEBOUND AND HOSPITAL 1290 O11-lER 1292 EXTENDED YEAR HAND. SERVI 1321 MARKETING/DIST ED-COOP 1331 BUSINESS ED COOP LITTl.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $1,195,358.65 $1,746,831.33 $3,121,214.45 $3,261,957.67 $19,905,274.36 $20,414,196.37 $0.00 $956,385.00 $146,003.86 $196,675.45 $24,406.82 $0.00 $0.00 $86,475.45 $8,267,275.44 $8,870,100.00 $5,540.42 $26,480.41 $132,143.30 $453,430.57 $535,179.49 $539,265.87 $7,823,764.65 $8,651,142.90 $265,987.68 $104,648.26 $39,661.58 $44,506.65 $25,254.43 $9,798.71 $48,990.82 $49,680.00 $6,393.73 $7,416.00 $42,832.09 $45,880.20 $13,487.01 $11,354.40 $7,440.07 $10,800.00 $20,238.80 $17,936.19 $19,897.81 $15,000.00 $2,121,435.04 $1,300,017.05 $1,438,180.65 $1,434,535.20 $1,004,570.16 $1,123,449.98 $2,088,460.12 $2,229,816.67 $1,321,TT1.13 $1,321,TT0.46 $215,503.17 $319,407.51 $1,308,911.09 $1,246,265.43 $4,123.47 $5,705.28 $228,230.75 $206,250.75 $195,TT8.88 $201,039.34 Budget 1994/95 $2,009,758.23 $3,269,209.33 s20. n2,912.s8 $889,073.86 $212,689.64 $0.00 $0.00 $8,233,002.21 $24,359.35 $106,442.18 $576,992.68 $7,440,185.48 $79,954.07 $39,459.05 $12,580.00 $49,680.00 $5,793.00 $44,545.80 $12,400.00 $9,000.00 $20,790.97 $15,000.00 $1,588,755.78 $1,937,700.00 $1,169,835.49 $2,302,743.57 $1,148,951.07 $583,478.49 $1,192,896.90 $0.00 $209,433.82 $203,839.38 FTE 1994/95 80 93 725 5 4 0 0 210 1 0 19 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 33 62 4 17 5 0 4 4 + +- ... Function Description 1332 BUSINESS ED EXPL 1333 BUSINESS ED-Stoll TR 1341 HEALTli COOP 1351 TRADE & IND-COOP 1352 TRADE & IND-EXPL 1353 TRADE & IND-Stoll TR 1354 YOUTli APPRENTICESHIP 1360 HOME ECONOMICS 1362 CONS/HMKG 1371 CAREER ORIENTATION 1392 COORD CAREER-COOP 1410 ADULT BASIC EDUCATION co 1420 ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION 1430 ADULT VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1440 SPECIAL PROJECTS 1445 WORKPLACE LITERACY 1490 ornER ADULT EDUCATION 1550 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION 1560 READING 1570 MATHEMATICS 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1595 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTI:D 2111 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2112 ATTENDANCE SERVICE 2113 SOCIAL WORK SERVICES 2114 PUPIL ACCOUNTING SERVICES 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 2121 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2122 COUNSELING SERVICES 2134 NURSING SERVICES 2142 PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING SER LITll...E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992193 1993/94 $567,909.51 $647,155.07 $1,029,262.40 $1,001,393.89 $71,936.86 $30,058.48 $195,305.05 $202,903.96 $582,238.42 $552,265.88 $992,355.65 $919,838.00 $23,257.92 $115,764.01 $3,035.70 $0.00 $614,847.68 $727,503.40 $256,111.14 $247,878.64 $205,769.71 $213,754.13 $437,414.74 $424,133.49 $331,299.86 $326,524.45 $0.00 $1,888.48 $0.00 $953.04 $16,895.83 $0.00 $13,933.79 $0.00 $220,694.23 $241,274.50 $27,887.91 $26,670.67 $8,814.04 $9,807.48 $233,266.90 $352,294.55 $869,433.11 $1,096,530.84 $813,857.18 $1,108,379.67 ($16.00) $4,758.48 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $121,287.10 $16,809.66 $119,044.71 $2,542,749.16 $2,798,345.63 $2,684.06 $8,563.51 $66,678.53 $38,551.19 $811,380.61 $765,214.52 $181,256.55 $195,928.86 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $565,530.39 14 $994,887.88 22 $48,226.13 1 $162,269.05 3 $592,290.09 13 .,. $928,161.33 19 $2,600.00 2 $0.00 0 $722,980.79 18 $251,165.13 6 $216,729.09 4 $438,888.00 13 $359,004.99 11 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $272,927.30 23 $29,135.65 0 $116,508.30 5 .... $320,000.00 0 $914,257.86 13 $1,327,240.17 33 $0.00 0 $25,115.41 1 $23,774.09 2 $103,381.36 4 $3,015,075.14 74 $9,159.78 0 $39,459.11 0 $753,670.05 28 $155,925.07 4 .. Function Description 2211 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2212 INSTRUCTION AND CURR DEV 2213 INSTRUCTIONAL STAFF TRAIN 2215 INST STAFF TRAINING - TES 2216 INST STAFF TRAINING - PET 2217 CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT 2219 OIBER IMPROVEMENT OF INST 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 2223 AUDIOVISUAL SERVICES 2229 OIBER EDUCATIONAL MEDIAS 2310 BOARD OF EDUCATION SERVIC 2314 ELECTION SERVICES 2315 LEGAL SERVICES 2317 AUDIT SERVICES 2319 OIBER BOARD OF EDUCATION 2321 OFFICE OF IBE SUPERINTEND 2326 DESEGREGATION 2410 OFFICE OF Tl-tE PRINCIPAL 2490 OTI-tER SUPPORT SERVICES 2510 DIRECTION OF BUSINESS SUP 2521 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2525 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING SERV 2529 OIBER FISCAL ACCOUNTING S 2539 OIBER FACILmES ACQ & CO 2541 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2543 UPKEEP OF GROUNDS 2544 UPKEEP OF EQUIPMENT 2545 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 2546 SECURITY SERVICES 2548 ASBESTOS PROGRAM 2551 SERVICE AREA DIRECTION LITnE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $808,955.03 $830,928.73 $2,579,824.46 $2,044,017.31 $0.1)() $10,713.11 $0.00 $16,070.13 $0.00 $32,139.33 $756.00 $10,713.11 $183,997.25 $117,430.21 $2,615,589.49 $2,348,444.72 $34,043.16 $31,927.05 $76,000.00 $86,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $38.25 $20,000.00 $467,398.72 $350,000.00 $38,242.50 $35,000.00 $279,740.50 $305,851.08 $232,171.98 $200,221,49 $429,738. 70 $433,102.41 $6,093,823.40 $6,176,083.63 $21,541.79 $9,120.69 $63,697.30 $87,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $398,488.44 $375,521.82 $3,360.50 $0.00 $208,269.23 $239,986.48 s21s.n6.61 $222,728.53 $8,176,780.17 $9,328,862.83 $11,749.67 $12,831.91 $16,043.09 $17,500.00 $56,031.80 $57,206.94 $2,957.29 $0.00 $79,391.19 $68,903.30 $7,031.70 $19,790.05 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $510,398.58 10 $2,494,955.38 52 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $162,670.14 7 $2,388,611.23 70 $34,408.42 2 $76,000.00 0 $445,000.00 0 $30,000.00 0 $1,560,000.00 0 $42,000.00 0 $48,000.00 0 $507,292.06 8 $506,601.32 14 $6,261,359.45 176 $9,121.00 0 $32,000.00 0 $68,805.16 1 $352,300.26 11 $0.00 0 $285,928.18 6 $239,969.89 9 $9,109,227.13 246 $14,500.00 0 $14,000.00 0 $80,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $70,335.08 2 $17,600.00 0 ...... 0 Function 2552 2553 2554 2572 2573 2574 2585 2587 2589 2590 2610 2623 2632 2642 2649 2664 3100 3500 3800 3900 3909 3911 4900 5100 6000 Description VEHICLE OPERATION MONITORING VEHICLE SERVICING PURCHASING SERVICES WAREHOUSING & DISIBIBUTIN PRINTING, PUB, & DUPLICAT SAFETY-DRUG TESTING SAFETY & SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU DIR OF CENTRAL SUPPORT SE EVALUATION SERVICES INTERNAL INFORMATION SERV RECRUITMENT & PLACEMENTS OTHER STAFF SERVICES OPERATIONS DIRECTION OF COMMUNITY SE CUSTODY & CARE OF CHILD INSIBUCTIONAL PROGRAMS OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION FAMILY LIFE EDUCATION NF OTHER NON-PROGRAMMED CHAR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PROVISION FOR CONTINGENCI UTT1.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTI..E ROCK SCHOOL DISIBICT FUNCTION SUMMARY Actual Budget 1992/93 1993/94 $3,443,249.84 $3,445,367.55 $327,629.42 $319,159.16 $2,731,640.87 $1,920,281.72 $897,242.75 $1,041,357.74 $47,038.80 $54,936.16 $106,264.92 $125,403.74 $11,897.80 $14,937.36 $804,094.93 $854,143.84 $1,063,284.28 $450,000.00 $89,803.91 $169,500.00 $149,406.41 $174,848.03 $437,888.51 $562,905.71 $154,437.80 $222,767.29 $305,827.59 $418,997.31 $88,999.58 $0.00 $1,359,339.16 $1,687,419,74 $95,000.00 $170,112.24 $0.00 $87,no.oo $229,653.19 $249,440.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100,046.80 $0.00 $0.00 $530,400.00 $3,586,103.53 $3,915,500.00 $9,554,534.76 $8,870,123.40 $0.00 $1,000,000.00 $111,455,203.65 $116,980,371.53 Budget FTE 1994/95 1994/95 $3,804,404.87 335 $318,433.25 11 $1,944,818.80 11 $1,541,798.43 15 $15,750.00 1 $102,000.00 0 $14,937.36 0 $819,658.99 40 $450,000.00 0 $144,338.91 0 $285,295.58 3 $426,918.80 12 $170,286.74 4 $341,547.93 13 $104,148.49 2 $1,600,699.76 14 $170,000.00 0 $0.00 0 $331,178.89 10 $100.00 0 $29,512.50 2 $0.00 0 $3,954,000.00 0 $8,533,631.00 0 $1,000,000.00 0 $118.014,368.70 $2,89f.03 Exhibit 2 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURES 1. Earlv Retirement Incentive Programs 2. 3 .. Previous Court submissions have included potential savings as high as $1,500,000 for this strategy. As of May 17, 1994, seventy-seven (77) teachers have applied for the program. Expectations are still high regarding this strategy. Therefore, $750,000 has been reduced from certified salaries in anticipation of reaching the goal of onehundred (100). A report will be given on May 25, 1994, as to the count and projected savings after the May 20, 1994, application deadline. Negotiations/RIF Several strategies have been identified in this area, and they are discussed in Exlnbit 3. The Draft 2 Budget does reflect a decrease of $1,622,363 for a potential reduction of 62 teaching positions. Outsourcing of TranSJ)ortation The District is continuing its efforts regarding this budget balancing measure. Bid proposals are now due to be opened on May 31, 1994, with a decision to be made in early June. This strategy is hoped to produce a savings of $500,000 but a reduction is not included in Draft 2. 4. Spending Freeze Results of this strategy which was implemented on March 25, 1994, are still expected to yield a savings of $400,000 which has been added to the 1994-95 beginning fund balance in Draft 2. 5. New Futures Program Contnbution 6. This measure has been incorporated into the Draft 2 Budget document in the amount of $100,000. Historical spending patterns for this program indicate that this reduction can be made without adverse effect. School Closings This strategy is more fully descnbed in Exlnbit 7. The Draft 2 Budget has been reduced $1,316,771 in anticipation of the approval of this measure. 11 Previously Identified Budget-Balancing Measures Page 2 7. Millaee Election 8. The Board of Directors will continue to explore this issue and determine the level of support that the community might provide. Recent discussions concerning a County-wide reappraisal must be monitored to determine the financial impact on this item. Reduction In Materials and Su1mlies (1 %) This continues to be an available option for budget balancing. 12 Exhibit 3 STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS/REDUCTION IN FORCE NEGOTIATIONS: The negotiations teams for the District and the LRCTA have been meeting twice a week since the first week of April to reach agreement on a successor teacher contract for the 1994-95 school year. The next negotiations session is May 18, 1994 at 4 o'clock which occurs almost simultaneously with this court filing. While the parties have reached tentative agreements on several clean up proposals, no agreements have been reached on any substantive issues. Most of the proposals which remain on the table are economic proposals or are proposals on which the parties are reluctant to move until some decisions can be made on economic issues. REDUCTION IN FORCE (RIF): The District has mailed RIF letters to eighty teachers notifying them that their contracts would not be renewed for next year because of a reduction in the size of the teaching force. Although it may not be possible to reduce by eighty positions, this level of notice should ensure that the District is not over staffed at the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. It is more realistic to think that as many as 60 to 65 teacher positions probably can be reduced at the start of school next year. However, the additional 15 to 20 positions gives the District a more prudent approach if the District's enrollment is smaller than anticipated next fall. Many of the teachers who have received RIF notices will be recalled if the early retirement .incentive produces the number of voluntary separations as is anticipated. Since the RIF notices had to be sent prior to the application deadline for the early retirement incentive, the District could not run the risk of rehiring the RIF'ed teachers while uncertain of the fate of the early retirement incentive. ~:.... tr1/..,
.,,/ 1<'IP' ~~ r
::
t. ~_
,~'~ ~,,,,b~ ~~ 1uf ~ 13 Exhibit 4 ADDITIONAL BUDGET-BALANCING MEASURE: Workers' Compensation Insurance Program Act 862 of 1993 requires all school districts in the State to provide Workers' Compensation coverage for their employees effective July 1, 1994. An allocation of $860,000 is included in the 1994-95 projected budget to meet this new requirement Language included in the March 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement r s some issues concerning the State's obligation in this matter. A favorable outcome on this issue will result in a reduction of budgeted expenditures for 1994-95 and future years. 14 Exhibit 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1} ,, 05-18-94 NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176.400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6TT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 67,750,310 68,924,641 70,123,237 71,345,420 72,604,516 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91 ,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91 ,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,TT8,326 27,1 84,007 25 ,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,1 64,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,m,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 113,062.527 110,992,712 109,270,563 111,382,589 113,560,268 15 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE ANO EXPENDmJRE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 05-18-94 ,,,. NO MILLAGE NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOT AL REVENUE 135,596,780 135,046,266 133,545,094 132,406,855 135,118,479 137,910,371 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10,811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES.SUPP ,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 120,254,964 122,721,275 124,633,907 127,480,234 130,154,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262.727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 142,238,703 145,273,656 147,770,199 151,216,124 154,504,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) (7,192,437) (11,728,563) (15,363,344) (16,097,645) (16,594,591) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 (7,187,593) (18,916,155) (34,279,499) (50,377,144) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 (7,187,593) (18,916,155) (34,279,499) (50,377,144) (66,971,735) TOTAL 89,844 (7,102,593) (18,831,155) (34,194,499) (50,292,144) (66,886,735) 16 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) .. 05-18-94 NO MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 40,159,780 40,962,976 41,782,235 42,617,880 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 22,020,949 22,360,949 22,708,949 23,063,949 23,438,949 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,6TT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TTO ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 67,750,310 68,924,641 70,123,237 71,345,420 72,604,516 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000.000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,m,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 113,062,527 110,992,712 109,270,563 111,382,589 113,560,268 17 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT .. . 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) . 05-18-94 .: NO MILLSWITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742
724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,3TT TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOT AL REVENUE 135,596,780 135,046,266 133,545,094 132,406,855 135,118,479 137,910,371 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10,811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 POSmON/PROGRAM CUTS (7,200,000) (11,800,000) (15,300,000) (16,100,000) (16,600,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 .,.,.. .. TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 113,054,964 110,921,275 109,333,907 111,380,234 113,554,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,3TT 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 135,038,703 133,473,656 132,470,199 135,116,124 137,904,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) 7,563 71,437 (63,344) 2,355 5,409 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 12,407 83,845 20,501 22,856 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 12,407 83,845 20,501 22,856 28,265 TOTAL 89,844 97,407 168,845 105,501 107,856 113,265 18 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL.DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) . 05-18-94 5 MILLS NO CUTS .,, 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,TT9 25,195,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,STT 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,TT0 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 70,550,310 75,118,161 76,165,671 n..231,834 78,317,011 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91 ,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE- STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,TT8,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193.~33 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,773,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 115,862,527 117,186,232 115,312,996 117,269,003 119,272,762 19 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 05-18-94 '" 5 MILLS NO CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL REVENUE 135,596,780 137,846,266 139,738,613 138,449,288 141,004,894 143,622,866 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10.811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES.SUPP ,EQUIP 22,149.419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 120,254,964 122,721,275 124,633,907 127,480,234 130,154,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6.742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262.727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 142,238,703 145,273,656 147,770,199 151,216,124 154,504,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) (4,392,437) (5,535,043) (9,320,911) (10,211,231) (10,882,096) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 (4,387,593) (9,922,635) (19,243,546) (29,454,777) ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 (4,387,593) (9,922,635) (19,243,546) (29,454,777) (40,336,873) TOTAL 89,844 (4,302,593) (9,837,635) (19,158,546) (29,369,777) (40,251,873) 20 .. UTTlE.ROCKSCHOOL DISTRICT . 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) .. 05-18-94 5 MILLS WITH CUTS 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,600,327 39,372,334 43,769,195 44,644,579 45,537,471 46,448,220 40% PULLBACK 21,420,949 24,820,949 24,945,054 25,069,779 25,195,128 25,321,104 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,802,692 4,826,705 4,850,839 4,875,093 4,899,469 4,923,966 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 180,000 176,400 172,872 169,415 166,026 162,706 MISC. AND RENTS 475,731 485,246 494,951 504,850 514,947 525,245 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 322,232 328,677 335,250 341,955 348,794 355,770 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 87,005 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 TOTAL 66,328,936 70,550,310 75,118,161 76,165,671 77,231,834 78,317,011 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 TOTAL 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 91,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 26,778,326 27,184,007 25,857,573 26,374,724 26,902,219 27,440,263 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 0 0 0 SETTLEMENT LOAN 3,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 APPORTIONMENT 0 0 0 0 0 0 VOCATIONAL 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 1,344,499 1,452,059 1,568,224 1,693,682 1,829,176 1,975,510 EARLY CHILDHOOD 233,992 248,032 262,913 278,688 295,410 313,134 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 3,540 TRANSPORTATION 3,700,000 3,811,000 3,925,330 4,043,090 4,164,383 4,289,314 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 580,435 597,848 615,783 634,257 653,285 672,883 M TO M TRANSFERS 3,100,000 3,131,000 3,162,310 3,193,933 3,225,872 3,258,131 ADULT EDUCATION 790,466 798,371 806,354 814,418 822,562 830,788 TOTAL 46,773,849 44,255,798 41,085,153 38,236,332 39,096,446 39,983,563 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 38,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS 600,000 630,000 661,500 694,575 729,304 765,769 TRANSFER FROM BONO ACCT 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 TOTAL 1,038,000 965,000 891,500 819,575 849,304 880,769 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 114,232,204 115,862,527 117, 186,232 115,312,996 117,269,003 119,272,762 21 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994-00 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 1) 05-18-94 -> 5 MILLS WITH CUTS / 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 4,406,404 4,494,532 4,584,423 4,676,111 4,769,633 4,865,026 CHAPTER II 122,666 219,342 221 ,535 223,751 225,988 227,988 TITLE VI B 624,024 600,850 606,859 612,927 619,056 624,000 OTHER 1,400,000 1,428,000 1,456,560 1,485,691 1,515,405 1,545,713 TOTAL 6,553,094 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,l30,082 7,262,727 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683.004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL 14,811,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 !TOT AL REVENUE 135,596,780 137,846,266 139,738,613 138,449,288 141,004,894 143,622,866 EXPENSES SALARIES 75,680,852 77,799,916 79,978,313 82,217,706 84,519,802 86,886,357 BENEFITS 10,650,467 10,703,719 10,757,238 10,811,024 10,865,079 10,919,405 SERVICES.SUPP.EQUIP 22,149,419 22,592,407 23,044,256 23,505,141 23,975,243 24,454,748 DEBT SERVICE 8,533,631 8,158,921 7,941,468 7,100,036 7,120,109 6,894,349 POSITION/PROGRAM ClJTS (4,400,000) (5,600,000) (9,300,000) (10,200,000) (10,900,000) CONTINGENCY 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 118,014,369 115,854,964 117, 121,275 115,333,907 117,280,234 119,254,858 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 6,547,138 6,742,724 6,869,377 6,998,480 7,130,082 7,262,727 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,811 ,482 15,241,015 15,683,004 16,137,812 16,605,808 17,087,377 TOTAL EXPENSES 139,372,989 137,838,703 139,673,656 138,470,199 141,016,124 143,604,962 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE (3,776,209) 7,563 64,957 (20,911) (11,231) 17,904 BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 79,044 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 3,787,009 4,844 12,407 77,365 56,454 45,223 ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 OPERATING 4,844 12,407 77,365 56,454 45,223 63,127 TOTAL 89,844 97,407 162,365 141,454 130,223 148,127 22 II REVISED BUSINESS CASE (4-29-94) SAFE'IY AND SECURITY DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Exhibit 6 Based upon feedback from forums, surveys, and statements from various community leaders, safety and security in our schools remains a major concern. The District remains committed to implementing the major recommendations by the former Safety and Security Task Force for building a strong, effective safety and security program. Recommendation No. 18 in the Task Force's report was to establish a District Office of Safety and Security. The District has taken steps toward satisfying that recommendation and now seeks to move even closer to full implementation. A. Background The District currently operates a Safety and Security Department which is comp sed of a Director, two (2) Supervisors, one (1) office staff member, and thirty-six (36) school-based security officers. It was recommended that the District add fourteen (14) School Resource Officers. During the summer of 1994, the District proposed a budget that included funding for these fourteen (14) positions. The budget was later approved by the Board of Directors and the Court. The Little Rock City Board of Directors was unable to provide fourteen (14) officers within the time frame requested by the District. The police department, however, was able to provide five (5) resource officers for the 1993-94 school year. These officers were assigned to the following secondary schools: Central, Hall, McClellan, Southwest, and Cloverdale Junior High. ~1 ~~~ ~ B. Problem Definition The School Resource Officer approach appears to be a successful strategy helping to create a bridge between local law enforcement and LRSD students. Police Resource Officers have been well-accepted in the schools where officers have been assigned. Currently, all LRSD secondary schools do not have a Security Office~~ bJ:f
Er
:~~ j,,,,,' p '~23 Revised Business Case Safety and Security Department Page 2 C. Analysis of Alternatives The LRSD prepared and submitted a business case regarding the need for the Resource Officer Program as a part of its 1993-94 budget planning process. The District's alternatives remain the same as indicated in the previous business case. Option C (from that business case) remains the most viable and equitable option for the District. A copy of the previous business case is attached hereto as Attachment 1. D. Recommendation The Little Rock School District recommends that one (1) Police Resource Officer be placed in each of our secondary schools. The Little Rock City Board of Directors supports this recommendation and is preparing to implement this recommendation, pending Court approval of the District's 1994-95 budget E. Objective . The Objectives and Evaluation Criteria remain unchanged from the previous business case. Information secured from the first year of implementation will be used to improve the delivery of services during the 1994-95 school year. F. Impact Analysis The program has had a positive effect on both the schools and the community. The program has been accepted by the community and LRSD schools. G. Resource Analysis The District budgeted $203,000 for program implementation during the 1993-94 school year. These costs would have been appropriate for the 1993-94 school year, -had the fourteen (14) officers been secured. A 5% cost-of-living-type of increase in overall personnel costs is projected for 1994. Additionally, the second year personnel costs should include an additional $34,079 for approved employee step increases,if any, plus $20,000 to pay for benefit increases such as educational pay and longevity. The proposed cost for placing fourteen (14) Police Resource Officers in all secondary schools during the 1994-95 year is $257,000. These costs are to be shared between the City and the Little Rock School District on a 50/50 basis. 24 Revised Business Case Safety and Security Department Page 3 H. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For. The primary support of this recommendation will likely be the principals in the affected schools. In addition, parents and teachers in the schools affected will likely form a group that will support this move. 2. Forces Against The only persons to have voiced opposition in the past have expressed the concern that the police officers may use their authority in an abusive manner. The success of the program for one (1) year in five (5) of the District's secondary schools should help to eliminate this concern. I. General Implementation Plan Implementation begins with approval by the governing bodies of both the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District Following approval, meetings will be held with Little Rock Police Department officials to determine starting dates for training newly hired officers to supplement the officers that are selected to become School Resource Officers. Additionally, both the LRSD and LRPD will offer training sessions for officers selected to begin the Resource Officer program. The Director of Safety and Security will assume the task of scheduling all events that will ensure a successful program implementation. All status reports for program implementation will be submitted to the Manager of Support Services, Little Rock School District 25 Attachment 1 BUSINESS CASE SAFETY AND SECURITY DEPARTMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1989, after the unfortunate shooting of a student at a Little Rock Junior High School, the Board of Directors authorized the Administration to conduct a safety and security study. This study was to address the security issue on campuses, on buses, and in the neighborhoods surrounding the schools. The Board of Directors made the decision to have a committee from each school study the various safety and security issues in the LRSD. A Task Force was formed that 1. Held public hearings 2. Met with Parent-Teacher groups and/or their designated leaders 3. Interviewed city and community leaders 4. Reviewed secondary school safety and security issues in other urban school districts The Task Force enlisted the expertise of the National School Safety Center who sent its Deputy Director to Little Rock for one week and on later follow-up visits. The Task Force report was dealt with by issuing twenty (20) major recommendations to use as an outline to build a strong, effective safety and security program for the Little Rock School District Recommendation No. 18 in this report was to establish a school district office of Safety and Security. A. Background 1. At present, the Safety and Security Department is composed of a Director of Safety and Security, two supervisors, and one person who answers all alarm calls to the various sights, meets the police that have been dispatched, and secures the buildings upon completion of his report There are thirty-six (36) School Based Security Officers assigned to the secondary schools in the LRSD. A recommended addition is the addition of fourteen (14) School Resource Officers. School Resource Officers (SRO) will be assigned to the current secondary schools. A School Resource Officer is a commissioned law enforcement officer that is assigned to the local school district. 26 Safety and Security Page Two 2. School security is a problem that is currently concerning both school district employees and members of the community throughout the nation. The idea of School Resource Officers and security forces is certainly not a new idea. It is, however, fairly new to the State of Arkansas. The problem of dealing effectively with unruly students and community members has been an ongoing problem through the country for many years. Districts across the country are having to develop plans, policies, and strategies for coping with these issues and the resulting increase of fights, assaults, homicides, drive-by shootings, weapons, and general disruption to previously "quiet" schools. B. Problem Definition 1. Various approaches to better safety and security in the schools have been attempted. It must be recognized that there is no one single approach that will solve the multitude of problems. The School Resource Officer approach is, however, one that has been successful throughout the country in dealing with the various acting out behaviors and in helping create a bridge between local law enforcement and troubled youth in the community. C. Analvsis of Alternatives 1. Many alternatives have been approached in solving the problems. The LRSD has not discarded any of our approaches only attempted to bring new answers to the problem. The National School Safety Center, an advocate of School Resource Officers, supplied this office with information on these programs throughout the country. Visits were made to programs in California and Florida. Numerous telephone conferences were held with Resource Officers on duty in different schools. The Little Rock School District looked at these different options: a. Do nothing: A number of school districts do not need a formal security program that involves Resource Officers. With the problems facing the City of Little Rock and the schools in the Little Rock District this option was not chosen. b. Contact with a guard service. Two private guard services were contacted. Neither of these services had any experience in providing a security force that had expertise in dealing with the diverse student population in our community. Few training programs were available through these groups. Additionally, these groups seemed to have a lack of commitment to and understanding of our educational philosophy. 27 Safety and Security Page Three D. c. Employ School Resource Officers. Historically, police have played a significant role in public education. They have been involved in handling truancy, juvenile crime, and major collective disturbances. Personnel are trained. The size of the force can be down-sized when needed. A pre-employment background check is always completed and support personnel is available. A formal agreement is prepared that identifies duties and responsibilities of both the police department and the school district Recommendations 1. The Little Rock School District recommends that alternative number 3 be employed. It is our belief that School Resource Officers will help provide a balance between crime prevention, education, enforcement, and informed positive contacts. A School Resource Officer will help develop relationships with students. The School Resource Officer will lay a foundation for student confidence and trust by demonstrating both a knowledge and an interest in matters of child advocacy. E. Objectives 1. Objectives to the recommendation. Program objectives are: a. To prevent students from becoming involved in behaviors that violate state statutes, city codes, and District policy b. To establish an improved rapport between law enforcement officers and youth c. To assist the building staff and administration in providing security for students d. To act as a resource to staff and students in legal matters and violence prevention intervention e. To help to provide an educational environment that offers prevention programs in determining youth involvement in gang activities, crime, alcohol, and drug abuse f. To assist in the coordination of community resources in promoting interagency approaches to the solution of community youth problems 28 Safety and Security Page Four 2. Good Support. One of the prerequisites for students to have a chance to learn is to have a safe, secure environment in which to learn. District level goals that would increase educational achievement with emphasis on closing disparities certainly fall within this area. A safe, secure environment is also necessary for students and staff if the following goals are to be reached: a. Providing equitable educational opportunities for all students in a desegregated learning environment b. Enabling all students to develop a lifelong capacity and love for learning c. Teaching all students to be productive contnbutors in the school, the community, and the work place d. Providing a disciplined, structured learning environment for all students 3. Evaluation Criteria. Evaluation criteria for the School Resource Officer Program include: a. Written evaluation by principals, including suggested improvements b. Written evaluation by school resource officer, including suggested improvements c. Survey of all staff members of schools d. Survey 10% of students, including high school and junior high school students e. Survey 10% of parents of high school and junior high school students f. Compare pre and post data for suspension, attendance, and dropout incidents involving unauthorized non-students on campus and juveniles processed into the juvenile justice system 29 Safety and Security Page Five F. G. Impact Analysis 1. Program. It is expected that this program will have a positive effect on both the schools and the community. Additional role models, both male and female, will be visible to all children. These officers will be able to provide assistance to students and staff in legal matters. Various crime prevention, drug and alcohol programs will be presented to students. It is expected that the relationship between students and their respect for the law will be a positive move for our community. Some of the built-in mistrust of "police types" will be affected. The added protection of a qualified law enforcement officer that is available at all times will also present a positive impact 2. Desegregation Plan. There will be no negative impact upon the Desegregation Plan. All employees are expected to work together to promote adherence to the Plan. 3. Court Orders. No impact is known. 4. Political Factors. No political factors will have impact upon this program. 5. Risks. Any new program bas risks that accompany the program. Schools face the risk of becoming overly dependant on police personnel to solve problems. Police officers generally have not been schooled in educational philosophy. Police lack the flexibility that school administrators have in dealing with student offenders. A special inservice program will be given to all involved before the program will be implemented. After three years of program planning, the administration believes that the community is ready for this program. 6. Timing. The major issues are the extensive training required to replace officers that join this program. The City of Little Rock must take that into account before accepting the program. The Little Rock School District must plan inservice activities before placing the program in action. These programs will be completed prior to program implementation. Resource Analysis 1. Personnel Analysis. Fourteen School Resource Officers will be added to the district staff. One support person, a LRPD supervisor, will perform support duties to the program. Personnel will be recruited from the ranks of the Little Rock Police Department 30 Safety and Security Page Six 2. Financial Analysis. Operating costs have been prepared and submitted by the City of Little Rock. Under the proposed plan, costs will be shared between the city and the Little Rock School District on a 50/50 basis. The Little Rock School District's expense for the first year of operation will be $203,000. This cost will fund fourteen (14) police resource officer positions. These costs are valid for the 1993 school year. A 5% cost of living type of increase in overall personnel costs should be planned for 1994. Additionally, the second year personnel costs should include an additional $34,079 for employee step increases plus $20,000 to pay for benefit increases such as educational pay and longevity. H. Force Field Analysis 1. Forces For. The primary support of this recommendation will likely be the principals in the affected schools. In addition, teachers in the schools affected will likely form a group that will support this move. It is my opinion that all Board members will support this recommendation. Support will come from these groups because each of the groups has studied this option for approximately three years. They have been presented with both pros and cons of the program. Parents will be a support of this recommendation. All calls to my office have been supportive. 2. Forces Against The only persons to have voiced concerns in the past have seemed to have the feeling that the policeman may use his authority in an abusive manner. The success of the program for a one semester trial at McClellan High School was discussed at a recent meeting. Board members who had voted in a negative manner in the past seemed to have changed their minds and talked in a positive manner. I. Implementation begins with approval by the governing bodies of both the City of Little Rock and the Little Rock School District Following approval, meetings will be held with Little Rock Police Department officials to determine starting dates for training newly hired officers to supplement the officers that are selected to become School Resource Officers. Additionally, both the LRSD and LRPD will offer training sessions for officers selected to begin the Resource Officer program. Bill Barnhouse, Director of Safety and Security, will assume the task of scheduling all events that will ensure a successful program implementation. All status reports for program implementation will be submitted to the Manager of Resources and School Support, Little Rock School District 31 ISSUE: SECURING OF QUALIFIED SUBSTITUTES BACKGROUND The Little Rock School District has been experiencing an ongoing high percentage of absenteeism resulting in a few occasions where classes have been covered by employees who are not in the District's regular substitute pool. A certain amount of absenteeism may be expected or necessary due to in-service educational opportunities, seminars, etc.. Compounding the situation are the required number of personal days and sick days as provided for by state law and the P.N. Agreement. Further, employees tend to group their absences contiguous to the weekend, thus making this situation much worse on Fridays and Mondays. Unfortunately, these are the days on which qualified substitutes choose or prefer not to work. PROPOSED PARTIAL RESOLUTION While it is not a panacea for absenteeism, this proposal encourages utilizing teaching assistant/substitutes for teachers who are absent or excused. TNSUBS are assigned "Home Schools" and are obligated to attend that school every day unless assigned to another school by the personnel office or retained from a previous assignment Although TNSUBS are kept in their home schools as much as possible, they are not allowed to decline a substitution call from S.O.S. to cover a different school. Salary for a T NSUB is based on a 10-month contract The first year salary is $11,65 . The second year salary is $13,891. Each day that a TNSUB substitutes in a classroom, he/she will receive an additional $22 per day stipend. If a TNSUB is in a classroom for 16 consecutive days, he/she will be considered a long-term substitute and will be paid teacher salary retroactiY to the day he/she began the assignment If a TNSUB is substituting in a classroom for more than 2 hours but less than 3 1/4 hours, it is considered a half-day assignment and he/she will be paid one-half of the $22 stipend. When a TNSUB is not substituting, he/she may be placed in a classroom to observe, cover a room while a teacher is out temporarily (i.e.: Doctor's appointment), or may assist teachers with errands or special projects. PROPOSAL T NSUBS will be assigned to schools on a basis of one per school. 32 II II -II n Exhibit 7 Little Rock School District Stephens School Relocation A Business Case May, 1994 Submitted to U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Arkansas Judge Susan Webber-Wright May 18, 1994 33 I Executive Summary Little Rock School District Stephens School Relocation Business Case I The condition of the environment in which children learn is an important factor in their success. ,.Stephens has become inefficient as a public school because of an aging facility, declining enrollment, and increasing costs. The problem has occurred because limited funds were available to complete needed repairs and renovations. These needs are confirmed in facility studies completed in 1981 and 1988 by Leggett and Associates. Major repairs and renovations needs still exists. The current estimated costs to bring Stephens School up to today's standards is $1.3 million.1 Over one million dollars will be saved by not using the building as a school next year and each year thereafter. The per pupil cost of delivering the instructional program for 1993-94 was $8,781.19. This was four times the cost per pupil of most schools that year. Since the 1991-92 school year, the number of students attending Stephens School has dropped from 245 to 145 in 1993-94. Declining school-age population within the attendance zone has impacted enrollment at the school and exacerbated the problem of low enrollment. This increases per pupil costs and places undue strain on an already austere budget. The recommended solution is to: Temporarily relocate students from Stephens immediately to minimize the problem of facility needs. This alternative addresses all areas of the problem. a) A plan to offer students reasonable choices of schools will be devised and used based on available seating by grade and race in other schools.- The new William J. Clinton Interdistrict School will be one of the choices offered to students at Stephens. b) An immediate savings of 1.3 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few
c) Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract
d) The curriculum offered at Stephens will be offered at other school under the theme for that particular school
e) A plan for use of the facility until construction can begin will be designed based on discussions with officials of the city and community agencies. Consideration will be given to housing support departments of the school district as well as other options
and, f) Temporarily relocate the Four-Year-Old Program to Franklin Incentive School. To implement this solution, the desegregation plan must be modified to reduce the number of Incentive Schools. Current filings before both the U. S. Federal Court and the Eighth Circuit Court must be considered for consistency with this proposal. The district is aware of the concern that exists in the Stephens community about the closing of schools. A number of school buildings have been abandoned m 1 Doug Eaton, Director of Facilities, Little Rock School District 34 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 2 predominantly black neighborhoods. This and the fear that city services such as police and fire will not be as efficient without a school are of paramount concern to many in the community. Whether or not the Stephens name will be preserved if another school is built is another concern of the community. Some want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated to avoid another vacant building. While these concerns are understandable, the intent of the district is to build a new, enhanced school at the current Stephens site by the same name pending court approval.2 Negatives of this solution 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends
2. Community reaction will be against the decision as mentioned above
3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by other entities
Positives of this solution 1. Students and parents will have choices equal to the current program
2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed
3. New patrons will be included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in the newly assigned school
4. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized
and, 5. The Stephens School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. It is critical that the process be completed before the opening of school for 1994- 95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately. Awareness must be generated in the community, students must be notified of their choices, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. No additional personnel are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. A savings of 1.3 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the total budgeted cost of Stephens School for 1994-95 is expected to be saved. This savings is a year-to-year savings. 2 Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, Little Rock School District 35 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 3 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. Milestone Date Person 1. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 5/18/94 Williams 2. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students from St,pl~ns Sclrool 5/20/94 Williams 3. File rev1s1ons to current filings relating to Stephens which are before the courts If necessary 5/20/94 Williams 4. Obtamceourt approval"' ''' c.::,,,,,_,,,,,_..:,}, 5126194. Williams,i-. 5. Contac: the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 5/27/94 Ingram 6. Develoo a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immea1ately 5/27/94 Modeste 7. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 5/27/94 Williams 8. Inventory ou1lding 5/30/94 Neal 9. Conduct 1nformat1onal meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 6/6/94 Williams 10. Comp1ie list and mailing labels of all students living in the Stq,l~n Sclrool attendance zone and 6/6/94 Mayo those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Stephens Sc/tool but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Stepl~ns Sc/tool but live in the attendance zone
and, c) those who do not attend Stro/~11s Sc/tool but live in the attendance zone. 11 . Plan ano scnedule public meeting with the Stephens community to hear concerns 6/3/94 Mayo 12. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) parents & students
b) community groups and churches
c) media (press release) d) door-to-0oor delivery in the neighborhood 13. Develoo letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response 6/3/94 Mayo by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at St,p/~11s School to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 14. Make contact with key people 1n the community who should be contacted immediately and 6/3/94 Modeste solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. 15. Send notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) community groups and churches
b) press release 16. Design follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school 6/3/94 Mayo 17. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response by 6115/94 Mayo a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at St,pl~11s School to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 18. Deliver fliers. door-to-<:!oor. announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 6120/94 Mayo 19. Im clement follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school 7/6/94 Ingram 20. Send assignment notices 7/29/94 Mayo 21 . Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) wrth 7/29/94 Mayo announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline. 22. Remove materials and equipment from school 7/31/94 Eaton 23. Reroute transportation of students 7/31/94 Montgomery 24. Secure building 7/31/94 Eaton 25. Reassign staff 7/31/94 Hurley 26. Send assignment notices 8/1/94 Mayo 3 Remaining hmeline is based on Court approval. 36 Stephens School Relocation Business Case I Background 4 I As early as 1981, suggestions to improve the condition of the building known presently as the Stephens School Incentive School appeared in a study of Little Rock School District facilities. Stanton Leggett and Associates, Educational Consultants, noted the "gross inadequacy of present cafeteria with stage". New construction estimated at as much as $210,000 then was suggested.4 Additionally, the report listed a number of repairs and the need for renovation that would bring the building up to standard. The estimated cost was a maximum of $208,500 in 1981 dollars. "The extent of this work . . . is essentially that require to bring the facility up to reasonable 'as is' standards." To keep pace with future needs, an additional $598,000 to $786,406 in upgrades and renovation was needed. This did not include air conditioning.5 Some of these items were completed throughout the mid-eighties. No organized program with the purpose of addressing these repairs and renovations was undertaken. In 1988, Stanton Leggett and Associates again studied the facility needs of the Llttle Rock Schools. In that study, replacement of both Stephens School and Garland Elementary Schools was recommended. "The cost of remodeling and rehabilitation of the schools did not provide the level of specialized rooms that have been [sic] provided by the school system in its recent construction and that is necessary to house the staff properly that has been assigned to these schools."6 Concern about the facility at Stephens School has been documented for over a decade. In recent years, enrollment at Stephens School has declined. This together with the needs of the facility has added to the current concern about the efficiency of maintaining Stephens School as it currently stands. Since 1991-92 school year, the number of students attending Stephens School has dropped from 245 students to 145 for 1993-94. The number is expected to be 130 next year. This enrollment decline is influenced in part by a declining school-age population. Continued decline is expected for Stephens and Garland attendance zones. See Figure 1. Zone Stephens AZ Garland AZ Figure 1 Projected Attendance Zone Numbers from Census Data 1991 1992 1993 1994 225 219 213 207 308 303 298 293 1995 201 288 The social and cultural relevance of Stephens School to alumnae and the community cannot be ignored. The Greater Little Rock Community Development Corporation 4 Study of the School Buildings of Little Rock, Arkansas, Executive Summary, May, 1981, p. 9. 5 Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 71-74. 6 Long-Range Plan for School Facilities, Little Rock, Arkansas, Section 2 - Report: Meeting the Physical Facilities Needs of Seven Racially Identifiable Schools, September, 1988, p. 10. 37 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 5 noted this in its 1993 study of the Stephens School area. Quoting from a research report on the history of Stephens School completed by Reginald Wright, an African-American student in the Donaghey Project 1993 summer program, the GLRCDC study noted: The original Stephens School was built 80 years ago on the site of the present school. The school first existed as a two story framed building, whereas the current structure is a one story masonry and steel horizontal building occupying two square blocks .... The school has received attention for many reasons. It was the first black school to be built in the Little Rock School District and is one of the oldest schools remaining in operation today. It was the school attended by many successful minorities who grew up in the neighborhood . ... The school got its name from a hard working prestigious woman named Charlotte Andrews Stephens. Born in 1854, she was an educator most of her life until she died on December 17, 1951. She showed her dedication to education and to the community by donating the land that the school presently occupies. Ms. Stephens had many accomplishments throughout her life such as becoming the first African-American teacher and principal in the Little Rock School District, and becoming the first AfricanAmerican woman in Arkansas to attend college? I Problem Definition I Stephens has become inefficient as a public school because of an aging facility, declining enrollment, and increasing costs. Currently, the Stephen's facility has accumulated a host of needed repairs and renovations that make the investment "cost ineffective". These needs are documented in two facility studies. One in 1981 and another in 1988. Additionally, the per pupil cost of delivering the instructional program for 1993-94 was $8,781.19. This was four times the cost per pupil at other schools. One intent of desegregation is to bring children of different cultures together for common opportunities. Stephens percentage of black students is 97%. Recruitment of white students to this school has not achieved the desired results. Increasing student enrollment using students living in the attendance zone has not been successful. I Analysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Facility studies have been reviewed as mentioned above. Upon careful consideration, three aspects had to be considered in resolving the problem. They were aging facility, declining enrollment, and increasing costs. The costs of solution number two below is based on the Leggett Study and 1988 dollars. Cost was reviewed as per pupil costs and as the total cost of keeping the school open for another year. Addressing one or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. 7 Stephens School Neighborhood Plan, Donaghey Project for Urban Studies & Design - University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 1993, p. 3. 38 I Stephens School Relocation Business Case 6 Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers a quality for students and cost efficiency for tax-payers. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. Change nothing. This will not address the problem and will allow costs to grow annually
2. Undertake a major renovation and repair program for the facility. The cost of a recommended program in 1981 was estimated to be a maximum of $208,500 to bring the facility to standard. To prepare it for future use, it would cost an additional $598,000 to $786,406 in upgrades and renovation. This did not include air conditioning. In 1994 dollars, this now costs $1.3 million. This solution does not address the exorbitant per pupil expenses. The reasonableness of this alternative is questionable. The budget is austere and many facilities have needs. 3. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Stephens School. This reduces the per-pupil costs but does not address the cost of either maintaining the facility or needed repairs and renovation. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. 4. Temporarily relocate students from Stephens immediately to minimize the problem of facility needs. This alternative addresses all areas of the problem. a) A plan to offer students reasonable choices of schools will be devised and used based on available seating by grade and race in other schools. b) An immediate savings of 1.3 million dollars will be realized by eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few
c) Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract
d) The curriculum offered at Stephens will be offered at other school under the theme for that particular school
e) A plan for use of the facility until construction can begin will be designed based on discussions with officials of the city and community agencies. Consideration will be given to housing support departments of the school district as well as other options
and, f) Temporarily relocate the Four-Year-Old Program to Franklin Incentive School. 5. Intensify recruitment efforts. Recruitment has been increased for the all incentive schools since January. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Stephens were increased by this effort, the aging facility is still a problem. I Recommendation Alternative 4 is recommended. 4. Temporarily relocate students at Stephens immediately to minimize the problem of facility needs. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. After consideration of all other alternatives, this one was the only one to address the total problem. 39 I Stephens School Relocation Business Case I Objective 7 By the opening of school for 1994-95, Stephens students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Using this proposal will require a modification in the LRSD Desegregation Plan regarding the number of Incentive Schools and to the Interdistrict Plan as it relates to a third interdistrict school. The current motion before the U. S. Federal Court to make Washington the third interdistrict school under the plan is consistent with this proposal. The appeal before the Eight Circuit Court concerning the site for the new Stephens School may need to be reviewed for consistency with this proposal. This proposal supports the school district goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to fully support schools and the desegregation program. The following is a list of the criteria to be used in determining whether or not the problem is solved when this solution is implemented if: 1. Students and parents choose options other than Stephens School
2. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision
3. Transportation is re-routed to accommodate these students
4. Special activities are planned and implemented by each school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed
5. Patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in that school
6. Key members of the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input
7. Immediate cost savings is realized
and, I 8. The relocation of students and staff at Stephens will be complete before the opening of school for 1994-95. Most of these benefits will occur when the process begins. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered and parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. I Impact Analysis The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. Current filings before both the U. S. Federal Court and the Eighth Circuit Court must be considered for consistency with this proposal. The district is aware of the concern that exists in the Stephens community about the closing of schools. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in black neighborhoods. The buildings are vandalized and defaced. This and the fear that city services such as police and fire will not be as efficient without a school are of paramount concern to many in the community. Whether or not the Stephens name will be ~..-Ot .......... t'W41_!o. _ 40 tJ&/1., .. E.,nPH I Stephens School Relocation Business Case 8 preserved if another school is built is another concern of the community. Some believe this is an excuse to close another school. Some want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated to avoid another vacant building. While these concerns are understandable, the intent of the district is to build a new, enhanced school at the current Stephens site by the same name pending court approval.8 Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends
2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above
3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community
Positives 1. A new school will be built with enhanced educational opportunities for students who choose to enroll
2. Students and parents will have choices equal to current programs
3. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed
4. Patrons will be included in appropriate school correspondence and activities as are currently enrolled patrons in that school
5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized
and, 6. The current Stephens School facility will be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs, increasing complaints by staff about facility needs, and a generally poor image of facilities at this site. The risks of implementation of this solution are criticism for abandoning another school building in the black community, inconveniencing to the students who walk to school, , and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know as soon as the Board of Directors approves. Awareness must be generated in the community, students must be notified of their choices, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline 8 Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent, Little Rock School District 41 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 9 included must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. I Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Financial A savings of 1.3 million dollars is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. Because the remaining schools and staffs will absorb students and personnel where vacancies occur, the budgeted cost of Stephens School is expected to be saved. See attachment. This savings is a year-to-year savings. Revenue Source A source of revenue is unnecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the 1994-95 budget. I Force Field Analysis I I Primary supporters of this proposal will be those not directly affected by the solution. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunity and cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. Community groups have consistently gone on record as opposed to the "closing" of Stephens School. They argue several points. They argue that too many have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities. That schools which are closed are those located in the black community, and that a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community that is already experiencing economic difficulty removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The Joshua Interveners may oppose the relocation of these students for fear of closing an Incentive School. The position of the City of Little Rock is unclear at this time. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. The strongest statement about relocating students at Stephens School temporarily is just that. We are 42 Stephens School Relocation Business Case 10 relocating the students temporarily. Consideration is being given to building a new school for students in this area. 43 Stephens School Relocation Business Case I General Implementation Plan 11 I The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation daily. Milestone Date Person 1. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 5/18/94 Williams 2. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students from Step/rerrs Sc/rool 5/20/94 Williams 3. File rev1s1ons to current filings relating to Stephens which are before the courts if necessary 5/20/94 Williams 4->- Obtain- court app.rovat:t '/ :,:/',?{\' .,,.,./:,:,,,:,::-:,:, ,:,:,c,,.,c,., , --:-:-.-:--
-.-.:-:.
.
:
::-:-:-.. :-
::::::::::::::( :::::::::::
:::::::::
:::: ::,C:}:5/,26194 .,'):: .\/William&/ :-: 5. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 5/27/94 Ingram 6. Develoo a list of key peoole in the community who should be contacted immediately 5/27/94 Modeste 7. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduc:1on strategy 5/27/94 Williams 8. Inventory building 5/30/94 Neal 9. Conduct informational meeting with the pnncipal. faculty, and staff about the process 6/6/94 Williams 10. Compile list and marling labels of all students living in the Stq,/rerr School attendance zone and 6/6/94 Mayo those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Step/rerrs Sc/roo/ but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Step/rerrs Sc/rool but live in the attendance zone: and. C) those who do not attend Step/rerrs Sc/rool but live in the attendance zone. 11 . Plan and schedule public meeting with the Stephens community to hear concerns 6/3/94 Mavo 12. Develop notice of relocauon and date of communrty information meeting to send to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) parents & students: b) community groups and churches: C) media (press release) d) door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and chorces asking for a response 6/3/94 Mayo by a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at Step/rerrs Sc/rool to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 14. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and 6/3/94 Modeste solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and mrn1sters. 15. Send notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to: 6/3/94 Mayo a) community groups and churches: b) press release 16. Design follow-up plan for students who do not respond to request for their choice of school 6/3/94 Mayo 17. Mall letter to parents and students with announcement and choices asking for a response by 6/15/94 Mayo a deadline. Deadline must be after community meeting. Include invite to community information meeting at Ster,/rerrs Sc/rool to answer questions about choices and the relocation. 18. Deliver fliers. door-to-door. announcrng the relocation and date of the information meetinQ 6/20/94 Mayo 19. lmolement follow-up olan for students who do not resoond to reciuest for their choice of school 7/6/94 Ingram 20. Send assignment notices 7/29/94 Mayo 21 . Mail letter to parents and students (who have not responded to the first letter) with 7/29/94 Mayo announcement and choices asking for a response with a deadline. 22. Remove matenals and equipment from school 7/31/94 Eaton 23. Reroute transportation of students 7/31/94 Montgomery 24. Secure bu1ldrng 7/31/94 Eaton 25. Reassign staff 7/31/94 Hurley 26. Send assignment notices 8/1/94 Mayo 9 Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. 44 ra, ,~,.. ac ST'PH 11 Stephens School Relocatio~ Business Case 12 Attachment 111 Copy of pages from 1994-95 Tentative Budget relating to the cost of Stephens School 45 1111/1.,..,. IC..sn"H Dole: 0 11-: 1: lhtle lock ldlool Dhtrlct Depertmnt Dudaet 111111 ,aOG: IU>OOZ fi.nctlon Object Depert-,t Code Deecrlptlon Code Deecrlptlon STEPHENS flfllENTAIJ 0041 1105 f<U TEAi OlD PIOClM 0110 lfWLAI aulflCAJfD 0120 lflllAI IIOll-alllflCAJO ULIU SOCIAL lfDallf JAi( 0240 INUAIICI 0410 llffllH 0540 ICIUINIENJNH0IIAL ,aQNI Inn f<U UAI OLD PIOCIM TOULI 1110 IIIIDflWJH UlHI HIU.AI a.uflCAJfD 0210 IOCIAL lfDallf TAIi 0410 041Z lOCAL -...LIii IP JIIADlll 1110 II IIDflc:AI I H Jot All 1 IZD flfllEIIJAIY Achl 1"''" H.too.00 U OU.OJ Iii ,464.DO 11.lllU.U I0.00 I0.00 n, ,., ' '4 1Jl.J6 IJ 114D.H I0.00 Ul,UJ.56 ludget 1")/94 ao,an.00 U,164.45 ,z ,461.00 11 lll>.Z7 nu.JP I0.00 au ,n,.11 a> '.Ul.00 '4 ,ua,.11 IZ .>N.U IHH.ZZ u,._,z 1.6& .,,,.u Actual D1/J1/94 110,,uo.Z, 11 ,14Z.ZO Nln.86 I0.00 I0.00 116.'49.6' w,,,,..,,.zo 11 ,n1.,o Nln.56 I0.00 I0.00 ludget 1994/95 S50 .5&7.00 aLIJ ,lllD.00 u ,4Z4.n S,,,rou.00 ., , 100.00 aJ,600.00 NII 229.ll II UY.77 IZ.600.00 1252.00 I0.00 ~ .YLU.ff t=======================110111t01 1~=H=l~ll1lJll~ lC~ZHl~1I1I0r1~u~1D::~
:::::::===============~===.~.~,
,~,._ . u,.n uui.OOll.00 116',4H.U a,rJ.111U. J9 :1~1IJ~.t 11~:===~ii1:fi1.an .DO In ,MM. 74 1105 I YUJ .00 QUU Hllll.AI -tzHltlUIO an,n .16 "'" UJ,61Z.U iU,121.TU 0uu -ITIMI JIACllfHIIIOIY 120 ,OJ.,. I0. 00 I0.00 I0 . 00 0ZI0 IOCIAL 11aan, JAJI 140,tJI.JI 14Z,N6.11 ... ,>H.56 140,:w,.,r uuu PUILIC 1,.lOYIH 111111,_ 11.14 I0.00 I0.00 I0.00 flf 1994/95 Z.oo Z.UII z.uu Z.uu 14.17 1.00 0240 INSlaAIICI lz tza.16 aL> ioo.1Ki-.-+---=Uc:Jn'H.'ii-QJ+---=a.,=a-=r...,"
.:-ii-OO+----f D]IJ l'\.Pll 1nv1a1 IHI ,!IN.JI ,o.oo I0.00 I0.00 l - - - ----------,D....-JIZ6
-..
l,
f
,.PAe-:l':-l,::'l'=1-=C1U'='l:=NIE:=:l:-J-----------t----ia,z,im-.T1I7 ~---Tin1,nrw-..OOrr-1i-----.llm4'Jr.-wr'JD_ ___ ,lrr.1.oa-.-11J,.OOrr-1i-----1 DJJI l'\.Pll TIAIISNIIJATIGI 14 ,oe.U l'J .oou.00 II , ... II IID.uuu.00 l - - - --------,omin1i:-.:':
::
IA
-
VE7.l
.--------------
----IZ-tt-,'1Z.OO t----x,i
so,.....oo,rr-t-----...-rr'Tlroo+----..,so,,...,.00~11-----1 O-"Z POSTAGII! 1dl:Tr 1n7.5D UO.U SO.DO OJ60 PIIIJIICI I IIIIDIICllllfll 14'1.00 ~, .,o 1160.00 I0.00 0161 HIIJIIII AIII IIIIDIHIXTI 11,4JI.N I0.00 15Z7.'J0 I0.00 OJ80 fOOD IIIVlal 19 ,,n.05 111,000.00 IJ ,)87.IO a1uuu.DD 0410 UPLIU II , 195.111 11 ,IJl .60 IZ ,4ZZ.U i20. ,n.00 IK16 u,uu llfflY alJH 14 .>.IJ 11 &aZ .SI 14 .244.'JZ Ml.OD 0411 ,11oa (NQ.NIAIICH I0.00 -~,u.O I0.00 Ml.OU J__ ___________
,
054
.
-D-
f.
OU
l
.
,Plll==,l
'.:f...:H~
:,
1011=Al
..
H,
OP=E=-----------~"1-.Uffl'.,lli-lf----v'
'''59T""o~_ _. =,ll<c:,n.....C7.
,
,,77~1-----'-'.c.LC''>UU~-
,
,oo~---~ 05411 fflJIPIIINT UPU aNTH an,.14 aol:5o I0.00 I0.00 11zu flfHENTAU JOTAU 1661, 151.ZI MYY,LYD.6l o ,4116.)9 -~.11111.06 22.11 1124 llfllEITAU IIJSIC ------ - - - ----,.o.,11oi--...::'-:f:=lll.:7."Al--'=Cfc::c::J:-:-l
,fl:-"CA~J:-:=E,:..D_ ________- t-___, aorr,.oo.,,-t---u'-iu
t'Jl~IZ:.c..oo.
.....----~'~oo~1----.-..~." ',-.' !~!:- .~n------f 0Z10 SOCIAL IEDMIJY JAX I0.00 IZJ14.00 I0.00 .. , .. , Ol40 IIISURAIICI I0.00 11, 111,.00 ao.oo I0.00 1124 flfHEIITAIY IIJSIC TOUll I0.00 114,0)1.00 I0.00 an.-.4D Pou I 1J D1te: OJ/2]/94 Tl: IJ:44 little lock ldtoot Dl1trlct Dep rta.lt ludtet - CIOtl PlOG I ll.0002 hroetlon ObJ.c:t Dq,ert_,t Code DHcrlptlon Codi D11crlptlon SIEPHENS flEMENTA-T 0041 11Y> ACCELERATED LEAANING OllO Hill.AA --aUlflCATID UC 10 IOCIAL l(aJIITY TAX uc,u INUAIICI 11n ACCllllATlD LWNINI JOTALI 1itu ITINEIAIIT 1HllUC110N 0110 lfGULAII CllllflCAJfD UC IU IOCIAL RQJIIJY JAJI uc
,u 1N-....... J~u llllflAlll IHllOCJION fOTALI IUU Actual 1ffl/9J HO,..,..,, Iii ,>VI .If Ml ,111111.11' ludl,et 1991/94 1u.,11.uo 111., ..... 111 Actual Ot/Jl/94 11.ne.24 111 , 11141. 16 IIJ .,,, .JO 11.uu.ll 14n.n IH.14l.l4 t.J.>11.U'I IH,927.6J >lU.UU llZ, 119.117 UllU HIU.M CHJlflCAlff lll,U'4.UU 11l1111.JII U,r.,a.'6 IH '1J.JII UllU IOCl11l ~WIIJY JAJI nee.JU .,,.,,.11.J Hao.DZ 11,114.11 "' 1994/95 11.,0 Ol411 IN.....ur ~!!~f utz.,u 1161. l-------11,11u~u'l"'E'"ICUl:
.:Cl~l
Olll
-.:..=::===--,,.,,o-','in..,1r------------t--,,muF-tPfp:irtr--1_1!_!rTi.ri,.r,:,,r.nllJ--t---,14:r,111r9t ---,11rrr6R7,.,J1.U>a.nU-.O-.. J1rr1t--r11.-.. ,,x10 '"O IIIMl<UID AIII IIOSPIJAL 1--------------i,0'1nlr-U-::l'tUUUllll
ijn:~~:~1nl1rr.1' 7.t
All~V---------+---'-.:'-jiuLj"m''"7'm -'f----'-j"'j'r'ij,_rn.llOn-f---"='iif tl69Ur.Il"llT"'_ _, ilZ4r,riJUYr.OOW-f----'1..
...w-j ~ 11~111 IOC_!A~~DJllfY fAll l\,'49.00 I_! 546.01 nu.Tl ,1 ,aJa.ll 0l40 !Na.Ma 11 ,r,.u ll.1.'61.,Z 14JJ.IJ 11,,uu.OO ll4U IICMIIU.III AND IIIUM"llM. JOHLi H.l..41t,~ IZ4, .. n.JJ 11u.1111.1.JJ Ml, 161.U 111111 11'1ED ,._ JALUTED l-------------iiUl'jl.,.-U-ilOC
:.'
1i.'.Al~lf~CUl'--':.
.clll'-'-Y_l.c...All--'-----------
---,i'[T~! uc,u llstMAIICI 11 ,>46.!) 1Y1u Clflfll AIIO tALHllD JOTALI Ul .zu.11 l11J SOCIAL lJIIK IEIVICll au na.91 11 ,lOY.JJ wrw.,Y 11,J60.19 ., ..... uu 11'1',nu.n 1.w 0.60 0.60 UllU IElllA.AII IICll-alllflCAUD IO.UU I0.00 H ,.J>.J.UU 110,!>Y.UIJ U.>~ l------------iuc.,1ii-,u-.:-~:111ir'Li,
n
_...,..r-T,1111 1yrrn,1111---------,---10u-.mruu1 ---u111-.M"""oo--""194lmwlr.IT491--n,11,zl'r11. ..>... r-+1-----t P1gt 114 lll40 INSURAIICI IO.UU ID.DO 11116. 16 90>U.00 l11J SOCIAL lJIIK lflVICH JOTALI IO.UU 111.00 H ,NY.24 111 ,9J7.'1 ZlZO GUIOANCf lllVICES 0110 lElllA.AII aaTIFICATED U(IU SOCIAL lfCUIITY TAIi ucc~II INSURAIICI lllll GUIDANCE lflVICU lOHLI l1" IIUUING SUVICU UllU lfQJI.AII -CIITlflCATID u"u SOCIAL lfCUIITY TAIi OZ4U IN>UIUUlut Z1J4 PIING IEIVICfS JOlALI wru ,u.....,a H.J6l~ .cc,,, 11').19 HCC ,,,.,, ,)9 IZ4,Yfl.J1 11,YIU.JZ '1.M.>0 zf.620.JJ .a,,zo.01 tl,fY'l'.U nc1.oo 140,67U.OO 5J, 111.ll .,,,.,.,.w SU.11111.lO -,,cc,.,,-,.uu ll6, 1J4.'6 11.~o 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.w Date: 0J/2J/94 J , ... : 1J:44 FU'lCtlon m>Ject Departaent Code D11crlptlon Code D11crlptlon STEPHENS flfHENTAIY 0041 2 2 SCHOOl LIIIAIY SERVICES IECilJI.U 11011-aRTIFICATED SOCIAL lfMITY TAIi INSUUIICf IUPl'LIH Page 115 little lock lchool Dl1trlct Dpertant ludeet OOfl Actual '"ll9J ludget 199J/94 Actual 01/]1/94 ludget 1994/95 PIOG: IIU>OOZ fff 1994/95 Exhibit 8 1994-95 LRSD PRINCIPA.I.SHIP CHANGES May 18, 1994 In accordance with the request in the Court's Order dated May 9, 1994 regarding the schools affected by changes in principalships for the 1994-95 school year, the schools which will have principal changes due to assignments/reassignments (per A.C.A. 6-17-303), early retirements, resignations from the District, etc. are as follows: Bale Elementary Baseline Elementary Carver Magnet Central High School Cloverdale Junior High Fair High School Fair Park Elementary Forest Heights Franklin Elem. Gibbs Magnet Henderson Junior Mabelvale Elem. Mabelvale Junior Mitchell Elem. 49 Rightsell Elem. Romine Interd. Southwest Junior Washington Mag. Williams Mag. Wilson Elem. Exhibit 9 SE'ITLEMENT LOAN REPAYMENT Discussions are currently underway between the District and the Arkansas Department of Education to develop the criteria for measuring student achievement increases as descnbed in the March 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Settlement Agreement Strategies are also being developed to address loan repayments that might arise should the student achievement increases fail to meet the agreed-upon criteria. Due to the uncertainty of the measurement criteria, amounts for any potential repayments have not been included in the five-year projections included elsewhere in this submission. It is arguable that the first year to be impacted by a loan repayment would be 1997-98 where a $300,000 payment could be due. All of this is stated with the proviso that the District may have legal and other remedies available to it to address this matter. All such legal and other remedies are hereby reserved and no waiver or concessions are either being made or intended by supplying this information pursuant to the Court's order. 50 u, ...... IU I 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 II Page 1 of6 1 ask uescnpt1on Prepare initial financial forecasts for coming year. Issue lnslfllclions for budget preparation al all levels. Develop budget preparation training material. Conduct budget preparation training sessions. Budget manager, submit 94-9S budget requests. Begin budget development. Revise financial forecast for coming year Submit proposed budget to Board. Conduct Board work sessions on budget. Revise budgets, as needed. Secure seniority list. DRAFT llttle Rock School District Budgeting Menegement Tlmellne o/e Comp. :start IOOo/ Dec I '93 100% Nov 30 '93 100% Nov 18 '93 100 Dec 6 '93 100% Jan 14 '94 100% Jan 18 '94 100% Marl '94 100% Mar 24 '94 100% Mar28 '94 60% Mar 24 '94 100% Apr I '94 FY 95 ExhlbltlO 1m1sh Resources Feb 11 '94 Milhollen Dec 3 '93 Milhollen Nov 30 '93 Milhollen Dec 17 '93 Milhollen Feb 28 '94 Milhollen Jan 18 '94 Milhollcn Apr IS '94 Milhollen Mar 24 '94 Milhollcn AprlS'94 Milhollen Jul 28 '94 Milhollen Apr 14 '94 Gadberry.Hurley 5/18/94 U1 N little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmellne JLJ 1 asK ucscnpt1on Comp. -Start 12 Identify elementary enrollment (tentative) for 1994-95 and determine teachers 100% Apr I '94 needed. 13 Review master schedules. Note possible cuts based on low classes. 100% Apr I '94 14 Make determinallon by subject area (secondary) of possible reductions and 100% Apr I '94 elementary enrollment. IS Verification of need, based on manpower report and by program (program 100% Apr I '94 managers and principals). 16 Check results oflD#'s 12-15 against known retirement, resignations, and 100% Apr 20 '94 intern positions. 17 Identify teachers for Reduction In Force (RIF), if needed. 100% Apr 20 '94 18 Board approval of RJF, if needed. 100% Apr 28 '94 19 Notify certified personnel of possible staff reduction. 100% Apr 29 '94 . 20 Prepare modified tentative budget. 15% Apr 25 '94 21 Board of Directors work session on budget. 100% May 12 '94 22 Board approval of modified tentative budget. 00/4 May 2 '94 Page 2 ol 6 FY95 l-lnish Kesources Apr 19 '94 Gadberry,Hurley Apr 14 '94 Gadberry,llurley Apr 19 '94 Gadberry,llurley Apr 19 '94 Gadberry,llurley Apr 26 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Apr 28 '94 Gadberry.Hurley Apr 29 '94 Gadberry.Hurley May 18 '94 Milhollen May 12 '94 Milhollen,Board May 26 '94 Milhollen,Board, Williams 5118194 (.1l w Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmeline IU 1 ask Ucscnpllon 'Yo Comp. Start 23 Evaluate early retirement incentive numbers. 0% May 20 '94 24 Recall from RIF, if needed. 0% May 23 '94 25 Review ofOulsourcing 48% Feb 17 '94 26 Notify classified personnel of staff reduction. 0% May 3 '94 27 Account reconciliation and Purchase Order (PO) cleanup. 0% Jun 15'94 28 Receipt of state-generated revenure numbers {payroll liabilities, adjusted 0% Jun IS '94 supplemental payroll, last payroll, Carl Perl<ins, M to M, JTPA, Voe Ed, Sp Ed, Chapters I and 2, Compensatory Education, MFPA, Transportation, ABC). 29 Prepare proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's students. 100-/4 Mar 29 '94 30 Evaluate final proposal to temporarily relocate Stephen's students. 20'1. Apr29 '94 31 Submit to court (if approved by Board) proposal to temporarily relocate 0% May 6 '94 Stephen's students. 32 Court hearing on modified tentative budget. 0% May 25 '94 33 Prepare proposal for second school closing. 75% Apr2S '94 Page 3 or 6 FY 95 F,nisn Resources May 22 '94 Gadbcrry,llurley Jun I '94 Gadberry,llurley Jun I '94 Williams,Milhollen,Mayo May 31 '94 Gadberry ,Hurley Jul 15'94 Milhollen Jul IS '94 Milhollen Apr 28 '94 Williams,Council May 18 '94 Williams.Board May 20 '94 Williams.Board May 26 '94 Williams Jun I '94 Williams.Council 5/16/94 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmeline IU 'I ask 1.Jcscnpt1on %Comp. Start Fm1ili Resources 34 Evaluate final proposal for second school closing. 0% Jun 2 '94 Jun 9 '94 Williams.Board 35 Submit 10 court (if approved by Board) proposal for second school closing. 0% Jun 9 '94 Jun 13 '94 Williams.Board 36 Review philosophy and/or objectives for incentive schools' programs. 100% Apr 25 '94 Apr 28 '94 Mallhis,Curriculum Supervisors 37 Schedule and hold meetings for organizing the project. IOOo/. Apr 28 '94 Apr 28 '94 Mallhis,Currlculum Supervisors 38 Establish framework for: instructional day
curriculum offerings
services and 100 Apr 28 '94 May 17 '94 Mallhis,Curriculum Supervisors support programs
materials/supplies/equipment
staffing needs and staff develoment needs. 39 Relate program recommendallons to program offerings In designated area and 40% May 17 '94 May 31 '94 Mallhls,Currlculum Supervisors magnet schools. 40 Develop business case for Incentive schools' program modifications for 40 Apr 28 '94 May 31 '94 Mallhis,Currlculum Supervisors submilling to Superintendent and Council. 41 Review Incentive schools' program modificallons with Council. 0% May 31 '94 Jun I '94 Mallhis,Curriculum Supervisors 42 Submit business case for incentive schools' program modifications to Board of 0% Jun 2 '94 Jun 9 '94 Willian1s,Board Directors. 43 Submit to Court (If approved by Board) Incentive schools' program 0% Jun 9 '94 Jun 13 '94 Williarns,Board modifications. 44 Request for Proposal (RFP) on outsourcing mailed. 100 May 6 '94 May 6 '94 Mayo,Montgomcry Page 4 of 6 FY 95 5/18/94 u, u, IU I ask ucscnpl1on 45 Pre-proposal conference on Outsourcing. 46 Proposals due on Outsourcing. 47 Board of Directors' decision on Outsourcing. 48 Court hearing-status report on 1994-95 modified lenlalivc budget. 49 Close-out of 1993-94 accounts: adjust physical inventory, (fiscal) federal grants, magnets, stale grants, accruals so Compule ending fund balance. 51 Adminstralive review of budget. 52 Submit to Board 1994-94 Budget. 53 Court hearing on 1994-95 proposed budgets of LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD. S4 Board review and adoption of94-9S Budget. 55 Submil 94-95 Budge! lo Court/Parties. Page 5 of 6 little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmeline o/.Comp. Start 100 May 16 '94 O May 30 '94 O Jun 9 '94 Oo/o Jun 28 '94 0% Jul I '94 O Jul 21 '94 O Jul 22 '94 O Jul 25 '94 0% Jul 27 '94 0% Jul 28 '94 O Aug I '94 FY 95 t 1n1sn Kesources May 16 '94 Mayo,Monlgomery May 30 '94 Mayo.Montgomery Jun 9 '94 Williams.Board Jun 29 '94 Williams Jul 20 '94 Milhollen Jul 21 '94 Milhollen Jul 28 '94 Williams.Council Jul 25 '94 Williams Jul 29 '94 Williams Jul 28 '94 Board Aug 22 '94 Williams 5118/94 u, O'I IU Task Uescnpllon 56 Submit 94-95 Budget to State. Page 6 of 6 Little Rock School District Budgeting Management Tlmalina %Comp. Start ~-m,sh Kesources 0% Aug 22 '94 Aug 26 '94 Board,Milhollen FY 95 5/18/94
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.

<dcterms_creator>Little Rock School District</dcterms_creator>