Court filings concerning attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants and remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance

Court of Appeals, ruling; District Court, order; Court of Appeals, North Little Rock School District's (NLRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs as to state defendants; Court of Appeals, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) submission concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, joint submission of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief on teacher retirement and health insurance remedy issues; District Court, joint motion to extend time; District Court, order; District Court, motion for further extension of time to file reply briefs concerning remedies on the issues of teacher retirement and health insurance; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. , -y 06 / :I0 / 98 14 : 42 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS Member of the Pulaski County Board * of Education, a Public Corporate; and * Thomas Broughton, Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member * of the Pulaski County Board of * Education, a Public Corporate; * * Defendants, * * Arkansas Department of Education, * * Respondent, * * Martin Zoldessy, Dr., Individually and * in His Official Capacity as a Member of * the Pulaski County Board of Education, * a Public Corporate, * Defendants. * * Submitted: February 24, 1998 Filed: July 1, 1998 Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, 1 Chief Judge, HEANEY and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges. RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. 1TI1e Hon. Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He has been succeeded by the Hon. Pasco M. Bowman II. -20- . 023 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 43 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ~024 In these appeals we are asked once again to interpret certain provisions of the agreement by which the parties to the Pulaski County, Arkansas, school-desegregation case settled their dispute. The question presented is whether changes made by the State of Arkansas in the funding of retirement and health insurance for teachers violated that agreement. The Little Rock School District, the Pulaski County Special School District, and the North Little Rock School District (which we shall collectively call "the districts") claim that by making the changes in question the State violated undertakings it made in the settlement agreement. The District Court, Susan Webber Wright, J., held for the districts on summary judgment. We affirm. I. This case has to do with two important categories of school operating expenses: contributions for teacher retirement and employees' health insurance. When the parties agreed to settle this case, in 1989, the extant system of school funding by the State of Arkansas provided for direct payment by the State of both of these categories of costs. The General Assembly appropriated funds eannarked for these purposes. These funds were separate from another, larger, appropriation for general State aid to public school districts, generally known as Minimum Foundation Program Aid (MFPA). We shall call this system of funding, under which the State separately paid for teacher retirement and health insurance, the Act 34 system, after Act 34 of 1983 (Ex. Sess.), codified as Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Repl. 1993) (repealed in large part 1995). In 1995, the General Assembly enacted a new system of school funding. Separate appropriations for teacher retirement and health insurance were no longer made. Each local school district, including the districts involved in this case, was required to pay its own contributions for teacher retirement, Act 1194 of 1995, 13, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 24-7-103 (Michie Repl. 1996), and health insurance, Act 1194 of 1995, 14, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 6-17-1117 (Michie Supp. 1997). -21- I _, 06 / :10 / 98 1 4 : 4:1 '5'3 14 539 3945 Districts began to receive their State aid in one large pot, so to speak, combining what had been called :MFP A with funds that under the previous system had been earmarked for teacher retirement and health insurance. (There were refinements and exceptions to this system, but our general description is sufficient for present purposes.) Under Act 917 of 1995, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 6-20-301 et seq. (Michie Supp. 1997) -- the Equitable School Finance System Act of 1995, this new general fund was apportioned among the several districts in accordance with two main criteria: the number of pupils, called Average Daily Membership (ADM), and the wealth of the districts, with poorer districts getting relatively more money, in order to reduce the disparity in per-pupil expenditures between the poorer and the wealthier districts across the State. This change was made in response to a decision of the Chancery Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, which had held the disparity in funding violative of the State Constitution. Lake View Sch. Dist. v. Tucker, No. 92-5318 (Pulaski Co., Ark., Ch. Ct., Nov. 9, 1994). The difficulty with this change, from the point of view of the three Pulaski County districts, was that it affected, to their disadvantage, the basis on which funds from the State would be available to them for teacher-retirement and health-insurance purposes. These districts, as we shall explain further later in this opinion, are "employee heavy." They have proportionally more employees, including teachers, than they have pupils, when compared with school districts generally throughout the State. This is so at least partly because of special desegregation obligations imposed on the districts by the settlement agreement. Funds distributed according to a formula heavily influenced by ADM, therefore, are not so great as they would be if the earlier system, which simply funded retirement and health insurance for all employees, generally speaking, had been continued. During fiscal year 1995-96, the sum total of State aid received by the districts was more, in absolute dollar terms, than it had been in 1994-9 5 under the Act 34 system, but it was less than it would have been had the Act 34 system, including earmarked fimding for retiremerit and health insurance, been retained. -22- 06 / 30 / 98 14:44 '6'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS . 026 It is now time to describe the provisions of the settlement agreement that, according to the districts, were violated by these changes. Two sections of the agreement are principally at issue,2 Sections ILE and ILL. The relevant part of Section ILE reads as follows: In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: * * * .. (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funrung. Section ILL reads as follows : The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of 2NLRSD argues that the State's actions also violate Section ILF, NLRSD Br. at 1 7-18. This section reads as follows, in pertinent part: The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development, or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. This provision may actually fit the present case better than Sections II.E and II.L, which are the focus of the District Court's opinion and most of the parties' arguments. We are affinning largely on the basis of the District Court's reasoning, however, so we need not pursue the applicability of Section II.F. -23- l ., ... 06 / 30 / 98 14:45 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding fonnula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. . -~027 The District Court held, in brief, that teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding, as they existed under the former system of public school financing, were ''programs" within the meaning of Section II.E. The funding formula for such programs, the Court said, citing our opinion in Little Rock Sch Dist. v Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), could be adjusted in a way that is generally applicable to all districts, but only if the adjustment is "fair and rational," in the words of Section ILL. The changes at issue are not "fair and rational" in the present context because they work to the disadvantage of the three districts. The new funding scheme does not take into account the number of employees, but only ADM and the districts' wealth. The three districts are "employee heavy," as we said in Little Rock Sch. Dist , supra, 83 F.3d at 1018. The changes in funding for teacher retirement and health insurance therefore violate the settlement agreement, the Court held. II. The State, acting through the Arkansas Department of Education, appeals. The Alma School District and 110 other districts from all parts of the State, also appeal, having been allowed by the District Court to .intervene for this purpose. The intervenors are apprehensive that if the three Pulaski County districts win, securing additional fimding for themselves, the State money going to the intervenor districts will be reduced. (This is not necessarily true, but we understand why the intervenors feel they have an interest to protect.) -24- 06 / 30 / 98 t4 : 46 '5'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ll]028 .... , , AppeUants' first argument is that it was error to grant summary judgment because - there were genuine issues of material fact that needed to be tried. The first such fact, the State says, is whether funds specifically eannarked for teacher retirement and health insurance are now being distributed as part of the new system of Equalization Funding. We cannot see why this "fact" - if it really is a fact, instead of just a description of a legislative change in how the State distributes aid to local school districts - is important or material. The essential nature of the change is undeniable. The State used to pay separately for teacher retirement and health insurance, and it did so on a basis that necessarily took into account the number of each district's employees. Money still goes to the districts that may be used for these pUiposes, but the amount has been folded into the over-all Equalization Funding system, and it no longer has anything to do with numbers of employees. As the District Court phrased it, "items like teacher retirement and health insurance, which were previously paid directly by the State, were put into one large pool." Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist, No. LR-C- 82-866, slip op. 9 (E.D. Ark., memorandlllil opinion and order filed Feb. 18, 1997). Whether this change is characterized as a complete abandonment of State aid for teacher retirement and health insurance, or simply as a change in the way the State - chooses to fund these programs ( a description which seems more realistic to us) is not important to the result in this case. The second fact the State claims was in genuine dispute was whether the new funding system distiibutes funds on a "pure" per-student, or ADM, basis. The State says the districts took that position in the District Court, whereas in fact the new . funding system is based not only on ADM but also the wealth of each individual district. In our view, it does not matter what position the districts took below. The important question is on what basis the District Court acted, and that Court clearly did not think or say that the new system was based only on ADM. "[T]he new funding scheme," the Court said! "is based upon ADM, equalized by the wealth of the district." Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch Dist., No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 5 (E.D. Ark., memorandmn opinion and order filed Apr. 22, 1997) ( emphasis supplied). -25- 06 / :IU / 98 14 : 47 'tl'314 5;19 3945 !JS COIJRT APPEALS The key point is not whether the new system is based only on ADM, but that it gives no weight at all to numbers of employees. So we agree with the District Court that there were no genuine issues of material fact. That being so, was it right to enter judgment for the districts as a matter of law? We think the answer is yes. To begin with, there is no doubt that the teacher-retirement and health-insurance funding systems in effect at the time the settlement agreement was signed, in 1989, are "programs" within the meaning of Section Il.E. In Little Rocle Sch, llisL, ~' 83 F.3d at 1017-18, we held that the State's payment of workers' compensation costs was such a "program," and we see no way to distinguish the present case, Our opinion in that case points the way towards the proper solution Ofthe present appeal. There, we had before us two distinct actions of the State: first, a decision to discontinue entirely State payments for workers' compensation for employees of school districts, and, second, the State's decision to distribute, as an interim measure, certain sums as "seed money" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs. We held that the first decision did not violate the settlement agreement, but that the second one did. Explaining this result, we said: [W]e do not believe that the State's action regarding the "program" necessarily violates the Settlement Agreement. The program in effect at the time of the Settlement Agreement, as we see it, was equal State funding of workers' compensation for all school districts. Thus, the State can change its funding scheme for workers' compensation, so long as the change is, in the words of the Settlement Agreement, "fair and rational" and of "general applicability." We see this portion of the Settlement Agreement as an anti-retaliation clause. Its purpose, by its very words, is to prevent the State from cutting other programs in order to pay for its desegregation c01mnitments. If, for example, the -26- State had passed a statute decreasing or eliminating workers' compensation payments for the settling districts only, while maintaining its system of paying the costs to other school districts, this portion of the Settlement Agreement would clearly have been offended. The State did not do that, however. Rather, it changed the funding fonnula for all districts in the State. So long as that change affects all districts to the same degree, it does not run afoul of the Settlement Agreement. That, however, does not end our inquiry. When the State disbursed "seed money" to help school districts make the transition to paying their own workers' compensation costs, it paid about one-half oftheexpense statewide:- m. the -- ---- Pulaski County districts, it paid only about one-third of the expense. This disparity arose because the State's formula used enrollment rather than number of employees to determine how much money each district would receive. The Pulaski County districts are employee heavy compared to other districts, increasing their workers' compensation costs. Tiris result is precisely what the anti-retaliation clause was meant to prevent. It funds the Pulaski County districts to a lesser degree than other districts in the state. It is of no moment that the State reached tlris result in a mathematically consistent manner. The District Court correctly held that the State must disburse seed money to the Pulaski County distiicts in the same percentage as it does statewide. 83 F.3d at 1018. - H 1 : _ ;, Thus, we read Sections II.E and II.L together, in an attempt to make sense out of them as a unified whole. The State's discontinuance of payment for workers' compensation, because it was made on an even-handed basis and applicable generally to all school districts, was, in om judgment, not a violation of paragraph ll.E. Reading E and L together, we took the view that the State could discontinue a funding program -27- 06 / 30 / 98 1 4 : 48 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS if it did so in a generally applicable manner and on a fair and rational basis .3 The State's reason for changing its full, no-questions-asked funding of workers' compensation was to give the individual school districts a financial incentive to reduce workers' compensation premiums, by paying more attention to safety in the workplace, for example. nus purpose, combined with the fact that the change affected all school districts equally, convinced us that the change did not violate Section II.E. In effect, we read the last part of Section ILL, referring to "[flair and rational adjustments to [a] ... funding fonnula which have general applicability . . . , " as modifying not only the specific prohibitions of Section II.L, but also the provisions of Section II.E(6). . 031 With this previous opinion in mind, we agree with the District Court that theactions taken by the State in the present case closely resemble the "seed money" issue in the previous case. "Seed money" disbursed by the State covered about one-half of workers' compensation costs statewide, while paying only about one-third of this expense for the three Pulaski County districts. The new funding system for teacherretirement and health-insurance costs produces the same sort of disparity, though the exact amount of the disparity is open to debate. Because the three Pulaski County districts are "employee heavy," as noted above, when compared to school districts in Arkansas generally, the State funds they are now receiving cover proportionally less of their teacher-retirement and health-insurance costs. The District Court explained the 3On the present appeal, NLRSD argues that we were wrong in so interpreting Section II .E. NLRSD brief at 22-23 . In NLRSD's view, Section ILE is a free-standing, independent requirement. The State must continue to pay its share of any and all programs in existence at the time of the settlement agreement, whatever its reasons for desiring to change them, and whatever the effect of such changes. Certainly this is one way to read the agreement, and a plausible way, at that. We did not so interpret Sections ILE and Il.L in our previous decision, however, and that decision has become the law of this case. We do not choose to reexamine it. We have power to do so, but the arguments now advanced against our prior interpretation do not seem to us sufficiently compelling to enable us to describe our prior opinion as egregiously wrong or unjust, and some such description would be necessary to avoid the law-of-the-case doctrine. -28- 06 / 30 / 98 14 : 49 '6'3 14 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS 032 matter in tenns we find persuasive. We quote from the Court's order on teacher - retirement, but the language applies equally to health insurance: The Court thus finds that there is no genuine factual dispute that instead of directly funding each district based upon the number of employees, the State has included funds for teacher retirement in the new funding scheme which distributes funds on a per ADM basis equalized by the wealth of the district. Just as the workers' compensation "seed money" fonnula worked to the detriment of the employee-heavy Pulaski County school districts, so too does the distribution of teacher retirement contributions through the new funding fonnula give the districts less money to fund teacher retirement. While the three Pulaski County school districts may fare better under the new funding scheme from a state aid perspective, there is no question that the amount of their teacher retirement funding, previously directly funded by the State based upon the eligible salaries paid to their employees, will be reduced and result in unequal state funding. There is a difference between the State's decision not to fund workers' compensation and to end direct state funding of teacher retirement. The rationale concerning workers' compensation was that the shift of responsibility to the school districts would prompt them to take measures to reduce their workers' compensation costs. Although the State argues the same rationale applies concerning teacher retirement, there are factors, including desegregation obligations, beyond the control of school districts which dictate the number of employees and salaries of teachers. For example, the LRSD desegregation plan obligates the district to implement a four-year-old program, to staff incentive schools with instructional aides, theme specialists, computer aides, art teachers; physical education teachers, social workers, counselors, auxiliary teachers, media specialists, and supervision aides, among many others. The -29- 06 / 30/ 98 14 : 50 '8'314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS magnet and interdistrict schools require additional staff such as theme and curriculum specialists. In the PCSSD, numerous positions are required to fulfill desegregation plan obligations, such as home school counselors, curriculum coordinators, theme specialists, and staffing for its desegregation division, such as an assistant superintendent and director of desegregation. Likewise, the NLRSD incurs expenditures as a direct result of the requirements of the desegregation plan, such as an assistant superintendent for desegregation, reading tutors and support personnel, HIPPY staffing and support, computer technicians, junior and senior high remedial reading, and homebound teachers. Thus, it is clear that the districts are not in a position to control their teacher retirement costs in the sense that the districts might control workers' compensation costs. ~033 Little Rock Sch. Dist. SJJPia, slip op. at 9-11 (memorandum opinion and order filed February 18, 1997) (footnote omitted). For these reasons, we agree with the District Court that the changes in state funding at issue in this case did violate the settlement agreement. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that Judge Wright has been responsible for administering and interpreting the settlement agreement for some time now, ever since 1990, when she took over this case. Our review of the District Court's interpretation of the settlement agreement is, as a fonnal matter, de novo. But we still think it appropriate to pay some heed to the reasoned determinations of the experienced District Judge, who faces decisions in this case every month, if not every week. The orders granting summary judgment on the teacher-retirement and health-insurance issues will be affinned. On remand, it will be up to the District Court, in the first instance, to decide exactly what relief is appropriate. The tluee Pulaski County districts should be placed in a position no worse than they would have occupied if the previous system of funding -30- for teacher retirement and health insurance had not been changed. This does not mean that these districts are entitled to receive both an amount equivalent to what the old system would have produced for teacher retirement and health insurance, and the whole amount now paid to them as Equalization Funding. Such a result would be double recovery, a windfall. But the districts are entitled to be held harmless against any adverse effect of the funding change. Tilis means that it will be up to the District Court, after appropriate submissions from the parties, to calculate, as near as may be, the difference between what the old system -- MFP A plus teacher retirement plus health insurance -- would have produced, and what the new system -- Equalization Funding in one Jump sum -- is producing. The appellants suggest that this effort will necessarily involve speculation . . Admittedly it cannot be .. exact, but we believe that the District, .. . . . .. Court can make a reasonable and informed estimate. The orders appealed from are affirmed, and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHIB CIRCUIT. -31- IN THE UNITED STA TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * Plaintiff, * vs. * No. LR-C-82-866 * F1LE6 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL O 9 1998 JAMES r M~c ORMACK, CLERK By: \ .. _ u /\ M o [\ .- OEP CLERK<- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * 1 3 1998 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * ,JI II Intervenors, * OfFICErn: * DESEGREGATION MOKITORlNG KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * Intervenors. * ORDER Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for the approval of the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1).1 The proposal now under consideration was communicated to the Court in a letter from the Magnet Review Committee dated June 20, 1998. The proposed budget includes the second year of funding for the five-year proposed program improvement plan for the six original magnet schools. The total amount budgeted, $18, 159, 205, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $4,654 per student, calculated from an actual third-quarter enrollment of 3,901.89 students. The budget shows an increase of $84.00 per student over the 1996-97 budget, with the second year of the five-year proposed program improvement plan included. 2 1 Attached hereto as Exhibit L 2 The Magnet Review Committee acknowledged in its letter to this Court that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals had before it an appeal regardi~g teacher retirement and health insurance which may The Court hereby approves the Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). IT IS SO ORDERED THIS cfA-day of July 1998. =Mk UDS'f ATES DISTRI TDGE fHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CC,MPLIANCE WM RULE 58 AND/OR 79(~ FRCP ON 1ll0~ BY r_;r:_ ___ impact the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1). The Eighth Circuit has now decided the case regarding teacher retirement and health insurance, and this Court anticipates making additional rulings regarding those issues in the future based upon the Eighth Circuit's decision. The Court expects; as the Magnet Review Committee has stated, that any revisions to the proposed Interdistrict Magnet School Budget for the 1997-98 school year (Draft 1) required to be made in light of these decisions will be submitted to this Court for approval. 2 ~f15~:~~g;;;faJe'i~~~~~1il~il::~:::t;:::fr::,: 96-97 F.T.E.- .. CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 03 Specialists 39.2 04 Counselors 12.4 05 Media Spec. 6.5 06 Art-Pert/Prod. 1.0 07 Music 0.0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 09 Vocational 12.6 10 Special Education 8.2 11 Gifted 5.4 12 Classroom 177.9 13 Substitutes 0.0 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 293.2 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 20.0 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 17 Custodians 29.0 18 Information Services 0.0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 6.0 20 Other-Aides 37.0 21 Fringe Benefits(20) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 TOTAL ( 10-20) PURCHASED 22 Utilities SERVICES 23 Travel (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Reoular Classroom (40) 28 Media 29 Other TOTAL /40) CAPITAL 30 Eouipment OUTLAY 31 Buildino Repair, etc. (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) OTHER 33 Dues and Fees (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) 390.6 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ,_,.:.'::..:\,%:<'.: GRAN0';TOTAL'.f ,':<":'"'''' . XXX>OtX 96-97 96-97 Budget Actual $369,070 $369,069 $463,584 $463,585 $1 ,327,018 $1 ,362,980 $476,963 S476,836 S248,736 $248,693 $23.723 $23,723 $0 so $0 so $347,888 $378,577 $264,005 $265,751 $197,633 $197 .633 $5,877 ,608 $5,843,911 $154,990 $166,607 $486.252 $486,572 $10,237,470 $10,283,936 $373,625 $373,570 $163,071 $163,569 $369,006 $365,788 $0 so $156,854 $130,143 $312,743 $317 ,095 $3,115,089 $3,080,923 $4 ,490,388 $4,431,089 $14,727,858 $14,715,D24 $591 ,944 $574,528 $33,600 $13,472 $8,750 so $82,878 $123,953 $717,172 $711,953 $3.600 so $425,485 $450,479 $41 ,523 $35,436 $28,771 $20,114 $499,379 $506,030 $376,785 $316,694 $5,500 $0 $350 $106 $382,635 $316,800 $27,402 $30,648 $0 $0 $27,402 $30,648 $1 ,626,587 $1 ,565,431 $16,354,446 $16,280,455 $890,896 $929,702 $17,245,342 $17,210,157 97-98 F.T.E. 6.0 10.0 39.2 12 4 6 5 1 0 00 00 12 6 8.7 5.4 177.9 0.0 13 0 292 7 20 0 5.4 29 0 1.0 60 37.0 XXXlOOOO( 98.4 xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx.x XXXlOOOO( xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx 391 .1 xxxxxxxx >OtXXXX Exhibit 1 97-98 Prooosed $376.587 $488,462 $1 ,343 .119 $505.887 S253.085 S26 ,065 so so S343.81 7 S289, 709 $199.275 $6.147,115 $165.000 S425, 964 $10,564 .086 S407. 495 S163,262 S356,470 S22 .415 $133.806 $285,101 $3,090,046 $4 .458,595 $15,022,681 S617 ,80.3 S27 .000 so S 156.919 $801.722 S2 .500 S5 74 ,289 $35 .450 $17 .632 $629,871 $281 .692 so so $281 ,692 $11 ,213 $0 $11 .213 $1,724 ,498 $16,747 ,179 $1 ,412,026 $18,159,205 I I I I I I I I I Line lteni Costs Budget Actual Proposed ...... . .. .. 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 ; Stipends $69.094 $19,983 S33,837 Other Objects $0 $0 so Indirect Costs $736,303 $824,092 $1 ,284 .189 Vocational $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 Athletics $32,000 $31 ,964 S40.500 Gifted Programs $500 $502 S500 Plant Services $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 Reading $500 $500 S500 Science $0 $0 $0 English $1,500 $1 ,660 $1 .500 Special Education $4,000 $4 ,000 $4 ,000 $0 $0 so xx:xxxx $0 $0 $0 xx:xxxx $0 $0 so Total Line Items $890,896 $929,702 S 1,412,026 ,/:_' 1996-97 . _: . 1996-97 1997-98 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proi. 3,765.61 3.765 61 3,901 89 Total Costs $17,245,342 $17,210,157 $18,159,205 $4;580 $4,570 $4,654 1~7,:-98 BUDGET PROPOSAL(ORAFT1) 96-97 96-97 96-97 97-98 97-98 Booker Ma,i:i'net School ... F.T.E. Budget Actual F.T.E. Proposed CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $59,663 $59,663 1 0 561 ,582 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $40.672 $40,672 1 0 S4 3. 757 03 Specialists 7.0 $261 ,827 $262.257 7 0 S268.408 04 Counselors 2.0 $73,553 $73,468 2.0 S76, 155 05 Media Spec. 1 0 $41 ,963 $41 ,963 1 0 S42 ,653 06 Art-Per1./Prod. 1.0 $23. 723 $23,723 1 0 S26,065 07 Music 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 so 00 so 09 Vocational 0.0 $0 $0 00 so 10 Special Education 1.3 $50,243 $50,243 1 3 $55,624 11 Gifted 1.0 $38,946 $38,946 1.0 $39,594 12 Classroom 30.2 $998,938 $1,001,579 30 2 S1 042,379 13 Substitutes 0.0 $20,000 $47. 118 00 $30,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $126,243 $126.243 4.0 S 105. 300 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 49.5 $1 ,7 35,772 $1,765.876 49 5 $1,791 ,516 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $34,706 $35,046 20 $39,821 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31 ,825 $32,145 1 0 $33.050 17 Custodians 4.0 $55,019 $54 ,958 4 0 $53 ,033 18 Information Services 0.0 $0 $0 0.2 $3,736 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 0.0 $0 so 0.0 so 20 Other-Aides 7.0 $59,679 $60,277 7.0 $56,973 21 Fringe Benefits(20) $520,352 $520,341 S519,779 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.0 $701 ,580 $702:767 14.2 S706 ,392 TOTAL (10-20) ;,_., .. $2,437,352 $2,468,642 $2,497,909 PURCHASED 22 Utilities , , . $78,070 $66,703 $81 ,480 SERVICES 23 Travel ... , $5,000 $2,355 $2,000 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements 25 Other $8,493 $12,711 S13,350 TOTAL (30) $91 ,563 $81, 769 S96,830 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom $42,079 $40,397 S105.498 (40) 28 Media $6,150 $6,105 SS.250 29 Other $4 ,205 $3,475 $3 ,372 TOTAL (40) $52.434 $49,977 $114 ,120 CAPITAL 30 Equipment $60,059 $50,840 $65. 760 OUTLAY 31 Buildinq Repair, etc. - $2,500 so - so (50) 32 Other TOTAL (50) $62,559 $50,840 S65. 760 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees $259 $259 S250 (60) 34 Other TOTAL (60) $259 $259 S250 TOTAL (30-60) $206,816 $182.845 xxxxxxxx S276. 960 TOTAL (10-60) 63.5 $2,644,167 $2,651,488 63. 7 S2.774 .869 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $145,777 $138,793 x:x:xxxxx,. S217,370 i\:,u:;.,:;-:.GRAND .. TOTAlr :-.: XXXXXX' .. ... ,,, $2,789,944 $2,790,280 xxxxxx $2 ,992,238 Line Item Costs Budget Actual Proposed Booker ' 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98 Stipends S20, 733 S3. 789 S8.357 Other Objects Indirect Costs S121 ,381 S131 .479 $205,499 Vocational $0 $0 so Athletics $0 so so Gifted Programs $155 $149 $15