Table 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS SETTLEMENT LOAN PROCEEDS 12,559,250 3,000,000- 8,356,778 3,000,000 8,637,482 6,000,000 TOTAL REVENUE 15,559,250 11,356,778 14,637,482 EXPENSES: RUN BUS SYSTEM ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION AREA SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ART AVIATION AND TRANSPORTAT BADGETT THEME BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CURRICULUM AUDIT DATA PROCESSING DEBT SERVICE DIVISION OF SCHOOLS DOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD DUNBAR ENGLISH ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS SPEC ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE MA EXTRACURRICULAR COSTS FOREIGN LANGUAGE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM GRANTS PROCUREMENT OFFIC HEARING OFFICER c f''" HOMEWORK CENTERS HUMAN RELATIONS H.I.P.P.Y. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS INFORMATION SYSTEM JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURIN LIBRARY LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL MATH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY PROG METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR MINORITY RECRUITER MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM MUSIC OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 22,300 308,373 48,739 474,100 85,800 28,920 2,363,885 600,000- 800,000 75,000 400,000 22,300 15,000 50,000 292,854 50,000 75,000 942,481 43,800 400,000 399,000 45,920 618,000 800,000 77,250 500,000 22,300 1,700,000 25,000 301,640 24,806 1,442,481 35,800 420,000 300,000 39,920 c t: / PAL r PARENT CENTERS PARENT INVOLVEMENT PARKVIEW SCIENCE PLANT SERVICES -POSITIVE STUDENT DISCIPL PRECOLLEGE TESTS 21,190 431,313 144,805 15,000 120,000 11,190 556,313 208,156 360,000 27,000 110,493 40,279 143,000 9,510 470,302 3,750,834 48,755 37,133 293,340 40,000 149,149 50,000 220,645 2,894,240 200,000 848,000 370,800 10,000 19,000 25,000 110,493 42,696 500 9,510 588,520 2,750,184 20,000 51,680 215,580 310,940 15,000 50,000 200,000 120,000 11,190 681,313 45,000 42,400 153,624 50,000 233,884 2,126,067 . 250,000 893,000 381,924 12,125 25,000 110,493 45,257 9,510 623,831 2,848,154 25,000 54,781 113,225 329,597 15,000 50,000 /Table 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 READING ROMINE SAFETY SCIENCE SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE PR SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIAL WORKERS/COUNSELOR SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT SUMMER SCHOOL UNIVERSITY LAB SCHOOL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WASHINGTON 113,120 35,000 9,750 102,490 317,297 80,000 800 113,120 50,000 800,000 15,750 300,000 15,575 200,000 82,940 386,335 90,000 17,000 113,120 50,000 824,000 10,875 318,000 14,225 300,000 107,940 409,515 200,000 185,000 155,000 TOTAL EXPENS 10,086,683 16,161,516 18,260,247 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 5,472,567 (4,804,738) (3,622,765) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (5,500,000) (27,433) (4,832,171) ENDING FUND BALANCE (27,433) (4,832,171) (8,454,936)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 310 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 18, 1992 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Pat Kumpuris SUBJECT: SPECIAL BOARD MEETING After the Board Committee meeting Thursday, received FEB 1 9 Office of Desegregation Monitoring we will convene a special meeting to conduct an employee hearing and to consider approval of a Resolution Authorizing Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes. I am enclosing a copy of the Resolution. cc: Management Team LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHT^M STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 February 20, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: J im V Ivey, Manager of Support Services THROUGH: SUBJECT: Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent^!)^ Resolution Approving the Issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes Attached is a resolution approving the issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes in the principal amount of approximately $15,000,000 necessary to pay the expenses of operating and maintaining the District through June 30, 1992. This issuance is the second year of the program that began in 1991, at which time the Board approved a similar issuance. It is recommended that the Board approve the resolution as submitted and direct the administration to proceed with necessary documents. execution of theRESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION PROMISSORY NOTES IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000,000
AND PRESCRIBING OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors ("Board") of Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas ("LRSD") that: Section 1. Recitals. The Board finds and determines that: (a) LRSD will not have sufficient cash receipts during the remainder of the school year ending June 30, 1992 ("Fiscal Year 1992") to pay the expenses of operating and maintaining the school system for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1992. (b) It is necessary and in the best interest of LRSD that funds to supplement cash receipts in order to pay expenses for Fiscal Year 1992 be borrowed pursuant to 6-20-402, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated. (c) Stephens Inc. has proposed to underwrite tax-exempt tax and revenue anticipation promissory notes ("Notes") of LRSD in order to provide additional funds for payment of expenses for Fiscal Year 1992. Section 2. Approval of Issuance of Notes. The issuance of Notes in the principal amount of approximately $15,000,000 is approved. Section 3. Negotiation of Terms
Final Authorization. The Superintendent of Schools and her designees are authorized to negotiate with Stephens Inc. concerning the terms of the Notes and the terms of their sale, and to make recommendations to the Board. The terms of the Notes and of their sale shall be subject to the approval of this Board. Section 4. repealed to the extent of the conflict. All resolutions in conflict herewith are Section 5. Effective Date. full force and effect from and after its adoption. This resolution shall be inCERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special) meeting of the Board held on the (regular or 1992 . The Resolution appears minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. in the day of of f icial meeting the duly elected (or appointed), At the time of the gualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Director Vote (Ave, Nay, Abstain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law
that to the extent required by law due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public
that the meeting was open to the public
that a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting
that all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed
and that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. CERTIFIED under my hand and seal of the District this day of 1992. (SEAL) SecretaryOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: January 3, 1992 To: Judge Wright From: Subject: Brown Follow-up on LRSD Budgeting Process Last week. Bob Morgan and I met with our consultants from the Arkansas Financial Group to discuss the next steps regarding the LRSDs finances and budgeting process. Ive talked this over briefly with Greg, too. Heres our thinking along with some suggestions for what you may wish to include in an order: 1. The attached addition to the LRSD May Submission wasnt discussed during the hearing. This "note", added in two places in the LRSD plan (after page 132 and page 286), states that the cost figures origin^y submitted with the LRSD desegregation plan are outdated and that "revised cost figures will be provided in a separate desegregation budget." To date, no revised figures have been received here and Greg isnt aware of any that have been filed with the Court. As a first step, LRSD should be given a period of time (30 days is probably reasonable) to submit these revised cost figures. Since LRSD high-handedly stressed in court that the budget ODM was discussing wasnt even prepared for the settlement plan, they set themselves up for the obvious: where is their budget for the plan they are now following? Its certainly interestingand chagrining-to note that the LRSD budget (the one which wasnt prepared for the settlement plan) had to have been prepared after the December 12, 1990 order was issued by the Circuit Court. They really have no excuse for having run for over a calendar year on two separate school year budgets that evidently bear no relationship to the plan theyve been ordered to follow. Unless LRSD submits a budget that is based upon the settlement plan they are required to implement and we are required to monitor, we will not be able to effectively carry out our monitoring duties. The budget must be directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan
each budget component should be referenced to plan page numbers and be reflected on the implementation timelines which are contained in the plan.January 3, 1992 Page Two 2. Not only should the LRSD be required to submit a 1991-92 budget for the settlement plan, they also should have to submit a long range budget projection on a per annum basis for the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (PCSSD has such a projection so it certainly can be done. An examples attached.) This budget shouldnt be for "Code 13" (the desegregation budget") alone since the district maintains that settlement monies must be supplemented with "regular" budget funds in order to fulfill the desegregation obligations. So, in order to paint the whole picture of the districts financial planning in relation to the entire desegregation plan, theyll need to identify whats over and above Code 13. There should also be a long range revenues projection covering the same period of time. It should include anticipated revenues not only from the settlement monies and Ioan, but also show state and millage revenues and any other money sources as well. This projection should enable the district to predict when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any necessary millage should be indicated along with the date when it needs to kick m. To force them to do these budget and revenue projections is really in their best interest: unless they soon have a rendezvous with reality and see when they are going to run out of money, it will be too late to prevent the enormous shortfall that is, at this point, inevitable. 3. Since the LRSD has stated that a major portion of desegregation costs has been expended for "start up", its reasonable to ask them to specifically identify (a) which costs are start up and (b) when these start up costs will terminate. The fact is that new expenditures for personnel, not program or facility start up costs, account for the bulk of financial outlay. Ill be in California at my parents Golden Wedding Anniversary celebration beginning January 8 and will return on the 14th. Ill talk with you before I leave and when I get back. Polly will know where to reach me if you should need me while Im on the west coastI PLEASE NOTE
Two areas of information contained in the "Implementation Timeline" for this section sxibmitted with the original LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan have been omitted from this timeline submitted May 1, 1991. These are heading information found above the columnar timeline which listed the plan date and the person, division and prcgram/area responsible, and a "cost" column in the timeline. The information that was in the heading area is - now either out of date or is repeated in a column in the timeline. outdated. The cost figures previously provided are Revised cost figures will be provided in a iseparate desegregation budget. The columnar heading "Completion Date" has been changed to "Ending Date." For the sake of clarity, all timeline headings have been changed to LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline." I5Z/ //I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ,T(i C CONTINGENCY REVENUES
PROPERTY TAXES OTHER LOCAL REVENUE COUNTY REVENUE MIN. FOUND. PROG. AID TRANSPORTATION AID ST. DESEG. SETTLEMENT OTHER STATE AID UNRESTRICTED FED. AID NON-REV.A TRANSF. REC. TOTAL RECEIPTS TOTAL REC. & CONT. EXPENDITURES
SALARY FD. EXPENSE: AMOUNT OF RAISE TEACHER SALARIES ADMIN. SALARIES OTHER SAL. FD. EXP. TOTAL SAL. FD. EXP. OPERATION EXPENSE: AMOUNT OF RAISE SALARIES: OTHER OPERATION EXP. TOTAL OPERATION EXr' ALL SALARIES
DEBT EXPENSE: TOTAL DEBT EXP. CUR. NEW DESEG COST NEW DEBT TOTAL NEVVDESEG_EXP. I of AL FXPffjSES CONIINGENCY I) 1909-1990 ($1,576,291) SWITCH .OIOM $24,003,281 $2,900,911 $80,551 $36,103,754 $2,910,418 $4,000,000 $1,756,845 $1,592,873 $501,287 $73,849,920 $72,273,629 3.50% $34,744,905 $3,916,830 $3,260,457 $41,922,192 3.50% $9,262,038 $12,992,868 $22,255,706 $47,924,573 $5,591,688 $69,769,586 $2,5()4.()4,3 PULASKI COUNTY special SCHOOL DISTRICT LONG RANGE BUDGET PROJECTIONS E F G II I J K 1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-199C $2,504,043 $2,464,501 $16,269 ($2,686,894) ($5,227,820) ($6,396,037) $21,757,960 $3,169,317 $80,801 $37,423,541 $3,251,781 $4,500,000 $2,701,773 $1,086,128 $379,165 $74,350,467 $76,854,510 2.00% $36,871,144 $4,561,235 $3,148,830 $44,581,209 PRE AUDIT 2.00% $9,932,471 $14,451,800 $24,384,271 $51,364,850 $5,424,529 $74739(LO()9 $2,464,501 $21,995,000 $2,682,000 $79,000 $42,535,873 $3,345,000 $5,200,000 $2,868,451 $1,010,000 $280,000 $79,995,324 $82,459,825 13.05% $41,405,290 $5,644,377 $3,511,000 $50,560,667 5.00% $10,878,767 $15,568,197 $26,446,964 $57,928,434 $5,435,925 _______ $0 $82,4471,55(1 $16,269 $22,654,850 $23,334,496 $24,034,530 $24,755,566 12/07/91 1996-1997 ($9,381,269) ASSUMPTIONS GROWTH RATE
00:01 L % RAISE 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 $2,557,191 $81,370 $43,811,949 $3,445,350 $5,200,000 $2,954,505 $1,000,000 $288,400 $81,993,615 $82,009,885 $2,594,377 $83,811 $45,126,308 $3,548,711 $5,200,000 $3,043,140 _$_1,000,000 $297,052 $84,227,894 $81,541,000 _$2,180JG1 $85,325^ $46,480,097 $3,655,172 $5,200,000 $3,134,434 _$ 1,000,000 $305?964 $06,076,603 $00,84(L863 $2,207,750 $88,915 $47,874,500 $3,764,827 $2,700,000 $3,228,467 $1,000,000 " ~$31s7i'4'2 $85,93M60' $79,539,131 GTHRATE* L.R.DUT GROWTH RATE
GROWTH RATE: GROWTH RATE: ACTUAL PAYM T GROWTH RATE: NOGROWril GROwfiinATE: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 7 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.0014 8 9 10 11 12 J 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 $41,835,290 $5,734,377 $3,616,330 $51,185,997 $42,265,290 $5,824,377 $3,724,820 $51,814,487 $42,695,290 $5,914,377 $3,836,564 $52,446,232 $43,125,290 $6,004,377 $3,951,661 $53,081,329 $430,000 PER YR. STEP $90,000 PER YR. STEP GROWTH RAfr? " T 3.00% 20 21 22* 23 24 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25 $11,198,767 $16,035,243 $27,234,009 $58,768,434 $11,518,767 $16,516,300 $28,035,067 $59,600,434 $11,038,767 $17^11.789 $207050^56 '$6074487434' $12,158,767 $17,522,143 $29,680,909' $61,200,434 $320,000 PER YR. STEP GROWTH RATE
3.00% 26 27' 28 $5,026,772 $5,069,266 $3,898,113 $3,908,162 STEP RAISE FROM SCHEDULE 29 30 31 $500,000 $75(L000' ~$L2M,OOO $n4
096^779 ($2,686,1194) $1,200,000 $G50,000 _$M50^_ T()G7G(LO2O '($5,227
020) $1,400,000 ><55'0,000 $2,O5oT66o $87,244,901 ($6,396,037) $1,600,000 '$2r2"503Tdd $n892()',466 ($9,381,269) 32 EST. NEW DBT/VOTED MILLS 33 34 35 36LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 1, 1992 Deceived JUN 1 1992 , Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Office of Desegregalicn Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. A Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, (Jim Ivey 'J^anager of Suppdjr' t Services JI/ch Attachment cc: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\project.wpdLRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with the Office of 2 . 3 . 4. 5. Monitoring (ODM). Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the Tri- District Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD Desegregation Plan, is committed to the programs of the precise commitments of funds. these figures should not be viewed as It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. a 3% annual increase in these costs. Consequently, they have asked us to use We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present updated projections when these figures are known. have also used a factor of 1 non-salary costs. We for inflationary increases in The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for 1992-93. Although this cannot be completed until union negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of a balanced budget. The projections herein assume that sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of State law. shown as a line item entitled II These reductions are 1992-93 Budget Reductions". If the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 and carried forward. Additional shortfalls will further reductions or increased revenues are not found. occur if We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, 1993 . be found. This will not be required if sufficient reduction can Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1.5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program discussion. #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires 7. 8 . 9. 10. 11. 12 . 13. 14. cost of programs In the years through the 1991-92 school year, the in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. Therefore, we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so' here, we believe, would create confusion for the Court and for the public. Court desires. We can provide information on federal funds if the Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. of this is planned for. second-lien issues. The 1993-94 reduction We believe most Any additional will be covered with in Programs, equipment. equipment. reflects the program completion #10, Academic Support of payments for PAL Some funding is added for replacement of this The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost of information, broken out. tracking them exceeds the value of the The costs are not omitted
they are just not The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, revised budgets if the Court desires. we can submit Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. Since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. B. C. D. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. After the normal budget planning process is complete, a memo will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-29-92 1991-92 1992- 93 1993-94 1994 - 95 1995- 96 1996 - 97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTERESTON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 3,900,000 140,000 400,000 224,667 420,850 300,000 85,000 39,088,120 21,736,595 3,500,000 140,000 365,000 225,000 461,000 300,000 85,000 40,093,227 25,253,744 3,805,000 141,400 368,650 227,250 484,050 309,000 86,700 45,616,117 25,996,645 3,819,150 142,814 372,337 229,523 508,253 318,270 88,434 47,086,512 26,766,307 3,933,725 144,242 376,060 231,818 533,665 327,818 90,203 48,506,276 27,518,335 4,051,736 145,685 379,820 234,136 560,348 337,653 92,007 TOTAL 64,749,329 65,900,715 70,769,021 77,091,542 79,490,349 81,825,996 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 28,118,907 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,419 1,474,485 629,752 147,050 3,000 2,983,190 874,311 1,798,665 624,119 28,118,907 8,926,606 28,759,387 8,094,112 29,419,081 6,042,591 30,102,462 3,829,942 30,862,449 683,125 TOTAL 49,864,380 73,419 1,500,000 675,000 147,050 3,000 3,100,000 875,000 2,490,900 653,094 73,419 1,545,000 742,500 154,403 3,000 3,348,000 918,750 3,248,910 672,687 73,419 1,591,350 816,750 162,123 3,000 3,615,840 964,688 3,760,540 692,867 73,419 1,639,091 898,425 170,229 3,000 3,905,107 1,012,922 4,140,580 713,653 73,419 1,688,263 988,268 178,740 3,000 4,217,516 1,063,568 4,491,150 735,063 46,562,976 47,560,167 47,142,248 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 44,625 111,453 800,000 40,000 112,000 600,000 35,000 116,480 400,000 30,000 121,139 300,000 25,000 125,985 200,000 20,000 131,024 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251,024 TOTAL REVENUE 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995- 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES & MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION 67,748,508 7,808,935 16,910,424 6,791,207 3,817,539 887,696 1,606,543 8,718,196 0 71,437,088 9,022,067 19,141,451 6,992,544 3,927,703 755,079 1,621,715 9,597,115 500,000 (7,700,000) 73,765,037 9,202,508 18,887,119 7,202,320 4,045,534 777,731 1,670,366 9,090,123 600,000 (7,931,000) 75,316,854 9,386,558 22,144,629 7.418,390 4,166,900 801,063 1,720,477 8,845,248 700,000 (8,168,930) 76,822,807 9,574,289 24,940,080 7,640,942 4,291,907 825,095 1,772,092 8,258,921 800,000 (8,413,998) 79,373,940 9,765,775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,848 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 114,289,048 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,190 126,512,136 130,245,103 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,348 2,438,158 (97,553) (3,099,103) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 ENDING FUNO BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 902,199Prog # Pago # Doseription Unit/FunH # 1 2 5 0 7 8 0 10 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 10 21 22 24 25 20 27 28 20 32 33 34 35 49 51 -75 5 6 28 28 30 44 40 48 03 82 80 114 120 120 143 148 148 224 227 1-0 03 34 35 28 100 1-56 131 125 00 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student H >ring Officer Office of Desegregation Extra Cu rricu lar T' ch er Recruiter Staff Development Academic Support Multlcultral Programs Incentive Grants Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M lo-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transportation Romine Themi Community School In School Suspension Job Pair Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS Recruiting Prejudice Reduction To Be Allocated Incentive School Programs TOTAL 70 1105 121 04 81 50 1580 75 42 87 82 35 41 71/75 82 40 12 14/08/120 00 60 00 72/45 73 75 SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET 1 ~02 02-03 03-rO4 0ft~O6 ge-07 244.077 204,350 101.048 432,504 110.000 46.782 418,570 2,084.728 200.005 738,732 3,800,000 103,415 080,002 200,835 400,272 0 0 345,320 10,000 17,207 270,002 741.217 1.500 12,850 501,404 52,000 62,688 50,000 200,000 4.128.058 10,010,424 252,320 502,073 102.477 430,148 110,000 40.020 507,074 2,730,374 200,005 800,000 3,800,000 110,342 704.553 410,304 1,330,038 0 0 300.270 10,000 70,000 270,002 760.381 1.500 11,350 580.017 52,000 04,048 5.000 200.000 4,437,312 10,141,451 250.800 857.450 105.552 462,323 113,300 48.337 584,704 2,102,810 278,002 0 3,014,000 113.053 818,300 422.074 1,013,020 0 0 401,004 10,500 81,370 285,271 782.102 1.545 11.001 508,035 53,560 66,807 5,000 200,000 4.614.378 18.887,110 207,003 1.286,131 100.718 405.802 110.000 40.787 002.245 2.250.505 280,342 0 4,031,420 117,002 842,042 435.355 1,440,552 2,003,300 0 414,043 11,025 83,811 203,820 806,027 1.501 12.041 015.077 55,107 08,004 5.000 200,000 4,050.880 22,144,620 276,724 1,184,723 111.080 470.800 120.200 51.281 020,313 2.320,353 204,032 0 4,152,303 120,574 808,230 448.415 1,404,007 2,707,432 2,707,000 428,405 11.570 80,325 302,044 820.700 1.030 12.402 034,450 50,822 70,071 5,000 200,000 4.307,028 24,040.080 283,005 1.232,112 116,330 404,205 123,800 52.810 038,022 2,300,143 303,780 0 4,270,033 124,101 804,277 401.808 1,484,110 2,815.720 2.815.280 430.250 12,155 88.015 311,723 054.000 1.088 12.775 053,400 58,520 73,100 5.000 200.000 4,030.500 25.864.401Exhibit A 1105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED & TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S COMMUNITY SERVICES 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 52,349.84 2,795,060.64 28,811,085.64 4,037,827.87 4,071,829.27 756,490.90 1,156,944.86 2,598,700.99 2,684,664.92 183,975.48 3,939,101.54 290,883.38 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 44,337.94 325,000.00 7,562,955.21 1,224,081.75 1,238,599.52 698,543.12 537,715.75 214,094.16 1,102,812.86 2,077,880.91 734,945.29 1,861,405.13 16,625,075.77 2,194,315.26 839,750.00 8,718,196.00 DESEG FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 204.356.00 6,686,389.30 11,626.28 118,050.36 35,608.75 1,649,581.34 317,475.66 1,653,162.72 4,265,335.80 107,044.21 710,699.21 510,528.09 640,566.28 362,373.04 351,162.00 130,509.54 3,522,602.96 67,162.00 428,580.73 444,781.18 115,554.79 425,733.12 9,069,517.95 273,945.79 601,212.16 6,880.00 187,848.98 651,786.63 423,530.00 3,000.00 464,212.24 TOTAL 1,195,556.85 1,051,829.76 301,043.78 3,545,793.76 52,129,948.10 5,909,854.73 6,380,853.31 864,661.41 6,473,270.95 1,626,050.00 5,099,356.87 7,284,019.73 5,299,811.36 7,103,107.73 18,390,604.74 2,995,726.73 1,944,528.52 8,718,196.00 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE MONDAY, JUNE 15. 1992 Desegregation costs helped $7.7 million shortfall, Steele create BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-GazeWe Staff Writer The Little Rock School Districts projected $7.7 million budget deficit for next year is largely the result of implementing parts of two desegregation plans while trying to meet other financial demands, Superintendent Ruth Steele said last week. Friday, Steele released a 17- page chronology of budget-related events that date back to July 1989, when she became superintendent. The superintendent said 9 her report was not an attempt to cast the districts financial problems in a better light or to shirk responsibility for the districts financial condition. On several occasions re- cently, questions pertaining to the districts financial situation have been raised, Steele said. Specifically, several district employees and one board member on a radio talk show have asked why we now face budget problems after an 8- mill tax increase was obtained in a successful election a little over two years ago. says The question deserves response. a Steele, who is retiring from the district June 30. said she thought the explanation of the complex finances would be helpful to her successor. Dr Mac Bernd of San Marcos Calif. Bernd said last week that balancing the budget will be a top priority. In her report. Steele said the districts financial position IS actually better than it was projected to be in 1989. But, See SCHOOL, Page 3A--npg^^CL 3 2^ 2 3 Si o .5 O (fl ?2 3 ^3 3. 7 3 3 _ 3" 2 S' 2 S o H X g g *0 o 5 5 o w *5 "O *< "O S . O n e 2- o o <> c > 3 "J. S CT z 0.^0 ^.- J..O 2- 2
2 00. o* 9 tn 9 o 3 9* 3 71 3 g 9 3 9 ft q-S-2. - o -- srnaf* kJ *<332 - fD OO o 5-0 a a a a* a- 3 'S I * a a = 8.5 8 "Xa 3c- 3 9 p g 9:< = S9- Cl pb!Dg-.a.2 2 5wgg<5^ o 9 o o V Q .a 3 S e-r. t^i L? ffQ <5 o O o w rt> o o c 9 f> tn r* p ^3 p > < 3* Q 3 w Z- o *< 3 Ui rt) 3 g era 3 o 9 c 2.5: o < c 3 trt rt O p 3 g (D r* 3 1/1 9 XJ > f^ Co 0,09 3'PoH--^'O,4 5ttS&5i5|3'S P- sr-o ^oo^39-^cs: O,,,^3^S,2.3- 92.33-
-^"g ^5" p 3 O O o 2- r 9* era (D n> * a Cl c O S - 3 i- 5 3 o o O S ' 3 *9 M X33ao29 ^P 5'sg tn 9 3 O 2. 3 2 3 2,0 O o> a 9 i? 2 tn O 3 p p - 0> Rj .3. tn Si 5.S2S- ssg-$s 9 ? o P 9 V) O O 9. O rt> UI -* c. a 9 9 3 0$ > P < o 3 5. Q cz> w 9" . - N 3 O- .O 7. 3 2. " 3 y, P 2^ 5 S S' s
= O P >-1 fV OQ CU O p o O 9" x M 9 V Q is Ji 9 rt> SSg-g. cn .-o S 3 g '* r
n o = <<9 c c ti> 9 5ggg 3 O m UI c 9 3 8 g _ .a 5 u .3 3^ .^32, - ft_R OJ'TXP <0 p3'<^
S^3.9S-S *2ft2 Jft tnto 2,3 w 5.^3(xa - '- - 3 3 H 3 2 3* w o. 0 - ^i-O r* a ft -t- 5 .,2.0 3 53 g jS-o 3- S<?.EiJ-S9ft-~33 TftOc-RV* - ^0 3 c
3- 9*< 2 c::3 2 5 o to o o X "O w O < o fi> U) := fij C/3 CtJ? o' O S D> a C ? a a 4, a G f? a a a Oo .s '-^ a a O* a o ?r c -S 00 5 o 3 9 O :. V) a H. 3 tn _ O. P TS 3- (Xa tn o tn 3 52Orj- r-- 3 M- <-< v> cn p " 2 3 E:r 3 x 3^ p era TO 3 3 o 9 o tn 9- n o < 3 O 9 tn 3 J2 o ,-. 3 5 3 2 3 3 Ui 9 U) ft) tn CD (XQ O HQ P p 5 o P UI p to 3 O 9 O o 9 o n Si g g <9* 2^3 3i o-^ 0 0 3^ w O Xj 5. 3 ft p 3 3 S Ei O Ei 9 2-3^*0 3^ 9 .. i3E:bSo2SCi2'.- S *^S-^ o^.^Oco ,2 3 0) cn tn St O*Xa3uj(IQpEJ- -*O .^3ag9-3oo2.-i- s 3 o Ei 0 $= g ? " *3 P 9 "ft Ui S ^9 S S og-"?' >SS >b a . s:- O ft) X, so-O * 5? Ei 52. H 0) W ft M r ft O t-i 2 n o 2 2 9 ft ito'to' fl) 3-9- p Q) sg rp 9 3 3 ^. o Ui 9 9 <352.^w23Mft-S9'bi *37i -^sr3,^3, i'->9323XJ hr<-n P 9 p 3 . P y,' O 9. '3 7:"ft9 3 .2 C Si 3- Ei ^Oc.- 9 ft^9^tnft9<^ft9ftft g B b' S..g - S.ZS -^ - ?S3'ggS'. ex ft Q si^ r cz) CA f" 9 o 9^ O 3 ?3 & - 3 cn S^S.a-2 2^ Q o P o <1 o o X3 3 9 CA SS - > 3 - 3 Q =Ss 3 3 2 p < 3 5 2 o < o era 9 _ Ui 3 tn o o O 3 p >-] m 3 O. O Q 5 9* oa 52- p -J <z 9 0, 2. O tn ev O tn wcn OOra C?3-9
O -------------3
323tnO ii) 3 9 0^ -n u: _ tn "-I 3Po39tn^r "^^.1^9 0 K- o 9 2 - 9 O 3 X-5- gSSvS^- W'< 5 o-ira p
o. eo w 9 eo n (i> (T> (la o o O OQ P *-| (A O (TO g X 3 o o 9 Sg 3 3ft '< _ S 3 Si3 O'S fto g ft r-*' tn 9 r* O P 9 < tn cn JT s g-S- Ui M A n p p C p 1 o 3 2^ o 3- p 3 S- 3-2 2 0* n> T -j Sg'Sg S >g.-e 3 o o < x- 9- 9.X) CT :
g g q 2.= n. 3 0-. " 5' ora <5 3 =* r-^O o "O o o 9 ="52 p .- *** 3 3 _ *-> (n G o -gSS S gg O 3 O2.^o O O O "> go sra'g.eg- i5o2--S8 P 3 tn O 0,3 to *9 (ra p .-<- 3 3 g.g o Ui o ft p Ui fSS 2 3 o X **< ^ p P cn rt O = & o o UI ->^2 S^ 0-3 p o o> 2 9 o o s 9 p cn era P-- sr 3 w O o tn y tf Ui CO 9 2,< $ 9 cn tn er ,. B> o 75 9. o 3 9 O- t9 9 - 2-2^-3 O 3 tn p s (la to o p 2 Q 9 cj da O' 9 9* tn O 2 S w 9 * Q g* 9 CL? 5:? p 3 O OS 9' O O _ CL O P g.R.,9O.fti_aP CT-Cl'9 O tn 5 CO 9.3 Si n. 3 3 UI ^ Ui 22 0.3^ H. " S g S S-2. <: cl
-. 2 - <0 3 57 3- 9 O o o tn P O 3 o c 3 3 p JJ. O- o, O 3 EJ Sera 2: p 3 5 p 3 O (fl tn 95 w ? Sg B gw -. c g ? 5sg!??S:s- S.s'g o 9 O rt> ft) P O O ? 9 3- O p P p o 2 tn P 2. S 3 . s s _ <t 3 [-> 0> Q r ^
3 5-^S s 3-8-3> ? 5 -J SJCX*1O'XJiW* SCOQ 3 oO 9-3'9fl !=r^>:rt3 P 9.0Q <OfD(raO_. X"-* O B- e>q 5'^ *< Er 3 X 3 J I ft- 9 ' ft '' -4 ' ^ ( w'O 33-?j35ftp9R, ^Ss&SgB.slSXs-^S^SS ,..^3^3 ft, ftft32-.22 . CZ3 i-h fO M M (0 2 rr gera c r* 9 STP 2L 2 sr 9 3 3, O P (t> 3 9 O a* (A 9 Oi exQ P 9 cn C M o _ -baS-SS -" o b g,-2,5. b 5 339.3_. O-.-MEX.,< ^'-JPt_^39g--'~ ".g = -i<JSgOgWB Ogg<g-c-.O Cv^9 99C.O_n9323T,9^OirX9S9 Ego, ^30 0^^ 9<X5^ 29.y>5 &g-5 h = K "ss 31 "s=s ^3 S.3 3 ^g-?&3 Si 0-73 "O 3 _ ^<30.2-9SoO) P"^oCoengt^f-* S 3 0 St < < o p '. 9- ?. C 3 003 3 9 P M 3 (Zl5' o o g g ng's g s F ? g^ p 0 3 o tn O- 52. ' ^ ^3 9 p 3 3- O X o 9 CL n> c 3 , n 3 O - S3 g 3 J O 3 3 9 O 5^,2 3 9 p Q. 1 "O O A, . Ui O P 9 Lo 9 W (XQ O p ?' 2 3 Ol. 5 co 3 2 ^3 9 E* ^00 I rt> rt) Q O<^ S' a * Sac a a a 9 O e, .* ez) 0 ft 9* o. __ -b, ">TO 9 2 ? 3 BS:: i
a 5- s a r. o tn a '1 p Q 9 ^l>ftp -- - oa ft 3 cn ex x^jS 2.0a 3 PXp9rt'-'9- -., 3 i-'i r- o 2 3 9 W 3 p 5. 3 P Slg^a.S-o2 "O 3 M P o X3 tn tn : 3 3 Pt 3 a i'? L a o - 9 y c i Q ft) s "S. s- 5 SS'o g's- a . ,. _ 3 23 gprS'oE.g.g' o a 5 o a. g cn ^ , 3 tn S cT a' a a - a . S 5 S'5g' F 3 o s 9 p Q a. a w o 3 g- o , r *-t- 3 1:^0 5^ sX' 2^ 3 3 p 0 3 a. a o a o K tn 3 3- c gw p " 2-O2*3 2:2.0 s
a 5 3 a o UI > < < r4' 3- O 2 O p 3- 3 3 < pO99crao3>3 < 9 cn O 3 i-j 9 O." ? S' Q n 5=^3 2 t<
ffa ex tn X3 P 3 ------- g-era 3 O' g 3 2 9 <'^3 2 X5 3 3 S 9" o 7^ 3tn3c,j:fpO,y,<-* 5 co H 9 a (D 2.P S P (X 9 < O 9 O tn _''9- 9-0 tn 9 3 O J2 3- 9- O-. fi^cra ss g
p 3 3 fc Ui fu p a- a- a- a O ft) S' 9. 9 O H. S 3 2
S''f igp =-o tw 9 <* 9 to 3. 3 r-i CX^ 9-S-(WrT 7 o 2 5- T 0 3 0 9 9 = fD CT 9 ' G g2 'H-'H-rt 9- 9H9-i9-pg. 39-oPOjj ,22pp2333 era 33oexa3oerapg^,^ dgo.33cX3-^<3o.X^2tnj
rc9- go o SoS Sob 'g-' 2q9'q9<b3 9 rm rt X (TO n g-g as'^s g' S. -T- 3 era tn p Op S 9 9 3 0 2 CfQ - .9 9. C. O ?r 03 $ P ^^o^E? 0^3
p 3l M n.2 < 9 9. in t^S O Sg o P O -o 0*3 'I W 03 O '< g -o " So 9*S^ ^0-03(b9mo eZ>.32t23^<3 9'*3 ^-*3a2. o^Qog cren - h^S-o =r 2- 5 w 3 << UI Q,(xa . J* . O cn 3^ 3 9 O P 0-3 TO o cn Q w -K 71 O' O 9 (0 O o 2. o -J ft) r >Xi!i35?i3P^ 32^w^3X5*
<2 tn . -, cn 3 9 2. S o S C 3xj -* h^9 0 >1 3 TO 9 o UI O 9 5)
fO rt- 3' 9 O p C S P -o U. 3 2m p 3 -2(0 S 9 fj O o . 9 o<a 3- * 3 o' 9- ' S 3 < S S ^^,3-0-gg 9 o 0 P 3 o 9 P j^fio _ - 00 CO w ^g H. s|.-= o 3 S '^2 3-90^ - r*era 3-_ 2 p 3 3 -3 2-' tn 3 3 3 2. ri 3 o 3 3 g SoS a'= s' p >1 tn '1 3 JO ^crg o 9 O 0'^2tn3O>p,,. gSS.s^.^g- p 9 t<3S5.g S 3 9-3 9 --t- C_i 9 3 o' O Q 3 < ' >tn 3 2. 3 cn 3 -- ex 2 5 P 0> 9 3
o sr g O 9 U. 9. 3 - P O _ 3^S7o3<-O. 5t-r oZs.>Sr)0 tn02. 3 >' M 40 3 tn 3 r 3
o o 3 9 M 2 9-3 3-^^ C:: 3 9 o to 0^ J2 w < '? PT '-I 5 3 to O- ? s:: ? -^ o 2.9* O 3 9 ffO 2 3 3 23 32 co to O9.Q--O^O- gs-gS' ^S' = 2 < >-j tn 3 (XQ Ui o o o o - 5 .S 3 S'^ g.o O s 9 n 9- tn O Q :'3 co < U! o 3 p 9. o O 3 5 5fi ft> tn P UI O S fl) p tn 4, g p ^-57 g 2 3 & g.za o Lra 3 - cn o 3 3 2^ o o P X w o 3 p o OhO^ 52. 3 c -- 2 raoiffiajg-sxs:. *53 9 I. S ES <- P tn 3 ff^ .sl^Sog- '|g=3S co 2-0 o 3 So "o **: 2 9 to tn 9 , 9'0 3 c t- _ 39 *33 c w fo 5 3 2.era ftfnft-_.9J^ 3 -3 g g^w 0 ft ?52of?SoF^S.p. o 2-0 5?392 fU 3 O 9 (XQ P p 5 9 ? o p ? o ? g 9 XJ 9- UI tn 3-O P 2 3 5* S ^^^^3 " 5'gS'
5 S5'g RoE'5'< b.-' Sg 2.g 3 B s SS^S-'S o 9 o |(X0 UI ^2'^S9 '5'< 3^ 3 I 9 (3 3 SI g 2 3 O 3 e I-.- f* CO 9 % /T> fn C 3 UI M O JT 2 Q O ft 3 3 3 ^ g-^JE-^^g^ 0 3 3* O 3 3 s s.^ S- n> - m ff. O 9 ^2. - bSXss ...?2'3 39g^g^3-ft^3 O era o Q p r" .. 3 2 " o . 5. 9 o S a P rt o o P'S O g-'s^w'" a. gpssSsffSg-g 3<3' <^9^ ftoe/eR>- 2 0 3^ 9 . 3 9 o i- o slg.s'^e-i 2- "S 3: Etoo'S g 0.3 o 2-o - 9 3 tn O o o Q ex 9:o> 3 J? o tn 3- 9^ K- P 9 n 3 E s: sS- 9 ^ _____ P ? O) 3 ci i- 9 P 9 3 tn o p 3 N 03 S - 2 c< O ra 3 S.g.^ O O 3^9- < 3 goSiS 3 57 0) 9 0^9 2 52 9 9 w n 9 era J* 3_ p O W 3-3335.0.2? O 2 '
S *0 ? 7 3p5 <'^-a933^3-PO,.^t-^9-j--g.oa<p M3^-CXS*2.33r-r-- OSS:cnrfooP3E33g'2- 3c33.3 S3p3.'*3X ^XJ 2^ 3 S 3 *3 3 < oo 2. 9 <- ES i tn 2 (ra O(^ o. < S O<--n s B EoS'< o--0^oj^--q w ? D, '5' ffq 5^ S o' S ,- n 'c "S5'2oS"&="3ooi: O 5'0 s 5'0 g-S ss> o ra Ui O P P cn' O .qs era o M/ J3 o 3 3 O n tn e S- CL era .^o p (D o o (XCi o 3 cn ft ^ > '5:o'S5-Sb- HS3-^.8^3Sg 2 . so -- y o 2 O Ui 9 o p era o to p-, Ui o iS p X lJ. 9. O 0-9 0 0.^ 9 g p iw 3. 9 en'o Sterji'^ Ei* ' fn ft g p |J5 9: -e ii iiP'C t i n TT c o s -3^ S3x2, iOSa - STotnx. tn I p 9 tn i-jl o co TO i ri 3 3 9 0 S: 9 9 :. a2^- 3 tn tn - - .tihj- ^3'1.3E2}3 3O->-j2 i ?. -h3<?07:cn P-PP <3 TJ ** ^OotnpSTtnqf-o 5 B g.S^ K 3 2 2- O* 3 S' o (w C3 o ra o <- o !. ts3 o 1 B $ 9 o ^2 W 3 w 01 . > o O- cn ^- r-- - 9 0^9 9 O o tn TO S 2 _.. 9- -r 00 00^3 - (O 9- p 3 i *3 f o Q g S^era o o y? <t> o o o 2 2 9 P1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET RECEIVED TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, AR June 18, 1992 Board of Directors 72201 JUN 1 9 1992 Office of Desegregation uiOfni. 1-3 Ivey, Manager of Support Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent . Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent (a))> Proposed Budget for Annual School Election Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-622 (1951) states "The requirement of Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 40, for publication of the budget shall be discharged by the board of directors of each school district by publication of its budget one (1) time...not less than sixty (60) days before the annual school election." It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed budget of expenditures for 1993-94 as attached. c:\memos\elecbud.wpdPROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Act 403 of 1951, as amended by Act 117 of 1979 and Amendment 40 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, has prepared, approved, and does hereby make public a proposed budget of expenditures for the District in 1993-94 together with a supporting tax rate follows: as Salaries & Fringe Benefits Purchased Services, Supplies, Capital Outlay Debt Service $ 82,967,545 25,252,071 9,090,123 To provide for the foregoing proposed budget of expenditures, the Board of Directors proposes a total tax levy of 43.9 mills. This total tax levy includes 34 mills for the maintenance and operation of schools and 9.9 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other purposes. Given this 18th day of June, 1992. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County 0. G. Jacovelli, President Patricia Gee, Secretaryet _ ' TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 18, 1992 Board of Directors rasa '^.ID w .-.7 f >-. JUN 1 8 1992 C!fic3 of uoso^rev
.
n Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools APPOINTMENT OF EX OFFICIO FINANCIAL SECRETARY Because the current Ex Officio Financial Secretary will leave the District on June 30, 1992, appointed to begin serving on July 1, 1992. it is necessary to have a successor Bernd concurs, I recommend, and Dr. that the Board approve the appointment of Mark Milhollen as the District's Interim Ex Officio Financial Secretary effective July 1, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 5 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring October 15, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Gary E. Jones,/Manager of Resources and School Support THROUGH: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Refinancing of Bonds It appears that the District could realize an estimated savings of $323,632 by refinancing the May 15, 1988 bonds. The Department of Education requires that a refunding produce a $100,000 savings or a five percent reduction in debt service. whichever is less. criteria. This proposed issue meets both refunding In order to initiate this process, the Board will need to adopt an intent resolution. With the State Board of Education approval, the bond forms will be filed in February, 1993. Should interest rates increase between now and the time the bonds are scheduled to be refinanced. the District can cancel the refinancing proposal. In the event this refunding cannot be sold so as to produce sufficient savings, there will not be any charge for the services of Stephens, Inc. I recommend that the Board approve proceeding with the refinancing of this debt by adoption of the attached resolution.NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: A meeting of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District was held at the Administration Building in Pulaski County, Arkansas on the 15th day of October, 1992, at the hour of p.m. All members of the Board had due notice of the time and place of said meeting, and the purpose thereof, and a quorum consisting of the following members were present: After consideration, the Board adopted a resolution reading as follows: "This School Board will authorize Stephens Inc. to file application with the State Board of Education to issue bonds in the estimated amount of $5,500,000 for the purpose of refunding the Districts bonds issue dated May 15, 1988. The sale of the proposed issue is subject to determination by the Board that the savings generated is adequate to justify the issuance of the refunding bonds." BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS By: President By: , SecretaryRESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District continues to be alarmed at the violence and drug activity that threatens the safety and well-being community and in our schools
and of our students in the WHEREAS, it is the belief of the Board of Directors that the presence of police officers in secondary school buildings would be of great value to the students
and IT IS, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the Board of Directors remains committed to the Police Resource Officer Program which was approved by the Board on December 19, 1991, as follows: "...that the Police Resource Officer Program be piloted at one senior high school (J.A. Fair) and at one or more junior high schools (Henderson, Cloverdale, Pulaski Heights, and Mann) during the 1992-93 school year, ....and that the program be evaluated very carefully and see if it has a positive impact on our students... and assuming that half the costs can be paid by the City of Little Rock." ADOPTED this day of October, 1992. BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT O. G. Jacovelli, President Pat Gee, SecretaryLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVED November 12, 1992 NOV 1 6 IW2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle: THROUi lary E. Jones, Manager of Resources & School Support SUBJECT: interim Millage Adjustment Attached is a resolution approving the personal property and real estate millage rates for the year 1992. We recommend that the Board of Directors approve the resolution as submitted.RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPERTY MILLAGE RATE FOR THE YEAR 1992 WHEREAS, the Pulaski County Quorum Court will levy county, municipal, and school taxes for the year 1992 as required by Ark. Code Arm. 14-14-904
and WHEREAS, Ark. Ann. 26-73-202 requires that the governing body of any taxing entity approve the applicable taxes prior to the adoption of the county levy
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County approves the established level of 43.9 mills for personal property and 43.9 mills for real property within the district for the year 1992. President Secretary AdoptedTO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: RECE3VEE5 NOV 1 ft LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 19,1992 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MARK MILHOLI GARY E. JON^ ONTROLLER (R Office of Desegregation Monitoring lANAGER OF RESOURCES & SCHOOL SUPPORT C.M. BERND, SUPERINTENDENT FINANCIAL REPORTS WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL REPORTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIPTS-OPERATING, DEBT SERVICE AND DESEGREGATION FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 APPROVED BUDGET YTD RECEIPTS REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURERS FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL 39,088,120 4,250,186 21,694,578 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 66,559,408 5,333,750 1,157,371 58,215 134,097 6,683,434 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX TOTAL 73,419 11,000 84,419 0 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION TOTAL 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 3,000 229,403 2,692,563 2,490,900 697,589 548,034 46,367,563 8,568,212 18,357 272,783 57,351 328,503 137,991 9,383,197 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 21,795 1,179 22,974 TOTAL REVENUE 113,913,390 16,089,605EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 INCOME 1992-93 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES END BALANCE 1992-93 1992-93 10-31-92 PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32,467.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 7,640,000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 2,750.00 95,425.80 185.97 4,426.69 102,788.46 0.00 0.00 3,731.00 3,731.00 2,750.00 95,425.80 185.97 695.69 99,057.46 S.400.000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 63,413.03 63,413.03 0.00 0.00 57,113.00 57.113.00 6,300.03 6,300.03 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS WATERTOWER ENERGY GRANT MT CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139,833.50 541.84 55,114.00 196,120.00 1,264,140.62 1,655,749.96 103,414.00 0.00 0.00 55,114.00 213,670.45 53,832.05 426,030.50 36,419.50 541.84 0.00 (17,550.45) 1,210,308.57 1,229,719.46 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON W(X)DRUFF MABELVALE ELEM FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK 9,209.59 16,725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 542,520.84 102.50 29,744.43 144,154.27 13,684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 0.69 5,042.20 (23,584.00) 40,860.38 123,266.92 56.94 1,739.42 2,247.19 23,584.00 25.00 75.00 552.00 9,209.59 16,725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 24,282.50 501,660.46 102.50 29,744.43 20,887.35 13,684.67 959.62 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 18,701.79 975.52 0.00 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 32,325.18 56,344.93 67,175.73 59,056.84 0.69 5,042.20OPERATING/DESEG BUDGET FUND EQUITY-BEGINNING 2,321,865 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31.1992 MAGNET FOOD SERVICE SPECIAL REVENUE CONSTRUCTION ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL 2,321,865 2,355,488 2,355,488 150,322 150,322 22,156,036 22,156,036 REVENUE CURRENTTAXES DELINQUENT TAX 40% PULLBACK OTHER TOTAL LOCAL MFPA VOCATIONAL TRANSPORTATION OTHER SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN TOTAL STATE FEDERAL OTHER 39,088,120 4,250,186 21,694,578 1,526,524 66,559,408 27,042,713 1,341,887 2,692,563 4,948,213 8,926,606 1,500,000 46,451,982 40,000 862,000 5,333,750 1,157,371 192,313 6,683,434 8,568,212 272,783 328,503 213,699 9,383,197 21,795 1,179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600,000 600,000 318,180 318,180 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,288,783 1,250,843 963,717 153,696 TOTAL REV & FUND EQUITY 116,235,255 18,411,470 0 0 9,644,271 3,606,331 1,114,039 304,018 22,756,036 22,474,216 EXPENDITURES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PUR SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 15,923,816 2,202,011 3,088,946 8,064,997 1,559,766 2,425,430 317,036 2,672,143 589,630 561,778 116,010 122,629 31,369 798,620 211,646 961,054 4,730,606 1,651,892 755,448 960,041 153,547 22,756,036 3,622,349 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 115,872,561 30,839,537 0 3,703,521 9,644,271 1,433,237 1,114,039 1,163,813 22,756,036 3,622,349 FUND EQUITY-ENDING 362,694 (12,428,067) 0 (3,703,521) 0 2,173,094 0 (859,794) 0 18,851,867i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 EXPENDITURES WAKERELD WATSON EAST SIDE FOOD SERVICE KING STEPHENS CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 6,721.04 1,324,021.19 3,400,000.00 0.00 6,177,454.31 INCOME 1992-93 0.00 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES 1992-93 1992-93 3,186.12 639,403.72 1,467.44 0.00 812,880.13 END BALANCE 10-31-92 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 3,534.92 684,617.47 3,398,532.56 0.00 5,364,574.18 5,100,000BOND ISSUE BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CHICOT DODD FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GARLAND GILLUM HALL IRC ISH JEFFERSON KING FAIR MABELVALE ELEM MABELVALEJR MANN MCCLELLAN MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF METROPOLITAN OTTER CREEK PARKVIEW PULASKI HGTS ELE PULASKI HGTS JR PURCHASING ROMINE TERRY WATSON WILLIAMS SUBTOTAL 178,948.99 214,365.00 45,391.65 219,655.92 250,000.00 243,114.24 3,826,719.79 60,500.00 8,493.28 10,000.00 57,960.00 472,265.84 1,649,619.53 40,512.65 739,616.31 2,350,000.00 47,528.82 197,962.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 186,272.00 27,974.19 400,000.00 63,400.00 24,000.00 55,000.00 207,541.65 57,240.00 50,000.00 186,256.06 31,704.50 175,489.82 350,000.00 13,383,170.45 (400,000.00) 400,000.00 (23,584.00) 23,584.00 0.00 0.00 123,345.56 62,183.93 31,735.10 14,435.63 101,113.08 935,241.44 30,911.00 9,996.55 263,835.08 30,750.70 58,393.54 37,790.00 74,384.00 856.50 143,978.59 16,124.00 17,817.02 28.50 1,529.00 6,855.00 3,118.67 80,824.00 131,504.57 61,047.79 2,237,799.25 55,603.43 152,181.07 13,656.55 205,220.29 250,000.00 142,001.16 2,891,478.35 29,589.00 8,493.28 3.45 57,960.00 208,430.76 1,249,619.53 9,761.95 681,222.77 2,750,000.00 9,738.82 123,578.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 42,293.41 11,850.19 382,182.98 63,400.00 24,000.00 48,145.00 180,838.98 0.00 50,000.00 54,751.49 31,704.50 114,442.03 350,000.00 11,145,371.20 REVENUES SALE OF PROPERT PROCEEDS-FIRE L HENDERSON HENDERSON WATE ECM GRANT METRO GRANT INTEREST 145,201.50 101,932.75 4,100.00 95,082.51 394,674.74 45,000.00 8,647.80 76,147.50 65,525.00 207,654.79 145,201.50 101,932.75 36,352.20 4,100.00 18,935.01 65,525.00 602,329.53i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 EXPENDITURES SUBTOTAL BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 740,991.50 INCOME 1992-93 318,179.79 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES 1992-93 0.00 1992-93 84,795.30 END BALANCE 10-31-92 974,375.99 GRAND TOTAL 22,156,035.53 318,179.79 0.00 3,622,349.18 18,851,866.14Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 18, 1993 The Honorable Jim Guy Tucker Governor of the State of Arkansas State Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Governor Tucker: 1 was pleased to have the opportunity to talk with you last week about the Pulaski County school transportation system and other desegregation matters. As promised, Im enclosing a chart showing the schedule of the States Settlement payments to the Little Rock School District (LRSD). This chart is based on the terms and payment schedule described on pages 22-27 of the 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement. The Settlement monies due the other two county districts are so much less than those to LRSD that 1 have not prepared similar charts for them
however, if it would be helpful to you, 1 will be happy to have graphs drawn up. The chart for LRSD shows that, by June 30, 1993, the district will have spent between 66% and 68% of the Settlement funds to which it is entitled. (The difference in the total percentage spent at fiscal year end depends upon the extent to which the LRSD uses the available portion of the $20 million State loan for which it is eligible.) In other words, by the end of Year Two of the six year desegregation planone-third the targeted time periodthe LRSD will have used two-thirds of its Settlement money. Unfortunately, LRSD has not fulfilled anything even approaching two-thirds of its desegregation plan obligations. The district is making very little progress toward achieving its desegregation goals. Progress in the other two districts is also very slow. Moreover, all three districts are experiencing well-publicized financial difficulties. If the Settlement Agreements were to collapse because of a districts financial insolvency, or a districts failure to otherwise fulfill Agreement terms, the State would be left ultimately "holding the bag."Page Two Februaiy 18, 1993 Obviously, it is in the best interests of us all for the Settlement Plans to work. Thats why ADEs role is so important. As you and 1 discussed. Im very concerned about how the State is keeping the commitments it made as a party to the 1989 Agreements. 1 have not seen evidence that ADE is doing all the Settlement requires of it, particularly that which is set forth in the Settlement Agreements Section 111, entitled "States Role in the Desegregation Process." This section obligates the State and ADE to specific action in addition to routine monitoring and enforcement requirements. 1 am forwarding the 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to Deborah Walz, along with the other four volumes of the desegregation plans the Pulaski County districts are obligated to implement. Please let me know how 1 may be of further help. Very truly yours, Enc. cc: Deborah Walz Compensatory Education Funds Provided By Settlomonl Al Final Approval 4,475,000 January Payment June Payment Total Ally Fee Adv/Popay- Nolo* total Selllenienl Receipts Cumulative SelllemerrI Receipts Remaining ArrxrunI of Setllernenl Funds Available I o.art Hr aw 4,475,000 4,475,000 4,475,000 59,129,886 Schedule of Payments to LRSD State Settlement Funds Fiscal Year 89-90 Fiscal Year 90-91 Fiscal Year 91-92 Fiscal Year 92-93 Fiscal Year 93-94 Fiscal Year 94-95 Fiscal Year 95-96 Fiscal Year 96-97 Fiscal Year 97-98 1/29/93 Fiscal Year 98-99 3,475,000 4,609,250 3,609,250 4,747,528 3,747,528 4,889,954 3,889,954 5,036,652 4,036,652 4,057,460 3,057,460 2,985,131 1,985,131 1,844,811 844,811 1,266,770 266,770 152,387 152,387 8,084,250 8,084,250 12,559,250 54,654,086 8,356,778 2,000,000 10,356,778 22,916,028 46,570,636 6,000,000 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 8,637,482 31,553,510 36,213.858 4,500,01X1 8,926,606 40,480,116 27,576,376 1,500,000 8,094,112 48,574,228 18,649,770 6,042,591 54,616,819 10,555,658 3,829,942 58,446,761 4,513,067 2,111,581 (1,428,456) 683,125 59,129,886 683,125 419,157 (419,157) 0 59,129,886 0 152,387 (152,387) 0 59,129,886 0 Selllerrrent Plus Loan Draw Fiscal Year To Dale-2-1-93 Draw Down on Selllemenl To Date -2-1-93 Draw Down on Settlement Plus Loan Year End Total of Selllemenl Draw Down Year End Total of Settlement Draw Down Plus 12 Million Loan (Available Loan Amount Is 20 Million) 16,356,778 13,137,482 10,426,606 35,443,464 47,443,464 40,480,116 52,480,116 59.94% ot total settlement 59.96% o( selllemenl plus loan 68.46% <- End of June '93 66.32% <- End of June '93 Budget 14,356,778 15,703,006 17,013,029 Actual Expenditures Cumulative Expenditures 5,471,069 8,434,586 13,905,655 14,598,588 28,504,243 15,997,240 44,501,483 Additional Payments per pg 24 ol Financial Settlement not included in code 13 accounting 2,000,000 Cumulative 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,870,114 10,000,000 12,000,000 13,870,114 'Note: Fire setitlernent provided Itiat the attorney fee would be advanced from tire settlement monies and recaptured from the last years ot payment. Prepared by the OfTice of Desegregation MonitoringCF: l/Vr I JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR, Also admitted to Practice in Georgia & the District of Columbia. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Ajtorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 722116 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 April 2, 1993 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED APR 5 Office of DesegregaSon Mcnitoringj I have reason to believe that the Little Rock School District may be destroying certain financial records and other documents. I am, therefore, asking you appoint the ODM to determine whether document destruction has occurred with respect to financial records for the past three years. I am also requesting that you conunission an audit the district's finances for that same period of time to determine whether the finances of the district have been legitimately spent as required by law and by the Desegregation Plan. In ray work on a related matter, I have discovered that school district officials do not routinely reimburse the district for their personal long distance telephone calls. Dr. Bernd has apparently now recognized that after I requested his personal and cellular phone bills and has devised a "quarterly" repayment policy for the staff. the last several months. That policy was not enforced prior to my letters in It stands to reason that if district officials do not routinely repay telephone advances, they engage in similar practices in other areas. Another reason for the request is Dr. Bernd's statement earlier in Court that he did not know how many district employees the district had. If that knowledge escaped him, then it is reasonable to believe that payments were being made to some persons who were not district employees or for activities or invoices that were directors. not properly approved by the school district board of Moreover, the administration of the district does not have the power to circumvent the bidding policies of the district. I am prepared to share with the ODM information that I have to the effect that at least one district employee in the business office rather routinely allowed contracts between the school district and a family member or members. If this in fact is substantiated, then further inferences attach to the manner in which the business affairs of the district have been conducted.Judge Wright April 2, 1993 Page 2 plan My concern for raising these issues is that the settlement contemplations of double funding, including scholarship promises to the incentive schools and their children, stand to be diminished if not aborted by school district spending practices. Although the audit will cost some money, I believe that its yield will be well worth it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Verj truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:Im cc: Mr. Chris Heller All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown Dr. C.M. BerndJOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED MAY 7 1993 Office cf Desegregation JZoniioiing JOHN W. WALKER R/\LPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR, AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Abtn ailtnitlrtl b> Pnilin* in it the Distrirt of ColumiMa. May 6, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Bobby Lester Pulaski County Special School District 924 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. James Smith North Little Rock School District 27th & Poplar North Little Rock, AR 72115 Gentlemen: Pursuant to Arkansas FOIA, this request secure copies of documents from January 1, is being made to 199 0 to date which represent bills for legal services rendered to your respective school districts related thereto. including itemized statements and all costs Please let me know when someone from my office can come by your respective offices to secure. Sincerely Sincerely, 75>nn W. Walker J JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann BrownLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUNE 24,1993 RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: THROUGH: MARK MILHOLLEN, CONTROLLER GARY E. JONES, MANAGER OF RESOURCES & SCHOOL SUPPORT C.M. BERND. SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT: FINANCIAL REPORTS WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL REPORTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.INCOME-SOURCES LOCAL COUNTY STATE OTHER TOTAL INCOME BEGINNING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DESEG-SALARIES DESEG-EMP BENEFITS DESEG-PUR SER,SUPP,EOUIP PUR SER.SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL EXPENDITURES NET ENDING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FOR THE ELEVEN MONTH PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 ADOPTED BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET TRANSACTIONS ENCUMBRANCES BALANCE 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 113,913,390' 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 113,913,390 47,207,023 91,459 34,333,318 42,045 81,673,845 19,352,385 (7,040) 12,034,245 859,955 32,239,545 2,321,865 2,321,865 116,235,255 116,235,255 65,063,011 9,162,732 6,851,059 1,078,701 9,083,269 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 115,872,561 65,063,011 8,862,732 7,587,909 1,078,701 8,346,419 14,708,182 9,597,115 28,492 115,272,561 62,040,042 8,530,194 7,087,908 1,003,987 3,978,354 10,788,578 9,597,115 103,026,178 362,694 962,694 116,235,255 116,235,255 3,022,969 332,538 500,001 74,714 253,085 2,006,824 0 6,190,131 0 0 0 0 4,114,980 1,912,780 0 28,492 6,056,253'I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 ADOPTED 91/92 ACTUAL 05/31/92 % ADOPTED 92/93 ACTUAL 05/31/93 O.'o FUND EQUITY-BEGINNING 634,842 634,842 2,321,865 2,321.865 REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES COUNTY SOURCES STATE SOURCES OTHER SOURCES 64,590,356 84,419 49,864,380 956,078 44,845,817 73,419 36,777,846 23,820 69.43% 86.97% 73.76% 2.49% 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 47,207,023 91,459 '34,333,318 42,045 70.92% 108.34% 74.05% 4.66% TOTAL REVENUE 116,130,075 82,355,744 70.92% 116,235,255 83,995,710 72.26% EXPENDITURES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGRATION PUR SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,381,149 8,408,935 13,589,306 19,502,985 8,718,196 388,163 56,041,084 6,815,515 11,033,659 12,683,306 7,998,218 85.71% 81.05% 81.19% 65.03% 91.74% 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 62,040,042 8,530,194 12,070,249 10,788,578 9,597,115 95.35% 93.10% 70.95% 74.22% 100.00% 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 115,988,734 94,571,782 81.54% 115,872,561 103,026,178 88.91% FUND EQUITY-ENDING 141,341 (12,216,038) 362,694 (19,030,468)EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 INCOME 1992-93 TRANSFERS 1992-93 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 END BALANCE 05-31-93 PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32.467.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 7,640,000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 2.750.00 95.425.80 185.97 4.426.69 102.788.46 0.00 0.00 3,731.00 3,731.00 2.750.00 95.425.80 185.97 695.69 99.057.46 5,400,000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 13,745.03 13,745.03 0.00 0.00 10,016.00 10,016.00 3,729.03 3,729.03 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS WATER TOWER KING ENERGY GRANT MT CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139.833.50 541.84 52.358.30 103,414.00 11,306.00 1,210,000.00 138,342.70 1.264,140.62 1,595,216.96 0.00 (1,210,000.00) 0.00 220,091.25 53,947.55 388,758.80 36,419.50 541.84 41.052.30 1.210.000.00 (81,748.55) 193.07 1,206,458.16 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE ELEM FULBRIGHT 9.209.59 16.725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 542,520.84 102.50 29,744.43 32,502.88 13.684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 0.69 (23,584.00) 23.584.00 0.00 34,339.10 21,523.71 309.73 11,934.70 2,247.19 428.21 1,706.95 75.00 552.00 101.69 9.209.59 16.725.08 12.463.96 10.279.42 54.236.08 24.282.50 508.181.74 102.50 29.744.43 10.979.17 13.684.67 706.83 6.160.02 20.944.74 10.467.20 11.684.73 8.506.51 975.52 0.00 4.200.00 33.166.71 2.514.28 85.020.81 30.643.23 56.344.93 67.175.73 58.955.15 0.69EXPENDITURES OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON EAST SIDE FOOD SERVICE KING STEPHENS CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 5,042.20 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 6,721.04 1,324,021.19 3,400,000.00 0.00 6,065,802.92 INCOME 1992-93 0.00 15.100,000 BOND ISSUE BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CHICOT DODD FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GARLAND GILLUM HALL IRC ISH JEFFERSON KING FAIR MABELVALE ELEM MABELVALE JR MANN MCCLELLAN MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF METROPOLITAN OTTER CREEK PARKVIEW PULASKI HGTS ELE PULASK] HGTS JR PURCHASING ROMINE TERRY WATSON WILLIAMS SUBTOTAL 139,679.88 214,365.00 45,391.65 219,655.92 250,000.00 243,114.24 3,636,783.65 60,500.00 8,493.28 10,000.00 57,960.00 449,977.88 1,649,619.53 40,512.65 739,616.31 2,350,000.00 47,528.82 197,962.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 99,231.00 27,974.19 400,000.00 63,400.00 24,000.00 55,000.00 207,541.65 57,240.00 50,000.00 177,508.29 31,704.50 126,029.47 350,000.00 12,986,428.12 0.00 TRANSFERS 1992-93 0.00 (1,040,000.00) 1,040,000.00 (23,584.00) 23,584.00 0.00 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 360.00 308.00 3,186.12 1,324,021.19 1,467.44 1,402,561.03 90,132.72 69,829.10 33,483.50 31,407.49 172,358.45 2,719,765.90 32,719.27 9,996.55 11,336.60 266,876.97 47,414.75 30,750.70 58,393.54 452,428.05 46,190.00 81,930.16 5,301.21 856.50 56,937.59 16,124.00 37,780.79 63,400.00 2,029.00 10,741.62 4,169.45 80,824.00 147,406.49 4,506.61 15,580.10 4,600,671.11 REVENUES SALE OF PROPERT PROCEEDS-FIRE L HENDERSON HENDERSON WATE ECM GRANT METRO GRANT 145,201.50 101,932.75 4,100.00 70,201.51 45,000.00 65,525.00 9,145.80 51.266.50 30,687.59 END BALANCE 05-31-93 4,682.20 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,082.96 3,534.92 0.00 3,398,532.56 0.00 4,663,241.89 49,547.16 144,535.90 11,908.15 188,248.43 250,000.00 70,755.79 917,017.75 27,780.73 8,493.28 3.45 46,623.40 183,100.91 609,619.53 9,761.95 681,222.77 2,937,571.95 1,338.82 116,032.55 939,261.29 10,218.50 42,293.41 11,850.19 362,219.21 0.00 21,971.00 44,258.38 179,788.20 0.00 50,000.00 30,101.80 27,197.89 110,449.37 350,000.00 8,385,757.01 145,201.50 101,932.75 35,854.20 4,100.00 18,935.01 34,837.41EXPENDITURES INTEREST SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31. 1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 394,674.74 716,110.50 INCOME 1992-93 545,656.64 656,181.64 TRANSFERS 1992-93 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 0.00 91.099.89 END BALANCE 05-31-93 940,331.38 1,281,192.25 21,512,559.81 656,181.64 0.00 6,436,837.83 15,671,903.62LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 24, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools C-SUBJECT: 1993-94 Budget I am submitting for your review a summary of all requested budget changes since the submission of the April 26, 1993 Tentative Budget document. These requests have been categorized by the major expenditure classifications as required by our chart of accounts. The final budget we are asking you to adopt is the same as the tentative budget with the exception of the changes listed herein. _______Operating Budget_______ Salaries Fringes Serv,Supp,Equip Desegregation Budget May 27. 1993 Additions Director of Human Resources Assistant Principal - Central High Communications Assistant CA time) Minority Recruiter Instructional Materials Center EPA Department Police Resource Officer 50,000 36,000 9,290 31,073 37,964 61,500 5,000 4,000 710 4,115 4,671 8,057 * 77,432 * Addition to original amount of $203,000 Additional Requests Administrative Salary Proposal Media Clerks/Computer Lab Assistants Lease Purchase Refinancing Property Insurance Premium Adjustment King Staffing 157,175 10,907 26,010 340,691 Totals 383,002 37,460 (428,459) (200,000) 100,000 (628,459) 544,133 A final document will be printed incorporating Board approved changes and the format revisions suggested by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 3) 06-24-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET REVISIONS REVISED 1993-94 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 118,998 317,646 120,412 317,978 141,376 91,322 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,576 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,277,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 225,000 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,502,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 TOTAL 56,823,656 64,998.180 66,559,406 68,357,399 225,000 68,582,399 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL___________ SEVERANCE TAX TOTAL 73,971 16,232 90,203 73,419 15,350 88,769 73,419 11,000 84,419 73,419 18,000 91,419 73,419 18,000 91,419 REVENUE -STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN_________ APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL_______________ HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD_________ ORPHAN CHILDREN_________ TRANSPORTATION__________ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 22,037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 27,142,713 8,094,112 3,000,000 0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,000 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 540 27,142,713 8,094,112 3,000,000 ________0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,540 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 TOTAL REVENUE- OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 45,472,609 28,585 95,588 613,166 737,339 103,123,807 48,670,684 9,385 129,428 394,675 533,488 114,291,121 46,367,563 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 .113,913,388 47,960,160 30,000 1,250,000 400,000 1,680,000 118,088,978 540 10,000 100,000 110,000 335,540 47,960,700 40,000 1,250,000 500,000 1,790,000 118,424,518LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 3) 06-24-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET REVISIONS REVISED 1993-94 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER TOTAL REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL EXPENSES INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL 2,886,618 227,900 468,964 974,090 4.557,572 12,571,785 12,571,785 120,253,164 56,996,869 7,312,664 14,598,558 17,053,677 6,646,769 0 102,608,537 4,369,442 \2,57-\,7a5 119,549,764 703,400 185,838 119,574 373,968 634,844 1,008,812 3,275,099 224,423 558,810 1,164,511 5,222,843 13,887,841 13,887>1 133,401,805 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 112,604,098 5,111,131 13,887,841 131,603,070 1,798,735 373,968 634,844 485,680 2,321,867 i2,807,547 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,278,796 14,278,796 134,471,434 65,063,011 8,862,732 17,012,939 14,236,764 9,597,115 500,000 115,272,561 6,764,930 14,278,796 136,316,287 (1,844,853) 485,680 2,321,867 0 962,694 962,694 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,707,160 14,707,160 139,075'388 67,397,356 8,934,265 18,207,812 14,638,463 8,870,123 1,000,000 119,048,019 6,279,250 14,707,160 140,034,429 (959,042) 0 962,694 0 3,652 3,653 335,540 383,002 37,460 544,133 (628,459) 336,136 336,136 (596) (596) 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,707,160 14,707,160 139,410,928 67,780,358 8,971,725 18,751,945 14,010,004 8,870,123 1,000,000 119,384,155 6,279,250 14,707,160 140,370,565 (959,638) 0 962,694 0 3,056 3,056Date: 06/23/93 Time: 21:27 Little Rock School District Line Item (Object) Summary Actual 1991/92 Budget 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 TW 0115 0117 0130 0135 CERTIFIED REGULAR CERTIFICATED CERTIFIED INSTRUCT. ASST. STIPENDS SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS-SHORT SUBST. CERTIFIED LONG TER CERTIFIED TOTAL $8,212.70 $1,229,076.61 $871,099.40 $326,189.12 $56,324,204.58 $0.00 $1,743,639.54 $900,000.00 $0.00 $56,335,335.62 t57,4S!,W.7S $0.00 $453,431.31 $926,321.00 $0.00 $60,863,732.04 0120 0121 0124 0140 0145 NON-CERTIFIEO REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED MAINTENANCE CLERICAL OVERTIME SUBST NON-CERTIFIED-SHORT SUBST. NON-CERTIFIED LONG NON-CERTIFIED TOTAL $15,076,554.61 $1,129,828.37 $91,812.91 $540,253.81 $28,557.67 $16,867,007.37 $16,818,713.84 $0.00 $0.00 $350,000.00 $0.00 $17,168,713.84 $15,209,953.76 $1,136,945.28 $0.00 $416,844.45 $0.00 $16,763,743.49 TiTnr 0220 0230 0240 0250 0290 BENEFITS SOCIAL SECURITY TAX TEACHER RETIREMENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREHE INSURANCE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BENEFITS TOTAL $?
5 75,^5. $0.00 $171,904.40 $3,036,037.39 $153,797.29 $60,097.43 $8,992,742.29 $7775377507 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $160,000.00 $73,462.00 $9,962,190.24 $6,882.48 $148,194.77 $4,349,655.31 $195,000.00 $60,000.00 $10,268,023.46 0310 0311 0312 0313 0314 0316 0318 0319 0321 0322 0323 0324 0325 0326 0327 0328 0329 0331 0332 0333 0334 PURCHASED SERVICES PROFESSIONAL & TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION SERVICES INSTRUCTIONAL PROG IMPROV PUPIL SERVICES_____________ STAFF SERVICES DATA PROCESSING SERVICES BOARD OF ED SERVICES OTHER PROFESSIONAL & TECH UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC UTILITY SER-WATER/SEUAGE/ CLEANING SERVICES REPAIRS-BUILDINGS REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT RENTAL OF LAND & BUILDING RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT & VEH OTHER PROPERTY SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION TRAVEL-PAYROLL_____________ TRAVEL OFFICE EXPENSES $327,016.05 $13,309.42 $1,052,785.32 $44,070.20 $40.00 $7,529.35 $57,237.67 $91,162.34 $563,340.02 $2,651,690.07 $173,066.98 $0.00 $519,413.12 $470,552.36 $50,770.81 $23,214.29 $126,364.09 $710,448.27 $2,555.64 $92,165.12 ($80.00) $586,390.00 $1,000.00 $691,900.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $366,862.00 $70,000.00 $28,000.00 $3,531,500.00 $5,500.00 $15,000.00 $501,558.00 $596,964.28 $42,000.00 $18,464.00 $275,500.00 $562,036.00 $21,120.00 $73,600.00 $0.00 $621,800.00 $21,015.00 $761,357.00 $53,440.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $752,500.00 $72,100.00 $826,700.00 $2,879,165.00 $209,950.00 $400,000.00 $200,300.00 $506,300.09 $135,700.00 $15,050.00 $128,650.00 $633,067.30 $24,160.00 $71,343.63 $0.00 Page 1Date: 06/23/93 Time: 21:27 Little Rock School District Line Item (Object) Summary BKAIBH 0542 0543 0545 0548 0550 0551 06177 0620 0630 0635 0640 0641 0642 0649 0660 0690 Page 3 EQUIPMENT (NOT INVENTORIE EQUIPMENT (REAL PROPERTY) EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE EQUIPMENT VEHICLES SUPPLY CENTER VEHICLES LEASE PURCHASE CAPTIAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL INTEREST DUES & FEES DUES & FEES - NCA INSURANCE PROPERTY INSURANCE LIABILITY INSURANCE OTHER INSURANCE IMPROVEMENT TAX OTHER EXPENSES OTHER OBJECTS TOTAL TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL Actual 1991/92 $836.27 $91,527.78 $1,350,643.15 $0.00 $152,106.60 $906,669.49 $3,959,731.36 $3,^93,324.59 $4,904,977.12 $54,716.42 $12,950.00 $1,196,236.20 $50,000.00 $1,817.08 $51,804.85 $8,971.34 $3,738,667.07 $13,413,464.67 $112,604,098.14 Budget 1992/93 $0.00 $92,000.00 $1,489,020.00 $136,302.00 _________$0.00 $910,000.00 $3,120,046.84 Budget 1993/94 $0.00 $60,000.00 $926,742.00 $52,093.00 _________$0.00 $0.00 $1,738,382.50 $4,597,115.00 $5,000,000.00 $40,645.00 $26,000.00 $1,018,440.00 $0.00 $0.00 $54,775.00 $0.00 $4,690,713.00 $15,427,688.00 1^7753?^ $4,074,616.00 $4,785,507.40 $57,339.50 $17,000.00 $400,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $54,775.00 $15,000.00 $5,148,290.00 $14,552,527.90Date: 06/23/93 Time: 19:47 Little Rock School District Function Summary Function 1105 1110 1120 1125 1129 1130 1132 1135 1137 1140 1145 1146 1151 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1190 1191 1193 1195 1196 1199 1210 1220 1230 1240 1290 1292 1321 1322 1331 1332 1333 1341 1351 1352 1353 1354 1360 1362 1371 1392 1393 1410 1420 1430 1440 1445 1490 1550 1560 1570 1580 1595 1910 2111 2113 2114 2120 2121 Description FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM KINDERGARTEN ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY MAGNET SPECIALTY PROGRAM MIDDLEXJUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL JUNIOR HIGH JUNIOR HIGH MAGNET________ JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURE HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL STANDARDS BOYS ATHLETICS GIRLS ATHLETICS____________ FOOTBALL/HINOR SPORTS VOLLEYBALL BASKETBALL TRACK,TENNIS,GOLF & SUIMH BASEBALL OTHER REGULAR MULTI-ETHNIC PROGRAM TRAVELING TEACHERS________ ACCELERATED LEARNING ACCELERATED LEARNING SUBST ITUTES-1NSTRUCTI ON ITINERANT INSTRUCTION RESOURCE ROOM SPECIAL CLASS______________ HOMEBOUND AND HOSPITAL OTHER EXTENDED YEAR HAND. SERVI MARKETING/DIST ED-COOP MARKET ING/D1ST ED-EXPL BUSINESS ED COOP BUSINESS ED EXPL___________ BUSINESS ED-SKILL TR HEALTH COOP TRADE & IND-COOP TRADE & IND-EXPL TRADE & INO-SKILL TR YOUTH APPRENTICESHIP HOME ECONOMICS CONS/HMKG CAREER ORIENTATION________ COORD CAREER-COOP LOORD CAREER-EXPL ADULT BASIC EDUCATION ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION ADULT VOCATIONAL PROGRAM SPECIAL PROJECTS WORKPLACE LITERACY OTHER ADULT EDUCATION EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION READING MATHEMATICS ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS COMPENSATORY EDUCATION GIFTED AND TALENTED SERVICE AREA DIRECTION SOCIAL WORK SERVICES PUPIL ACCOUNTING SERVICES GUIDANCE SERVICES SERVICE AREA DIRECTION Actual 1991/92 $312,429.70 $3,107,993.07 $18,957,936.89 $24,950.47 $978,337.42 $8,134,324.61 ___________$0.00 $71,943.05 $429,684.81 $7,856,636.53 $42,226.16 $2,300.61 $42,098.02 $43,559.23 $47,638.98 $6,490.16 $42,794.32 $9,066.81 $8,946.68 $63,857.99 $690.88 $21,042.56 $2,283,175.79 $17,394.73 $1,393,301.78 $943,193.30 $2,065,293.61 $1,253,039.78 $255,077.13 $823,730.20 $14,151.72 $197,722.24 $2,869.04 $191,121.48 $853,847.88 $970,157.41 $58,755.33 $193,754.91 $619,807.20 $1,016,956.63 ' $41,764.48 $38,946.63 ' $670,989.72 ' $230,724.89 ' $201,795.03 $0.00 $437,414.74 ' $186,704.13 $18,949.50 $28,974.75 $25,545.75 $35,631.06 $930,948.93 $11,216.41 $288,660.42 $658,575.23 $967,023.83 $1,327,011.59 $11,321.52 $0.00 $145,479.23 " $1,561,832.32 " $8,639.40 Budget 1992/93 $1,479,804.31 $3,253,398.91 $21,904,944.99 $265,892.02 $0.00 $8,635,782.29 ___________$0.00 $212,863.97 $492,021.18 $8,264,041.10 $273,095.96 ___________$0.00 $44,620.00 $13,230.00 $49,680.00 $7,200.00 $45,540.00 $11,160.00 $10,800.00 $37,696.84 $0.00 $12,000.00 $2,275,181.26 $0.00 $1,096,370.00 $901,880.14 $2,189,284.37 $1,296,582.62 $240,565.63 $435,287.20 __________$0.00 $194,886.18 $0.00 $190,480.17 $575,813.91 $965,541.57 $50,996.02 $189,221.26 $537,358.99 $852,818.65 $46,025.56 ' $36,683.42 $664,130.37 $224,651.50 $203,203.43 $21,518.34 $404,251.48 $180,760.35 $39,221.06 $10,001.85 ' __________$0^' $0.00 $0.00 $280,068.49 $21,519.20 $320,000.00 $862,437.52 ' $646,481.75 $5,150.00 ' $0.00 $14,700.00 $2,475,037.42 ' $12,850.00 Budget 1993/94 $1,681,072.65 $3,328,323.45 $23,073,155.13 $173,979.01 $86,475.45 $8,790,806.29 $26,783.84 $440,972.56 $545,069.55 $8,780,756.57 $100,000.00 __________$0.00 $44,797.00 $4,798.20 $49,680.00 $7,416.00 $45,880.20 $11,354.40 $10,800.00 $18,697.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $1,332,756.42 $0.00 $1,111,585.20 $1,147,624,46 $2,268,606.18 $1,377,005.08 $324,980.11 $997,814.22 $5,705.28 $208,184.71 $0.00 $202,595.86 $652,853.50 $1,021,150.81 $31,974.81 $204,169.82 $558,050.96 $933,655.63 $119,623.23 $0.00 $734,449.69 $250,098.90 $215,630.04 $0.00 $427,317.98 $328,075.39 $2,280.00 $953.04 __________$0.00 __________$0.00 $245,468.62 $22,400.00 $12,000.00 $320,000.00 $1,102,804.02 $1,136,731.95 >5,150.65' $122,361.81 $123,025.50 $2,863,409.70 $10,850.00 Page 1Date: 06/23/93 Time: 19:47 Little Rock School District Function Summary Function 5100 6000 Description BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PROVISION FOR CONTINGENCI LITTLE RXK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual 1991/92 $7,950,100.01 $0.00 $112,604,098.14 Budget 1992/93 $9,597,115.00 $700,000.00 $115,272,560.34 Budget 1993/94 $8,870,123.40 $1,000,000.00 $119,384,154.77 Page 3Jw/y >^enc(4 RECBIVBD LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUL 2 3 1998 Off ICE QI- (JSESREGAWH WQHITOWMS July 23, 1998 TO: Board Of Directors FROM: THROUGH: ^Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent Of Schools SUBJECT
Financial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. 1I I J :'SiW *W#COMBINED
STATEMENT OF REVENUES^EXPENDITURES AND.tHANGESlN FUND BALANCE^^g jjr APPROVED 1996/97 RECEIPTS 06/30/97 % COLLECTED DRAFT 7 1997/98 RECEIPTS 06/30/98 % COLLECTEC REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40%. PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS ITOTAL-^^j^^^g^, REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION SUMMER SCHOOL WORKER'S COMPENSATION 46,211,535 4,150,000 25,553,182 170,000 400,000 160,000 250,000 625,000 100,000 77,619717
45,086,233 4,744,367 25,194,504 169,094 404,117 160,511 241,088 301,827 117,968 76
4'19
707j 97.56% 114.32% 98.60%. 99.47%. 101.03% 100.32% 96.44% 48.29% 117.97% .^?98.'45% 49,248,043 4,650,000 26,202,284 170,000 405,000 160,000 260,000 350,000 108,000 W-8lt553^7i 48,632,501 5,266,906 25,148,513 185,618 525,161 176,515 303,653 559,105 120,587 4^80,918
560' 98.75% 113.27% 95.98% 109.19% 129.67% 110.32% 116.79% 159.74% 111.65% a^'99
22% 68,649 18,000 ^S:^86.649i 41,530,927 683,125 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,200,000 245,000 2,856,453 3,326,654 857,560 0 637,781 342,998 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND S^JTOT ^56:680X98
30,000 200,000 0 741,261 i^?tS^97B26l
67,890 20,113 98.89% 111.74% 68,000 20,250 69.255 101.85% fi^j^88,^3y ji^1Oil''56/o Wg^88,250: jiS^^69i255^ SS^8?48% 43,350,510 683,125 3,000,000 1,067,268 1,500,429 233,992 2,966,526 3,548,125 968,176 67,795 637,781 428,505 104.38% 100.00% 100.00% 106.73% 68.20%. 95.51% 103.85% 106.66% 112.90% 100.00% 124.93% 43,257,881 0 2,000,000 1,250,000 1,800,000 233,992 3,059,584 3,895,429 934,186 137,814 0 349,330 43,662,233 2,000,000 1,914,484 1,779,632 233,992 3,238,875 3,475,326 934,186 149,413 100.93% 100.00% 153.16% 98.87% 100.00% 105.86% 89.22% 100.00% 108.42% ^58352
230j ^66r9T8
216? 382,146 ^5^770)286? 109.39% |goiao% 213,031 824,092 ^^^^JO37^123 106.52%. 111.17% 28,000 250,000 0 850,000 IW7Q0O5 3,240 391,473 11.57% 156.59% 1,284,189 ^^fe
678
9p2^ 151.08% ^^48:84% T0TAL
REVEN0E-0RERATING^^^^|^35.358a25?|li^5:997,iD63i|^Ppg73S[OW:fe87
79S|g^0137-003]|lE(iro^ REVENUE-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS lirf 6,508,656 16,620,205 6,557,858 16,422,402 100.76%. 98.81%. 6,439,580 16,776,091 6,838,643 18,159,205 106.20% 108.24% JOTAt->--^a^g^g|^23.'128,86ia M22
:98Pg60
g^99.364 W^3
2Y5
67i: lg24
997,848. ^07:68% TOTAL REVENUE 58,486,986 | .^158,977,323 | -ffgl00.31%[ '162,903,464'f ..165,434,852 | ^
T101.557! APPROVED 1996/97 EXPENDED 06/30/97 9997rAND.1998 % EXPENDED DRAFT 7 1997/98 EXPENDED 06/30/98 % EXPENDEL EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE 74,864,664 21,353,655 18,654,143 3,432,024 2,540,360 6,722,833 7,104,457 76,032,027 21,027,425 19,007,021 3,250,464 2,346,558 6,274,158 6,981,748 101.56% 98.47% 101.89% 94.71% 92.37% 93.33% 98.27% 78,786,916 21,757,036 19,736,390 4,206,694 3,321,203 6,817,039 6,136,091 78,377,854 21,180,016 20,804,218 3,921,906 2,186,168 7,007,446 6,129,738 99.48' 97.35' 105.41? 93.23' 65.82' 102.79' 99.90? J-0TAt5EXE>ENSES:QI?EBATIN(3^O|^)M672a3^|^g^19>bs}a^m8?$t^40^6i
369
|^39:6d7^7U|^^99:^83 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS 7,167,441 16,620,205 6,507,301 16,386,065 90.79% 98.59% 7,148,922 16,812,428 6,628,468 18,123,058 92.72? 107.80? (^3
787i646
W22
893^ ^fe3.'961^50: .1^4.75i
526, i^l03:30> ^TOTAeEXPENSES^I^^gl^^^^ .1|I58:459?78^ W57^812?766': S^64:722'?749: ^64358.872^ S^I^'9.785 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING 27,204 658,785 256,656 0 942,645
^g^&42,645'. 1,164,557 658,785 256,656 745,679 1,334,319 ^^
079
998, (1,819,255) 1,075,979 745,679 1,334,319 0 260,743 4Og
260,743i 745,679 1,334,319 992,002 2,163,976 ^^Jl 55,977^ JPROJECT I $16,900,000 BOND ISSUE SOUTHWEST WAKEFIELD EAST SIDE STEPHENS FOOD SERVICE CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $15,100,000 BOND ISSUE BALE DODD FOREST HEIGHTS MABELVALE JR MCCLELLAN OAKHURST M.L. KING ROMINE HENDERSON CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL REVENUES SALE OF PROP/MISC PROCEEDS-FIRE LOSS HENDERSON HENDERSON WATER GETTY GRANT DUNBAR PROJECT CENTRAL GRANT METRO GRANT INTEREST SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,1998 BEG BALANCE 07-01-97 218,878.93 3,300.00 3,035.61 3,022,409.73 5,577.23 132.21 3,253,333.71 1,243.30 24,258.45 1,100.00 403,239.98 65,000.00 13,000.00 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 34,037.16 548,878.89 254,098.59 59,408.81 853.71 4,100.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 36,998.72 944,876.74 1)320,336.57 5.122.549.17 INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 END BALANCE 06-30-98 0.00 0.00 100.00 25,000.00 215,560.81 240,660.81 240.660.81 (1,401.00) (3,035.61) 11,555.00 1,899.00 1,755.00 5,577.23 207,323.93 0.00 0.00 3,020,654.73 0.00 4,436.61 0.00 20,786.23 0.00 4,568.82 3,232,547.48 (1,243.30) (2,465.35) (28,286.64) 2,060.25 (85.00) 4,835.00 1,000.00 24,185.04 0.00 19,988.97 1,100.00 15,899.94 36,713.36 15,060.25 6,915.00 4,835.00 1,000.00 101,512.52 254,198.59 5,222.90 0.00 1,804.13 0.00 387,340.04 0.00 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 596.85 10,000.00 25,596.85 599.84 20,000.00 0.00 58,222.20 447,366.37 0.00 54,185.91 853.71 4,100.00 0.00 9,400.16 0.00 (10,596.85) 0.00 305,618.18 0.00 36,998.72 1,149,840.70 1,255,379.20 0.00 427.916.93 0.00 4,935.293.05Ann Marshall From: Sent: To: Subject: Skip Marshall [marshall@arsba.org] Friday, May 17, 2002 9
29 AM asbrown@aristotle.net Fwd: Legal Clips >From: JUndenwood@nsba.org >To: "School Finance" <schoolfinance@lists.nsba.org> >Subject: Legal Clips >Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:52:19 -0400 >List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-schoolfinance-2941704S@lists.nsba.org> >Reply-To: JUnderwood@nsba.org >Status: > >Below please find this week's Legal Clips. Please note that if you are not >receiving Legal Clips directly into your emailbox and would like to, just >send me an email with subscribe in the Subject line. Thanks and happy >reading. >Julie >Julie Underwood >General Counsel >National School Boards Association >(703) 838 -6710 >junderwood@nsba.org > LEGAL CLIPS >A service of the National School Boards Association's >Office of General Counsel >May 16, 2002 >TOP STORY: U.S. Supreme Court rules that Child Online Protection Act's use >of "community standards" to define Internet material that is harmful to >minors does not violate First Amendment free speech protections. But the >Court remanded the case and allowed the injunction to stand. >See Technology: Ashcroft v. ACLU >TECHNOLOGY >The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Child Online Protection Act's (COPA) >use of "community standards" to define material harmful to minors does not >renderthe Act unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to material >disseminated over the Internet. The Court concluded that COPA's reliance on >"community standards" to identify what material "is harmful to minors" does >not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment >purposes. The Court, however, expressed no view as to whether COPA violates >the First Amendment for reasons other than its use of "community standards" >and remanded the case on those issues, allowing the injunction on >enforcement to stand pending further proceedings. >Ashcroft V. ACLU No. 00-1293 (U.S. Sup. Ct. May 13, 2002) Link to full >opinion >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000 >&invol=00-1293 ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=00 >0&invol=00-1293> >link to case summary: http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/ACLU.htm 1><http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/ACLU.htm> >LIABILITY >Ty Hull, a student at Wellston High School in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, >suffered an intra-cerebral hemorrhage while participating in a football >scrimmage between Wellston and Bethel High School's varsity teams. As a >result of his injury, Ty was permanently disabled. Ty's mother filed a >negligence suit against the school district. The Oklahoma Court of Civil >Appeals ruled that under state law the school district was immune from >liability for Ty's injury because it occurred while he was participating in >an interscholastic event sponsored by the school district. The court >rejected Ms. Hull's attempts to get around the state's immunity law by >recasting her claim as either negligent or wanton hiring, retaining, >training and supervising of its football coaches. Further the court found >that even if Ms. Hull could prove that the school district was guilty of >negligent or willful and wanton hiring, retaining and supervising of the >coaches that conduct was not the proximate cause of Ty's injury. The court >pointed that the sole proximate cause of Ty's permanent disability was the >injury he received while participating in the scrimmage. >Hull V. Wellston Independent School District, 2001 WL 1836289 (Okla. App. >December 14, 2001) >STUDENT RIGHTS AND DISCIPLINE >A new invention called the "smart locker" would allow principals across the >country easy access to lockers and even monitor how often and when students >use them. Opened with "swipe cards," rather than padlocks, these lockers can >be operated from a computer in the central office where they can be opened >individually or all at once. >The Christian Science Monitor by Patrick Jonsson link to full story
>http
//www.csmonitor.com/2002/0507/p02s02-ussc.html ><http
//v7ww.csmonitor.com/2002/0507/p02s02-ussc.html> >Several students and their parents filed an action challenging the City of >Waterbury School District's (CT) dress code. The claims centered on the >students' and parents' liberty and privacy interests. The court rejected >both claims, concluding that the school district's interest in preventing >disruptions in school caused by disputes arising from taunts and envy over >jeans outweighed the students' right to wear the clothing of choice. Turning >to the parents' claim, the court rejected the contention that parental >autonomy is absolute. It stated that the parents' right is subject to >reasonable restrictions within the school context. The court concluded that >"[a]bsolute exercise of parental autonomy within the public school program >would very likely cause total chaos as conflicting parental visions >collided." >Byars v. City of Waterbury, 2001 WL 1830017 (Conn. Super. 2001) >RELIGION >The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit in Louisiana challenging >federally funded sexual abstinence programs. The primary allegation is that >the state has used tax dollars to promote religion. The ACLU contends that >Louisiana has spent money on "Christ-centered" skits, religious youth >revivals, biblical instruction, and prayer vigils at abortion clinics. The >suit focuses on what the ACLU contends is a misuse of public funds. >Washington Post by Ceci Connolly >link to full story
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56003-2002May8?language=printer ><http
//www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56003-2002May8?language=printer> >Education writer Richard Rothstein's editorial on the voucher case pending 2>in the Supreme Court questions whether the outcome will really have any >significance whatsoever. He states in part, "Advocates and opponents of >vouchers await the ruling with great excitement or dread. But the decision >may be less important than they think. Whatever the ruling, constitutional >policy will change little because the government already supports religious >schools by providing them with busing, textbooks and remedial aid. But >the main reason the court's ruling will have little impact is that private >schools' attraction as a way to improve education is beginning to wane." >The New York Times by Richard Rothstein >link to full story: >http
//www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/educ >ation/15LESS.html ><http://wwzw.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/edu >cation/15LESS.html> >DISCRIMINATION >The NAACP is threatening to file complaints against 22 states that have >failed to respond to their challenge to address racial disparities in public >schools. Last November, the civil rights group asked states to target 14 >areas which needed improvement, including the over-representation of >minorities in special education programs, under-representation in gifted and >talented programs, and disparities in testing and graduation rates. The >NAACP plans to file racial discrimination complaints against states and >school districts or begin "proactive ballot initiatives" in elections. The >states targeted are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, >Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, >North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, >Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming. >USA Today by Tamara Henry link to full story
>http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020516/4116534s.htm ><http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020516/4116534s.htm> >A Utah parents' group and the Navajo Nation are in agreement in their >opposition to the "Red Devil" mascot of Springville High School. The >parents' group objects to the mascot, believing it represents the devil and >evil as a symbol of the school. The Navajo Nation is opposed to the use of >the term, "red devil" which they find derogatory and offensive. >ABC News by Dean Schabner link to full story: >http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/red_devils020508.html ><http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/red_devils020508.html> >When James Ranieri, the boys' varsity basketball coach at James O'Neill High >School (New York), was ousted from his coaching position in favor of a >younger candidate, he filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment >Act (ADEA). The school district contended that he did not have a valid claim >because both individuals were protected by ADEA, both being over the age of >40. The federal district court found that the 10-year age difference was >sufficient to state a claim of age discrimination. However, the court >dismissed Mr. Ranieri's suit because he was unable to refute the legitimate, >non-discriminatory reason articulated by the district for not rehiring him. >Specifically, Mr. Ranieri could not show that the stated reason for >replacing him, i.e. the team's failing record, was a pretext for age >discrimination. >Ranieri v. Highland Falls Fort Montgomery School District, 2002 WL 745576 >(S.D.N.Y. April 18, 2002) >The Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, the >University of Michigan Law School admissions policy case. The court ruled, >based on Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, that the use of race in a >schoors admissions process for the purposes of achieving racial diversity >in its student body is constitutional. The court went on to find the law 3>schoors admissions policy was narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of >diversity across the student body. As a result it concluded that the policy >passed constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause. >Grutter v. Bollinger, 2002 FED App. 0170P (6th Cir. May 14. 2002) link to >full opinion: >http://caselaw. Ip.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=02a >0170p ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th&navby=case&no=02 >a0170p> >link to case summary: >http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/grutter2.htm ><http://www.nsba.org/cosa/iawlibrary/whatsnew/grutter2.htm> >SCHOOL REFORM >Charter school owners are coming under fire from Arizona state officials. >The schools are privately run as non-profits businesses. They use public >state education money but have fewer regulations than traditional district >schools. Two years ago, lawmakers gave state boards the power to withhold >state money to bring errant charter schools into line. This year a number >of charter schools face fines, and some may face closure, because of late >audits, missed testing requirements and financial fraud. Officials are >considering discipline against 31 of 288 charter school owners. >The Arizona Republic by Pat Kossan >link to full story: >http://wvw.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0513charterlaw13.html ><http://wv7w.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0513charterlaw13.html> >Nearly every student at Summit Academy, a charter school, in Akron, Ohio is >reported to have a special education problem, even though most of them >didn't carry that designation when they were enrolled in public schools. >Allegations that Summit Academy has intentionally misidentified students >with special education disabilities have drawn unscheduled audits from the >Ohio Department of Education at two schools. In question is whether millions >in tax dollars that flow into the eight Summit Academy charter schools in >Ohio have been properly obtained and used. >The Beacon Journal link to full story: >http://vAvw.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/3248196.htm ><http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/3248196.htm> >LEGAL SYSTEM >A professor in the Georgia state university system, filed a state-court suit >against the board of regents and university officials alleging that the >officials had violated state tort law and 42 U.S.C. 1983 when they placed >sexual harassment allegations in his personnel files. The defendants removed >the case to federal district court and then sought dismissal. Conceding that >a state statute had waived Georgia's sovereign immunity from state-law suits >in state court, the state claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in >the federal court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state waives its >Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to >federal court. >Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, No. 01-298 >(U.S. May 13, 2002) >Link to full opinion: > >http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000 >&invol=01-298 ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case8ivol=00 >0&invol=01-298> > >Copyright @ 2002 the National School Boards Association. All Rights Reserved 4>To edit member settings, view archives, or unsubscribe login at: >http://spirit.sparklist.com/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=schoolfinance 5FINANCIAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE REPORT PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR Committee Members: Loretta Hendrix, Edward Jacobs, Jane Markham, Vernon Markham, Rev. Charlie McAdoo, Danny Sullivan, Toni Sullivan, Gary Tucker, Ashvin Vibhakar (Chairman), and Harry Ware. Also present at all of the meetings were Mark Milhollen and Chip Jones of the Little Rock School District. The committee wishes to express its appreciation for the valuable assistance provided by Mark Milhollen and Chip Jones. They significantly aided in our understanding of the Little Rock School Districts finances, patiently answering numerous questions and prompt-ly providing projecltiioonnss rreeqauueesstteedd bbvy tthhee ccoommmmiitttteeee.. T...h..e.. ..c..o..m....m...i.t.t.e..e.. ..f.e..els that without their assistance, the task of the committee could not have been accomplished. After lengthy discussions and deliberations, the committee has developed the following list of concerns and recommendations. These concerns and recommendations are based on our understanding of the charge to the committee, which was to evaluate the financial matters and not the merit of the desegregation plan - except where financial matters are the overriding issues. CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE 1. The committee feels that the proposed plan cannot be implemented without additional resources and would require a significant increase in millage. Given the current state of public opinion regarding public schools in Little Rock and Pulaski County, we feel that a significant, voluntary increase in millage would be difficult to obtain. In addition to this general negative attitude, the plan itself incorporates ob-two items which aggravate this polarity: a. b. A perceived disparity between the basic educational programs provided by magnet and non-magnet schools, resulting in the publics perception of inferior nonmagnet education and excessive magnet cost, and. The "informed" publics negative perception of academic progress grants. 2. While the committee feels that a millage increase is needed, this option appears difficult or unlikely unless public perception is improved. TTie best source for this improvement would be increased parent and teacher involvement. For this reason, the committee recommends that the District and Metropolitan Supervisors Office immediately form two parent/teacher committees for the following purposes: a. A committee to evaluate the proposed programs, both prior to implementation and then during their operation. This committee would make recommendations to the district for implementation, scale down, or elimination of the programs. b. A commiftee to improve the public image and perception of the school district. In addition to helping with passage of necessary millage increases, this com-mittee could also assist in soliciting corporate grant sponsors. 3. The committee recommends that the District increase its efforts to seek and obtain outside sources for capital expenditures and special programs. While it may be desirable to establish a separate group of concerned business people, the committee noted in 2.b. would be a good place to start. -Page 1- 4. Certain programs created under the old desegregation plan and many proposed under the new desegregation plan appear to be expensive. It further appears that there may be existing schools where the operational costs are too high relative to the desegregation impact achieved. The committee feels that a comprehensive evaluation and review of all proposed and existing programs and schools is needed. In order to accomplish this, the committee recommends that a review board, as noted in 2.a., be established. This review board should be composed of school administrators, teachers, and parents. The purpose of the committee should be to make certain that the programs and schools being provided, best utilize the scarce dollars available. Since public acceptance of the proposed plan is so critical to the plans success, the involvement of parents in this review structure is considered essential. 5. New programs, once implemented, should include a system for monitoring the ongoing costs and benefits. If it is found that programs are not achieving the stated objectives, it is recommended that some mechanism be established whereby the funds can be diverted from ineffective programs, to those where they could be better utilized. 6. The costs of existing and proposed magnet schools, specifically the Aviation Magnet, need to be carefully studied further. The Aviation Magnet should be implemented only if outside resources, such as corporate donations, can be secured for constructing and equipping the school. The feasibility of obtaining grants or other funding sources to cover operational expenses of the school should be investigated by the District and Committee noted in 2.a. Otherwise, the potential cost of such a magnet school is unjustifiable, considering the scarcity of available resources. 7. The committee recommends that: i) the near-term need for Aviation and Zoo Magnet Schools be re-examined, ii) the District should prioritize its plans of action, and iii) the District consider serious cost-cutting where feasible (such as closing schools which are not cost effective). 8. The committee recommends that the decision-making process for significant financial issues should include consultation with District personnel and other individuals possessing relevant professional training and expertise. We specifically recommend against such decisions being made in isolation by educators/administrators who are not equipped with such expertise. Examples of such matters would include the settlement, as well as new programs which require a large commitment of resources. The committee also feels that the administrators/educators should maintain regular contact with the financial managers of the School District regarding all major cial decisions and their potential impact on the Districts finances. egi fir inan- The current proposed teacher salary plan could result in a large deficit in the near future, assuming that such plan is accepted by the teachers. Unless new revenues are forthcoming to support the proposed teachers salaries, the effect of that package could be to make financial resources unavailable for the proposed new programs. 9. The constant fighting between teachers and administrators has created a negative public image for both groups. Both teachers and the public need to be better informed about the Districts financial situation, in terms of both revenues and expenses. This can be accomplished via the noted committees and involvement of teachers and pa- rents in the financial decision-making process. This could help regain teacher trust, their demands, and make future re- add a measure of discipline and public oversight to venue increases less difficult to pass. -Page 2-. TUESDAY, JUNE 2, ,992 L. 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LRSD desegregatioifto cost taxpayers $26 million a year by 96- 97 VA too. . . ................................ multicultural education proBY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer The cost of the Little Rock School Districts dese^ega- tion plan will be $19.1 million next year and almost $26 million by 1996-97, according to budget projections filed Mon- ^y in federal court i * The documents, submitted Discipline problems on rise, districts teachers say in survey 1B to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, spell out publicly for the first time the anticipated costs for about 30 de- j^gregation-related programs and the districts share of those costs. Wright has set a July 17 hearing on district budget matters. The judge had required the district to submit the projections because of her concern that it was quickly depleting itsrstate desegregation financing. The desegregation-related programs include the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters, the early childhood education program for 4-year-olds. double-figram and majority-to-minority interdistrict transfer students. The state pays part of desegregation costs because of a 1989 financial settlement nego- nanced elementary incentive The setUemTnt was schools, a teacher recruiter, the state. The ^tt ement was magnet schools.,, school secur- , approved by the 8th U.S. Cir ity officers, the
expansion of a > See SCHOOLS/. Page 5A Schools The states financial obliga- the settlement decreases each tion under .5^!untU 1996-97 when the year until laao-vi amount owed will be $683,12b. the state money for Continued from Page One cuit Court of Appeals in 1990. The state is to pay the district $8.9 million next year as a result of the financial settlement, plus $2.5 million toward the education of the majority- to-minority transfer students. The state also is providing a $20 million loan, $1.5 million of which will be available next year. The maximum available is I $6 million every two years. The loan does not have to be re- i paid if the average score of I black students reaches 90 percent of the average score of white students by 2000. The Little Rock districts share of the $19.1 million in desegregation costs next year could range from $5 million to $7 million, depending on the loan. As a result of using a $4.5 million loan, the districts share of the $16.9 million desegregation costs this school year was about $2 million. District officials acknowledged in 1989 that state financing would not cover the total cost of the desegregation programs. However, lu. majority-to-minority students is expected to increase to $4.5 million that same year. It is now $1.8 million. The total cost of the deseg- regation programs a Monday included projected in 1996-97 is projected S25.9 million. The most expensive of the desegregation programs is the double instructional financing per student at the seven incentive schools. The financing is double the amount spent on instruction per child at the non- and non-magnet .VlUllLiaj ----------- * ,, . operating budgets for the next five years. The revenues range from $113 million next year to $127 million in 1996-97. Those revenues assume the passage of a 5-mill tax increase in Sep- tember 1993. Jim Ivey, the district mana- oer of support services, said Monday night that the budget assumption should not be taken as an announcement ot a millage election. The assump- tion was made to show that in 1993 to 1995, the district must find new revenues, either through budget cuts or tax increases. an 8-mill Voters approved tax increase in April 1990. incentive schools. Incentive schools are supposed to use the extra money to improve the achievement levels of black pupils and attract white pupils to the hard- to-desegregate buildings. The incentive schools cost will be $4.4 million next year. District officials noted in the documents Monday that the mandatory double financ- exceed the actual at the the ing will costs for the programs incentive schools next year. Besides the desegregation budgets, the documents filed 1 1 i t t10. ^e desegregation settlement was based on the old plan and not the new plan. The 'committee was not clear as to exactly how the settlement amount was derived. However, the committee strongly feels that the desegregation settlement is highly inadequate. It further appears that the new plan includes certain capital expenditures which were not previously considered in the settlement. 11. The committee feels that the formula by which the State of Arkansas determines the tax revenue allocated to each school district is unfair. i It particularly penalizes Iso the districts with the school districts with a heavy population density. It is al the heaviest population density that have the desegregation problems, which normally result in heavier transportation costs. The committee recommends that the Metropolitan Supervisors Office study this matter further and consider recommending or requiring a change in the State allocation formula. -Page 3-students' pennies add up kansas Democrat (gazelle TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1993 .' to $10,000 Donations help LRSD pay part of substance abuse insurance installment BY DANNY SHAMEER Democral-Gazelte Education Writer When students in Little Rock were asked to chip in their pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters to help pay for their own substance abuse insurance, they came through with a whopping total. Little Rock School District students brought at least $10,000 in loose change to class in February, said Wendy Salaam, executive director of the city of Little Rocks Fighting Back Initiative*. Salaam said the money raised through the classroom campaign Pennies for Pasta: Your Change for Change helped the city pay a quarterly installment of $45,205 one week earlier than its Monday due date. That insure!
coverage will The classroom has been one of the bright spots of the financially struggling fund-raising effort called * Fight Back! Insure the Children.' continue for at least three more months, Salaam said. Though she wont know until 'riiiirsday exaclly how much the classroom campaign ha.s raised, the figure already calculated means the effort has been a big success, she said. The Pennies for Pasta theme refers to the offer of a free 1 uncli at the Olive Garden restaurant in Little Rock for the class raising the most money. eamnamu t, c'^ssroom campaign has campaign been one of the bright spots of the financially struggling fund- raising effort called Fight Back! Insure the Children. The insurance plan began with great fanfare in 1991, when a group that included then-Lt. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and former Arkansas first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton announced a campaign to raise money to cover every child enrolled in the Little Rock School District for sub- stance-abuse treatment and counseling. Tucker is now governor. Clinton, now the nations first lady, chairs a national task force on health-care reform. Donations from parents lagged from the start and reached a critical stage last fall, when city officials threatened to suspend coverage by the second semester because of a shortage of money. They decided to offset the donation shortage by using cit.v funds to pay for the opening six months of coverage for the 1992 93 school year, with coverage slightly trimmed to give fundraisers a better chance to make less-expensive quarterly payments for the remainder of the year. The cutbacks dropped the annual premium from $373,000 to $277,910. Shortly afterward, officials began the classroom campaign to supplement other fund- raising efforts. The classroom campaign ended Friday. But the fight for money to continue the program through the summer isnt over. Another $45,205 is due bv May 31.> WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15,1993 3 school districts divide $41,506 . The Pulaski County Board of Education voted to transfer $41,506.96 from the County Common School Fund to the three local school districts Tuesday. The distribution, based on enrollment: Little Rock School District $18,302.58. North Little Rock School District $7,117.10. , .. Pulaski County Special School District $16,087.28. SATURDAY. JANUARY 8,1994 6 I Collectors office trying to learn - h: where $816,788 is supposed to gd 1 BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Pulaski County collectors office has $816,788.79 in tax money that it doesnt know what to do with. Officials havent handed the money out yet because they arent sure where the money is supposed to go. They discovered the problem after distributing $151,099,613.06 in taxes to municipal governments and school districts last month, then finding tax money left over in the bank. Jim Osburn, Pulaski County Collector, said he doesnt know why that happened. But he suspects the problem occurred during the transfer between two different computer systems. The collectors staff is trying to track the system to find where the error cropped up. The money will be sent, with interest, to the appropriate municipal government and school district accounts. Osburn said the money is not missing, and the receipts add up to the proper amount. A spread sheet showing the difference in what was recorded and what was actually collected shows the majority of the $816,788.79 would go to the three Pulaski County school districts. More than half that amount $465,495.09 would appear due the Little Rock School District, according to the spread sheet. But Osburn cautioned that the disbursement figures may not be correct, and officials must still check the numbers to make sure. The collectors office was the target of a criminal investigation leading to three arrests for theft before Osburn took over in 1992. The investigation led to guilty pleas by former Collector Ed Maples and his chief deputies, Margaret Kay Wyse and Mitchell H. McCollum. A Pulaski County grand .jfiry report in 1993 found no problems with procedures in place since then. The money has been sitUng in the bank at least a monthT
I---------------------------------------------------------------- IArkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1994 State aid for LRSD tops projection by $339,332
Democrat*Gazette Staff The Little Rock School District got some good news about its 1994-95 budget woes. When the state Department of Education released $25 million more in preliminary Minimum Foundation Program Aid for the states 312 school districts Monday, the Little R
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 Resoources.