Junction Elementary School District

1. JunctionElementary SchoolDistrict 2013/14 Fiscal Report January 16, 2014

2. 2013/14 First Interim 4-Year Projection (including 12/13 Actuals)

3. Budget Assumptions:Enrollment and ADA Estimates Enrollment Estimates (12/13, 13/14 based on actual CBEDS enrollment) 2012/13 – 282 2013/14 – 240 (currently 237) 2014/15 – 234 2015/16 – 228 District ADA (Excluding County Office, NPS; 12/13 Actual P2) 2012/13 – 272 2013/14 – 225 2014/15 – 218 2015/16 – 218 District’s LCFF funding for 13/14 is based on prior year P2 ADA of 272. Unduplicated Student Enrollment Percentage projected at 18% 3

4. Staffing Estimates Projected Certificated Teachers, including Special Ed, RTI, Music, and PE 2012/13 – 14.40 2013/14 – 13.20 2014/15 – 11.70 2015/16 – 11.70 Classified and confidential staff (excluding retirees) 2013/14 – 15.56 2014/15 – 15.06 2015/16 – 15.06 Certificated Administration at current level 4

5. Local Control Funding Formula – Revenues as Projected

6. Fiscal Impact of Declining Enrollment

7. Weighted Student Funding – Accountability Plans • The LCFF is not simply about new revenues; it also requires districts to submit Local Control Accountability Plans which must be approved by the state to ensure that districts are setting and meeting appropriate instructional goals. • The templates for the LCAPs are still being developed by the state, and they are currently an object of contention. • In particular, civil rights interest groups are urging the legislature to restrict the supplemental and concentration portions of the LCFF, which are generated by low income, ELL, and foster youth enrollment, to direct services for these students. This could result in additional expenditures for the district to comply with its LCAP. • School districts, on the other hand, are urging the legislature to preserve the flexibility promised in the LCFF and not exceed federal requirements. • Based on recent correspondence, the legislature appears likely to support the civil rights group position and establish explicit restrictions on expenditures of those portions of the LCFF. This would also adhere to their original intention to weight school funding toward the select student populations—the name of the LCFF in the original proposal was the Weighted Student Funding Formula. • For Junction ESD, the supplemental and concentration portions of the LCFF are projected to be $73,250 in 2013/14.

8. Weighted Student Funding: 2013/14 LCFF Calculation for First Interim * If unduplicated enrollment was 50%, supplementary funding would be $202,346 ** Potentially earmarked for unduplicated students - $73,250 of fully funded LCFF ***Actual 13/14 Funding projected to be $1,905,542; funding to be increased over several years to reach target levels (less declining enrollment)

9. Weighted Student Funding: 2013/14 LCFF Calculation–if unduplicated @ 50% ** Potentially earmarked for unduplicated students - $73,250 of fully funded LCFF ***Actual 13/14 Funding would be $1,913,761; funding to be increased over several years to reach target levels (less declining enrollment)

10. Local Control Funding Formula – Temporary Taxes • It is also important to remember that the state revenues that support the LCFF are based on the temporary taxes enacted by Proposition 30 in November 2012. They are scheduled to expire on the following dates: • At this time the impact of the expiration of the temporary taxes is estimated by School Services of California to be $405 per ADA as of Fiscal Year 2019/20. For Junction UESD, this would amount to $88,290 in reduced revenues at an estimated 218 ADA.

11. Potential Impact of Prop. 30 Tax Expirations • The revenue impact of the Proposition 30 taxes would take place over four years, as the sales tax expires first, then the additional income tax (Source – School Services of CA):

12. Budget Projection Extended to 2019/20 with Expiration of Prop. 30 Taxes

13. Expenditure Proposals – Potential Costs and Impact 13

14. Proposal #1 – Hire of Additional Teacher, February – June 2014 (one-time) Proposal #2 – Retention of 0.5 FTE Secretary as of 2014/15

15. Impact of Expenditure Proposals on First Interim MYP

16. Final Notes 16

17. Future Items to Consider Despite the passage of Proposition 30 in November 2012 and the implementation of the LCFF, the district faces a challenging fiscal environment due to declining enrollment. There are additional points of uncertainty that the district will need to consider when making decisions about its future, including negotiations: The impact of the Local Control Accountability Plans and the likelihood of additional expenditure mandates pertaining to the district’s unduplicated students (Free and Reduced, ELL, etc.) Implementation of Common Core and related expenses yet to be determined. The statutory expiration of the additional Prop. 30 taxes by the end of 2018. The district will need to plan for these challenges. The district is currently facing a structural fiscal deficit. If unaddressed, it will eventually run out of cash well before it runs out of fund balance reserve. 17