1 / 36

Budget and Legislative Update

Janice Palmer and Dr. Chuck Essigs. Budget and Legislative Update. The Arizona Economy. February marked the 7 th consecutive month of year-to-year growth in base General Fund Revenues Sales, Individual Income, and Corporate Income tax collections are all above the forecast Other Indicators:

rashad
Télécharger la présentation

Budget and Legislative Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Janice Palmer and Dr. Chuck Essigs Budget and Legislative Update

  2. The Arizona Economy • February marked the 7th consecutive month of year-to-year growth in base General Fund Revenues • Sales, Individual Income, and Corporate Income tax collections are all above the forecast • Other Indicators: • Unemployment Rate is unchanged at 9.6% • The Arizona Department of Commerce did its annual revision of employment data – the result is that “the state suffered considerably higher job losses in 2010 than previous estimates had indicated.” • In 2010, Arizona had an average of 27,100 FEWER jobs PER MONTH than previously reported. • January 2011’s net job gain of 700 positions marked the end of 35 consecutive months of year-over-year job losses -- “Contrary to what was previously reported, revised unemployment estimates now indicate that the state has just barely started to reverse an unprecedented 3-year streak of job losses” • 1.34 million persons AHCCCS (Arizona’s Medicaid system) • 1.1 million persons receiving food stamps

  3. Projected Budget Shortfall • FY 2011 $550 million • FY 2012 $1.0 billion • FY 2013 $600 million • FY 2014 $1.1 billion

  4. Long Range Forecast • Estimated revenue in FY2014 of $8.46 billion • Vs. actual revenue in: FY2005 of $7.72 billion FY2006 of $9.26 billion FY2007 of $9.62 billion

  5. Source of State Dollars – Fiscal Year 2011 Sales Tax $4.3 billion 52% Individual Income Tax $2.5 billion 31% Corporate Tax $0.6 billion 7% Other $0.86 billion 10% Total $8.2 billion

  6. Budget/Future Considerations • One cent sales tax ends in FY2014 - $1 billion • K-12 rollover - $1 billion (estimate) • Suspended funding formulas - $1 billion • Increased cost to State from AV decline

  7. Other Issues • Full-day K $218 million • No inflation increase for Base Formula over $50 million • Classroom Site Fund over $200 million

  8. Suspended K-12Funding Formula Items* • Capital Outlay (CORL)** $ 98.864.800 • Soft Capital $188,120,700 • New Utilities (Repealed) $100,000,000 • Charter School Add’l Assistance $ 17,656,000 • Building Renewal $241,593,600 $646,235,100 *No estimate for New School Construction ** Included both $63,864,800 and $35,000,000 Edu. Jobs Related Cut.

  9. “Jobs” Bill and TABOR • “Jobs” Bill – K-12 Specific Items • Reduces the Class 1 (business) assessment ratio from 20% to 18%, in ½ percentage point increments per year, beginning in Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) and ending in Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) • Reduces Class 2 (agricultural and vacant land) from 16% to 15% beginning in Fiscal Year 2017 • Increases the homeowner’s rebate for FY14 through FY17 by the amount needed to offset the assessment ratio change effects • TABOR • Various bills and referenda • Would limit general fund revenues to the previous year’s budget plus population growth and inflation

  10. FY2012 State Budget

  11. State Budget for FY2011 • State Funding Reduced by $101.2 Million • Districts and Charters Budget Capacity Reduced by 101.2 Million • Districts Could Use Edu. Jobs Funds to Cover Reduction (1/2 of Total Available)

  12. State Budget FY2012 • Base Level stays at $3,267.72/ No Increases • Inflation Increase of 0.9% • Transportation $0.02 Mile Increase • Addition Assistance for Charters • K-8 Increase of $14.47 to $1,621.97 • 9-12 Increase of $16.86 to $1,890.38

  13. Reductions to Soft Capital and CORL • Soft Capital Cut by $188.1 Million – Most Likely a Greater than 90% Reduction • CORL Cut by $63.9 Million • CORL Cut by an Additional $35 Million – Edu. Jobs Issue

  14. Reduction to Additional Assistance for Charters • Additional Assistance Cut by $17.7 Million

  15. Small District Adjustment • For districts with fewer than 1100 students, Soft Capital and CORL cuts cannot total more than $5 million statewide

  16. Phase Out of Career Ladder and OPIP • Base Level Adjustment • 4% FY2012 • 3% FY2013 • 2% FY2014 • 1% FY2015 • Qualifying Tax Rate • $0.10 K-8 and 9-12 districts • $0.20 K-12 Districts

  17. Facilities Funding • New School Formula – Suspended • Building Renewal Formula - Suspended

  18. Joint Tech Districts • Prohibits JTED’s from Receiving State Funding for 9th Grade Students

  19. Other Items • Actual Utility Funding Formula Eliminated • Teacher Performance Pay Program (ARS15-977) Eliminated

  20. ASRS Contributions • Changes Current 50/50 Split to Employee Pay 53% and Employer Pays 47% • Estimated Rate Beginning July 1, 2011 • Employee would be 10.75%, now will be at 11.40% • Employer would be 10.75%, now will be at 10.10%

  21. Increase for Both From FY2011 to FY2012 • Employee goes from 9.85% to 11.40% • Employer goes from 9.85% to 10.10% • Employee up 1.55% • Employer up 0.25%

  22. Estimated Impact of ASRS on FY2012 Contributions Amount district saves will result in reduced state aid and budget capacity. Charters are also impacted.

  23. Classroom Site Fund • Started In FY2002 • Highest year FY2008 $397 per weighted student • District had been allowed to spend to estimate • For FY2010 cumulative shortfall of $195 • Starting in FY2011 state had to adjust for shortfall

  24. FY2011 Number • Estimated amount $220 • Adjusted for shortfall $220-$195 = $25 • Legislature set amount at $120

  25. FY2012 Number • Estimated amount $219 • Adjusted for shortfall $219-$124.99 = $94 • Legislature may set amount at $120 (SB1263)

  26. How Does Arizona School Spending Compare With the Nation?

  27. AZ

  28. Arizona vs. U.S. Average 1969-70 to 2006-07 Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

  29. Change in Ranking • 1969-70 AZ ranked 29th above 21 other states • 2007-08 AZ ranked 48th above 2 other states • To move back to 89.7% of U.S. Average • Increase expenditures to $9202 (2007-08) • Increase of $1594 per pupil

  30. In 1969-70 AZ Above These States Arkansas Georgia Idaho* Indiana Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mississippi Missouri New Hampshire New Mexico North Carolina North Dakota Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah* Virginia West Virginia * States AZ was above in 2007-08

  31. Arizona vs. National Average FY2008 Per Pupil Spending by Function Source: Arizona School District Spending (Classroom Dollars) Fiscal Year 2010, Office of the Arizona Auditor General

  32. Arizona vs. National Average FY2008 Per Pupil Spending by Function Source: Arizona School District Spending (Classroom Dollars) Fiscal Year 2010, Office of the Arizona Auditor General

  33. Key Policy Issues

  34. School Labeling • SB 1286 (2010, 2nd Regular Session) • Labeling changed from word labels to letter grades • Adds the labeling of school districts in the aggregate • New formula: • 50% of the school and district profile must be based on academic performance measures • ½ = all students academic gain • ½ = lowest quartile academic gain

  35. Teacher and Principal Evaluations • SB 1040 (2010, 2nd Regular Session) • Requires the State Board of Education, on or before December 15, 2011, to adopt and maintain a model framework for a teacher and principal evaluation instrument • Must include quantitative data on student academic progress that accounts for 33% and not more than 50% • Must include best practices for professional development and evaluator training • Requires school districts and charter schools to annually evaluate individual teachers and principals beginning in school year 2012-2013 • Teacher and Principal Evaluation Task Force • Expedited process • Will provide a framework to districts • March State Board of Education Study Session and scheduled for Final Adoption in April • Various organizations will be charged with implementation assistance

  36. Move On When Reading and Move on When Ready • HB 2731 (2010, 2nd Regular Session) • Creates the Grand Canyon Diploma to enable high school students to choose different educational pathways. • HB 2732 (2010, 2nd Regular Session) • Establishes the Task Force on Reading Assessment to report by January 15th, 2011 • Requires that a student not be promoted from the 3rd grade if the student obtains a score on the reading portion of the AIMS test, or a successor test, that demonstrates that the student is reading far below the 3rd grade level • Requires the State Board of Education (SBE) to develop intervention and remedial strategies • Requires school districts to offer at least one of the intervention and remedial strategies developed by the SBE

More Related