5/29/2001 - Special Board MeetingTHAMES VALLEY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
SPECIAL BOARD MEETING,PUBLIC SESSION
2001 MAY 29,7:00 P.M.
BOARD ROOM,EDUCATION CENTRE
AGENDA
1.CALL TO ORDER
2.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3.CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
4.REPORTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
a.Preliminary 2001 - 02 Budget
5.REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
a.Committee of the Whole,2001 May 29
6.ADJOURNMENT
THAMES VALLEY DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
SPECIAL MEETING,2001 MAY 29
The Board met in regular session on the above date in the Board Room at the
Education Centre, meeting in Committee of the Whole, in camera,at 5:00 p.m.,
followedby a public session at 7:25 p.m. The following were in attendance:
TRUSTEES
D.Stewart
J.Bennett
S.Deller
J.Hunter
ADMINISTRATION AND
OTHERS
J. Laughlin
P.Askey
P.Gryseels
B.Bryce
B.Greene
G.Jazey
D.Anstead
S.Peters
T.Roberts
L.Stevenson
P.Schuyier
J.Thorpe
P.Mennill (-8:30)
R.Murray
L.Peck
G.Treble
J.McKenzie
A.Cartier
G.Hart
P.Jaffa
P.Sattler
P.Doelman
J.Tilley
K.Meeson
D.Bradford
8.Christie
W.Scott
Regrets:
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
74.CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Trustee Jaffe declared a conflict of interest regarding Program staff.
REPORTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
75.PRELIMINARY 2001 -2002 BUDGET
John Laughlin, Directorof Education provided opening remarks regarding the
Preliminary 2001-2002 Budget and advised that the Administration will be
tabling the report that evening.
Executive Superintendent Brian Greene advised trustees that the preliminary
budgetwas presented forthe school year 2001 September 01 -2002 August
31.District school boards are required to file annual budget estimates with
the Ministryof Education by June 30 for the forthcoming school year.
2001 Mav29...182
The provincial government controls the level and adequacy of funding of
education.School boards no longer have the abilityto raise tax dollars to
meet the education needs of their communities.The Student-Focused
FundingModelcontrolsthe level offunding which determines the expenditure
levels within various envelopes.School boards cannot approve a deficit
budget and must comply with enveloping provisions.
The Board began the process of establishing a budget for the 2001-2002
school year priorto the initial meeting ofthe Budget AdvisoryCommittee on
2001 March27.Issues relatingto budget assumptions and a development
process/timetable were established and approved by the Board.Also
established was a process forpublicinput,communications and stakeholders
meetings.
The Board will be addressing many fiscal challenges over the next few
weeks at the following scheduled meetings:
Tuesday,2001 June 05<Budget deliberations
Tuesday,2001 June 12-Budget approval
Education funding rs normally announced in mid-March.This year's late
release of legislative grant details on 2001 May 11 has resulted in a
compressed timeframe for the analysis of data and its implications for the
Board.
Inthe release of the Student-Focused Funding grant regulations for 2001-
2002, the government announced a provincialfunding increase of$360 Mas
follows:;
$120 M -Enrolment grovifth
$ 37M - Remote and Rural funding
$ 3M -Section 19 schools
$200M -Flexibility funding
The flexibility funding representsa 1.5%increaseoverlastyear. Byfactoring
out utility and transportationfundingreceived as separate In-yearfundingof
$63M,the net increase represents 1%provincially.
'r g,."
The provincial budget also included other initiatives that have an Impacton
education as follows:
r
y
2001lVlav 29...183
-partial tax credit for parents of children In independent schools,
appliedto the first$7 000 of tuition fees,phased inover five years;
-PublicSectorAccountabllityAct-all publicly-fundedorganizations are
required to balance their budget and report annually on a business
plan,objectives and progress.
The portion of provincial funding each board receives varies based on local
conditions. The Board's share is considerably lower than the provincial
average.Nofundingwas received for enrolment growth,infactfundingwas
lost due to declining enrolment inthe secondary panel and no funding was
received for remote and rural. While the Board did receive $8.M in flexibility
funding,the net increase Inprovincial operating grants allocations is.9%over
last year. This amount Is expected to fund prior years'deficits,salary
increases,rising costs ofbenefits, growth in special education areas,utility
Increases,student transportation and general inflationary increases forother
goods and services.
The Ministry funding announcement included a change in the Pupil
Accommodation Grant for funding new pupil places.The changes will
recognize school capacities in local areas or zones rather than the entire
jurisdiction.This will generate new Pupil Place Funding for the Board of
$1.6M a year for a 25-year period. This funding will assist with the
construction of new pupil places in growth areas and cannot be used for
operating purposes.Itmust remain ina reserve fund restricted for new pupil
places.
The Board continues to deal withsignificant budget pressures.Adeficitof
$5.8M in 1999-2000 resulted in a deficit management plan that required a
reduction of $4.8M in 2000-2001 and a reduction of $1 .M in the preliminary
2001-2002 budget;Also,Inthe current budget year, a deficitof $4.2M has
been projected which must be provided for.in the preliminary 2001-2002
budget.
These deficits,coupled with ongoing budget pressures have resulted in a
budget shortfall of $22.3M.For the 2001-2002 budget,the Board is
compliant with all Ministryof Education budget provisions as follows:
2001 Mav29...184
- shall provideforthe $1.0Mbalance ofthe deficit from the previous
fiscal year 1999-2000;,
• shall provide for a projected deficit of $4.2M arising in the current
fiscal year 2000-2001;
- the preliminary2001-2002 budget is balanced;
•classroom expenditures exceed the amount established inthe funding
model;
-special education expenditures exceed the amount established inthe
funding model
- school renewal and new pupil places are placed in a pupil
accommodation reserve fund.
The preliminary 2001-2002 budget represents a significant departure from
prioryears as a budget shortfall has requiredreductionsand changes tothe
system. The Board's funding increase of .9%will be consumed by prior
years' deficits,rising utility costs and student transportation costs. Any
remaining funds will be required to address other significant budget
pressures.
Supt. Brian Greene and Jim McKenzie,Manager,Finance,provided an
overhead presentation ofthe Preliminary 2001-02 Budget and associated
timelines for approval by the Board.
STUDENT-FOCUSED FUNDING MODEL
On 2001 May 11,the Ministry of Education released the grant regulations
and supporting documentation forthe forthcoming school year. Changes
were announced inthe fundingofelementary and secondary education for
the 2001-2002school year which include;^increased fiexlbility forboards in
setting priorities;changes to eligibility requirements for remote and rural
funding;.targeted funding for new pupil places to address local
accommodation pressures;changes in per-pupil funding for Grade 7 to 10
remediation programs; more supports for special education programs in
Section 19 facilities;and directions forongoing major initiatives relatingto
instructional time, special education and transportation.The following
summary of the changes from the 2000-2001 Student Focused Funding
approach will have an impact on the Board:
2001 Mav29...185
FOUNDATION GRANTS
In 2001-2002,a new Local Priorities amount lias been added to the
Foundation Grant to provide school boards withadditional flexibility to direct
resources to local priorities i.e. funding of prior years' deficits, increasing
utility costs, transportation services, special education services, employee
salaries and benefits, and general inflationary increases forother goods and
services.This Local Priorities amount provides $100 for each elementary
and secondary student on an average dailyenrolment (ADE)basis.This will
generate an additional $8.M for the Board.
There were no increases inthe per pupil amounts used inthe calculation of
the Foundation Grant base amount from those used in the 2000-2001
Student-Focused Funding Model.Classroom and non-classroom
expenditure components covered bythe Foundation Grant includeclassroom
teacher compensation,supply teacher costs,textbooks and learning
materials,classroom supplies,classroom computers,school administration,
professional and para-professional staff.
DECLINING ENROLMENT
The Board is projecting an overall average dailyenrolment decrease of358
PTE (full-time equivalent)students for 2001-2002 resulting in a $1.6M
reduction in the Board's Foundation Grant.Elementary average dally
enrolment is expected to rise by 112 FTE generating $0.4M in additional
revenues;however,secondary average dally enrolment is declining by 470
FTE causing a reduction of$2.Min revenues.Manyofthe Special Purpose
Grantsare enrolment sensitive resulting in'further revenue reductions.
SPECIAL EDUCATION GRANT ,
Current funding for Special Education will continue to be protected.In
response to recommendations from the Intensive Support Amount (ISA)
WorkingGroup, the Ministry will be introducing refinements to ISA funding
over the 2001-02 and 2002-03 school years.To protect Special Education
programs in2001-2002 during the course of the'review,funding forthe ISA
component of the Special Education Grant willbe kept stable for the 2001-
2002 school year.All boards will receive the same amount of ISAfunding
that they received in 2000-01 (adjusted for portability). This stable funding
approach will be reviewed for the 2002-2003 school year.
2001 Mav29...186
The Board will not receive any new funding forSpecial Education in 2001-
2002. As the Ministry has indicated,there will be no change in the ISA
portion of the funding and the SEPPA portion will in fact be reduced as a
result ofthe Board's decliningenrolment. This portionofthe grant is based
on a per pupil dollar allocation. An overall reduction of $0.4M Inthe Board's
Special Education Grant revenues is anticipated. At the same time,
compensation costs for special education teachers and educational
assistants continue to increase.
TRANSPORTATION GRANT
The Ministry has worked with the Transportation Review Committee to
developandtest a newapproach tofunding based on information developed
throughtransportationmanagement technology.Thenewfundingapproach,
ifapproved,will use technology as a key component in the calculationof
future student transportation grants.Itis anticipated that the new model will
be phased In across the province over the next three years.With no firm
commitmentdate forschool boards to moveto this new fundingmodel,the
Boardexpects very little change toitstransportationgrant revenues for2001-
2002.Funding willstillbe provided under the old model whilethe demand for
additional service continues.
CAPITAL RELATED DEBT
School boards are carryingcapital debt commitments that were made before
Student-Focused Fundingwas introduced in 1998.Whenthe newfunding
approach was announced,the government indicated that itwould provide
fundingfor these priorcommitmentsforthree years (interestcarryingcosts
only) ending in the 2000-2001 school year. The government has now
Indicated that it will continue to provide funding for boards to maintain both
interest and principle repayments forthis capital-related debt untilitIsretired.
CAPITAL FUNDING TARGETED FOR NEW SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Priorto 2001 >2002,the Board has notreceived New Pupil Places funding but
has experienced pressure fornewschools ingrowth areas ofthe jurisdiction.
Schools with excess capacity are oftentoofaraway from each other to make
consolidation ofspace feasible.Insome cases,thereare noschoolsinparts
ofthe jurisdiction causing parents to choose between busing theirchildren
manykilometrestothe nearest school or enrolling them innearbyschools of
a different board.
2001 Mav29...187
For2001-2002,the criteriafor NewPupilPlaces fundinghas been refinedso
that boards are better able to address these local accommodation pressures.
Itis anticipated thatthe Boardwill benefitfrom these changes andbe eligible
fora new pupil places allocation of approximately $1.6M which would be
guaranteed for 25 years.
INCREASED FLEXIBILITY IN SPENDING
In 2001-2002 school boards will have increased flexibility to use revenue
from Student-Focused Funding to address local priorities.
The enveloping provisionsofthe regulations set limits on how boards can
spend their grant allocations.These provisions have been adjusted to
provide greater flexibility.The 2001-2002 regulations create a "flexibility
fund"for each school board. The amount ofthis flexibility fund Isthe total of
each board's Local Priorities amount,any increase in its remote and rural
allocation,and any other additional increase initsoperating funding between
2000-2001 and 2001-2002 (before the OMERS adjustment).
ENVELOPING AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE "FLEXIBILITY FUND"
Under the Student-Focused Funding Model,school boards are able to
determine their detailed budget commitments using the terms of the
Education Actand other relevant regulations and memoranda.
Student-Focused Fundingdetermines the overallleveloffundingforschool
boards.There are some restrictions on how school boards can use some
components oftheir funding as described below:
The classroom allocation establishes the minimum amount that each
board must spend onclassroom expenditures. Fundingforeducation in
the classroom must be used inthe classroom.Funds may be moved from
non-classroom categories Into classroom spending butmaynotbe moved
from classroom spending to non-classroom (it cannot be used,for
example, to meet administration costs).
Thespecial educationenvelope establishes the minimum thateach board
must spend on special education.The allocation for special education
must be used onlyfor special education and any unspent funds are to be
placed ina special'education reserve fund.Boards are free to spend
more on special education.
2001 Mav29...188
The allocations for new pupil places and for school renewal establishes
the minimum that each board must spend on these components.
Fundingfor new schools or additions, and for major repairs to schools,
must be used onlyfor these purposes.Unspent funds are to be placed
in a pupil accommodation allocation reserve fund.
The grant for school board administration and governance establishes
the maximum that each board may spend on these functions.
Changes have been introduced to the enveloping requirements to allow
boards to use up to the total amount oftheir flexibility fund without the usual
spending limitations.
Boards may use the amount of their flexibility fund for expenditures in
either classroom or non-classroom envelopes.
Boards may allocate allorpart oftheir flexibility fundto expenditures for
administration or governance.
Boards may use their flexibility fund to increase funding for special
education.
The provisions for the capital spending envelope remain unchanged.
School boards will continue to be accountable for how they use all the
revenue they receive from student-focused funding, including the amount of
revenue now intheir flexibility fund.Boards are expected to report,as in past
years,on how they have used all their funding, and the extent to which their
funding has been used for classroom exponditures,special education,new
pupil places and school renewal, and administration and governance.
INSTRUCTIONAL TIME -SECONDARY CLASS SIZE
The government intends to proclaim sections of the 2000 Education
AccountabilityAct,to require boards to develop and implement plans forthe
provisionofco-instructional activitiesforhigh schools.The government will
also introduce changes to include additional workload assignments in the
definition of instructional time.
V
•It,'•i-J.•'i.'M,^
2001 Mav29...189
Thegovernmentalsoproposestogiveschoolboards the flexibility tovarythe
averagesecondaryclass size byupto one student,while maintaining the
funding level at an average secondary class size of 21 students. These
changes,if approved,aredesignedtoincreasethe flexibility ofboardsand
school principals to schedule instructional timeassignments, and increase
the flexibility of school boards to reallocate resources to local priorities.
These proposed changes do not affect Student-Focused Funding
regulations,or funding levelsofschoolboards.
BUDGET DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
An analysis of the budget development process for the preliminary 2001-
2002 budgetwas presented.The purpose ofthis reconciliation istoillustrate
the magnitude of the challenges faced by the Thames ValleyDSBin the
developmentofa balanced budget. Ithighlights the original projectedbudget
shortfallfor 2001-02, the carry-forward of the deficits from previous years,
additional budget pressures and the reductions proposed to balance the
budget
Original Projected Budget Shortfall $10 035 225
1999-00 Deficit 1 000 000
2000-01 Projected Deficit 4 217 000
Budget Pressures:
Elementary Noon HourSupervision -$1 000 000
Secondary Supply Teachers '1 000 000
Teacher Benefit Costs Exceeding Negotiated Cap 5 000 000 7 000 000
$22 252 225
Proposed Reductions:
Utilities $2 000 000
Transportation 1 500 000
Elementary Noon Hour Supervision 700 000
Secondary Supply Teachers 800 000
Staff Development 275 000
School Secretarial Staff 800 000
Classroom Computers 500 000
Educational Assistants -Special Education ...900 000
Program Sen/ices Staff 1 500 000
Learning Coordinatorsn'OSA's 230 000
Recovery-Teacher BenefitCosts Exceeding Cap 5 000 000
14 205 000
$ 8 047 225
Flexibility Funding 8 047 225
Balanced Budget $ 0
2001 May 29...190
The Administration presented a proposed action plan outlining the changes required
to achieve a balanced budget.
The Administrationresponded to questions ofclarification.The Preliminary2001 -2002
Budget is to be deliberated at the 2001 June 05 Committee ofthe Whole meeting.
REPORT OF COMMITTEES
76.REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE -In-Camera ,2001 May 29
The Committee met in camera from 5:15 p.m. to 6:40 p.m. and discussed confidential
personnel matters.The following were in attendance:
TRUSTEES
D.Stewart
J.Bennett (Chair)
S.Deller
J.Hunter
D.Anstead
ADMINISTRATION AND
OTHERS
J.Laughlin
P.Askey
P.Gryseels
B. Bryce
B.Greene
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. on motion o^JUiuiter and Stevenson.
CONFIRMED:_^
Chairperson
S.Peters
T.Roberts
L.Stevenson (-5:30)
P.Schuyler
M.Sereda
G.Jazey
J.Thorpe
P.Mennill
R. Murray
I..Peck
A.Cartier
G.Hart
P.Jaffe (-5:42)
P.Sattler
G.Treble
J.McKenzie
J.Tilley
K.Meeson
S.Christie
S. Galati (-5:25, -6:10)
D.Bradford
)o^JUiuiter and Stevenson.
A