This narrative summarizes the budget process in Smithfield, the current school needs and goals, and how various resources combine to meet those needs. Details about each budget line are provided in budget spreadsheets. These spreadsheets, along with slides used in each of the budget meetings, are posted on the finance page of the district website following School Committee meetings. While much information is available to the public, school budgets are admittedly complicated. Questions about this budget can be addressed to any member of the School Committee or the administrative team.
Budget Process
The promise of Smithfield Public Schools, every student prepared for continued learning, career, and life, requires that we continually improve the instructional experience of our students, our facilities, and our access to technology and do this in an efficient and economical manner. Great care was taken in the development of the 2020-21 budget, which provides for a minimum level of funding for our schools that allows for a sound instructional program for Smithfield’s most valuable resource – its students – while also being fiscally responsible to the taxpayers.
The budget process officially began in November when administrators were reoriented to the use of our financial software, iVisions, for budgeting. iVisions allows the administrative team to budget for the upcoming year and provide details about anticipated needs. The process used in Smithfield is referred to as “zero-based budgeting.” Rather than simply providing a cost-of-living increase to budget lines, we require that administrators start with zero and justify requested budget amounts with specific, anticipated needs.
At the December 2nd meeting of the School Committee, School Committee members had the opportunity to discuss any parameters and goals they would like administrators to consider while budgeting. Additionally, the budget calendar was adopted and the process reviewed. At that time, we had been informed that the state aid for next year was projected to be over $300,000 less than for FY20, posing a significant challenge.
The district’s administrative team first worked on a staffing plan, knowing that salaries and associated benefits make up the largest percent of the school district budget. Non-salary lines were then addressed. After submission of individual school budgets, principals defended each planned expenditure, line by line. Although administrators submitted budgets or non-salary lines that were less than the current year, budget lines were trimmed further by identifying alternative means of achieving objectives. Members of the administrative team have worked hard to prepare this budget, listing specific, anticipated expenditures for each budget line.
At a joint, Town Council – School Committee meeting, held on December 2nd, the school department shared information about budget challenges, state aid, and a budget projection. Although, at that time, the projected budget total was 3.6% higher than the FY20 budget, this figure would require an increase in the town appropriation exceeding 4%. Clearly, more reductions would have to be made to bring the increase in the town appropriation down to a more reasonable level.
After a review of class sizes and instructional programs, the administrative team identified positions that could be eliminated with the least impact on instructional programming. To be clear, every reduction in staffing affects instructional programming. Current staffing levels are not excessive, as evidenced by our low per pupil costs. A staffing plan and the draft budget was discussed at two budget workshops, held on January 21 and February 3, then at the March 2nd School Committee meeting.
After approval by the School Committee, this budget plan will be discussed by the Town Council, then will be considered, along with the town budget, at the budget hearing, held on May 12th. Budget recommendations are then made to the community at the Town Financial Meeting, scheduled for June 11, 2020, and the community votes on both the school and municipal budgets.
Revenues
The school department receives revenues from a variety of sources. Federal grants, amounting to $1,044,922 in FY20, provide funds for specific purposes, such as for special education and professional development. These funds, along with monies received from competitive grants, are managed outside of the general fund.
The local appropriation from Smithfield taxpayers; miscellaneous revenues, such as Career and Technical Education (CTE) and preschool tuitions; and state aid contribute to the general fund. Figure 1 showing the relative amounts for each of these sources contributing to the school department budgets, from FY18 to FY21.
For the FY21 budget, state aid to education for Smithfield is estimated to be $6,127,668, which is $244,000 less than for FY20. Miscellaneous revenues are estimated to increase to $642,000. The school department is requesting a 3.18% increase in the local appropriation to make up some of the funding lost from state aid. Even with this increase in the local appropriation, the FY21 budget will be only 2.3% higher than FY20 figures.
The large swings in state aid experienced over the past three years was investigated, since such changes bring both instability and unpredictability for operational planning. Variables in the state aid formula include enrollment, the number of students eligible for free and reduced lunch, as well as variables that make up a determination of a town’s wealth. These variables include the total assessed value of taxable properties, adjusted considering the selling prices of properties over the past 2 years and the median family income of town residents.
The median income of town residents is estimated by the US Census Bureau. An inspection of this data over the past few years seems to indicate that the town residents of Smithfield became first poorer then significantly more wealthy compared to their state peers. The resulting “wealth” of the town, which the state refers to as the Equalized Weighted Assessed Value (EWAV), rose 8.8% between FY19 and FY20 then rose yet again after these adjustments, despite the fact that the town does not have any real means of securing more taxes from its residents from one year to the next. These factors, therefore, lead towns to strained fiscal challenges. In Smithfield, for example, even if the district were to maintain a level budget — a significant feat considering that health insurance is expected to rise, contractual pay increases obligates the district to increase salaries ranging from 2-2.5%, and utility costs also tend to rise from year-to year — the town appropriation would need to increase by 1.7% if no fund balance was applied.
We have met with state legislators, the Commissioner and his staff, and other policy-makers in the hope of calling attention to the failings of the state aid formula and advocating for a revised formula that can better serve our state and town.
Figure 1. Revenue sources for FY18-FY21 for Smithfield Public Schools
Historical Perspective
Since the 2009 economic downturn, state and federal grants, which provide a significant portion of the support for Smithfield schools, have declined and local contributions and increased state aid have just recently made up this gap. A summary of the last 6 years of various revenue sources is provided in Table 1.
After the economic downturn of 2009, the district experienced challenging budget years. In FY14, the school appropriation just surpassed the FY11 school appropriation. Over the past 8 years, the town voted school appropriation had not increased to the same extent as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), a common measure of economic growth, until FY17. Due to the impact of escalating health care costs, the budget should be exceeding the rate of increase of CPI just to maintain level services.
|
FY14 Actual |
FY15 Actual |
FY16 Actual |
FY17 Actual |
FY18 Actual |
Town Appropriation |
$27,267,117 |
$28,218,085 |
$29,168,085 |
$30,252,808 |
$31,227,808 |
Capital Appropriation |
$450,000 |
$450,000 |
$450,000 |
$450,000 |
$450,000 |
Total Town Appropriation |
$27,717,117 |
$28,668,085 |
$29,618,085 |
$30,702,808 |
$31,677,808 |
State Aid |
$4,938,651 |
$5,058,392 |
$5,309,806 |
$5,887,567 |
$6,260,710 |
Re-appropriated Fund Balance |
$769,893 |
$727,261 |
$375,608 |
$117,092 |
$130,223 |
Federal Grants |
$939,318 |
$919,117 |
$883,107 |
$898,579 |
$876,762 |
MISC Revenues |
$253,750 |
$248,441 |
$327,819 |
$361,179 |
$403,173 |
Total |
$34,618,729 |
$35,621,296 |
$36,514,425 |
$37,967,225 |
$39,348,676 |
Increase over previous year |
.86%
$295,580 |
2.9%
$1,002,567 |
2.51%
$893,129 |
3.98%
$1,452,800 |
3.64% $1,381,451 |
Additional Capital Fund |
|
|
|
$280,000 |
$280,000 |
|
FY 19 Actual |
FY 20 Adopted Budget |
FY 21 Budget |
Town Appropriation |
$31,227,808 |
$32,538,175 |
$33,573,969 |
Capital Appropriation |
$450,000 |
$0 |
$0 |
Total Town Appropriation |
$31,677,808 |
$32,538,175 |
$33,373,969 |
State Aid |
$7,778,638 |
$6,370,405 |
$6,126,405 |
Re-appropriated Fund Balance |
– |
$300,000 |
$300,000 |
Federal Grants |
$989,801 |
$1,044,922 |
$1,044,922 |
MISC Revenues |
$542,288 |
$506,519 |
$642,000 |
Total |
$40,988,535 |
$40,760,021 |
$41,687,296 |
Increase over previous year |
4.17% $1,639,859 |
-0.56%%
($228,514) |
2.2% ($927,275) |
Additional Capital Fund |
$512,160 |
$0 |
$294,000 |
Table 1. School Department Revenues, FY14-FY21
The town should be commended for its support for the school budget through FY18. These school appropriations have helped to ensure that the school department can maintain level services despite the disproportionate increases in health care costs. While no increase in the town appropriation was provided for FY19, most of the gap in state funding from FY20 was made up by the town appropriation. Providing an appropriate level of support for FY21 and for years to come will ensure that the schools – the town’s most valuable resource – continue to provide a sufficient level of service to town residents.
In concern about overburdening local taxpayers, our approach has been to assign staffing and resources to our most pressing needs. Additionally, we have sought and secured grant funds for various professional development, facilities, safety, and extra curricular needs. As a result, the per pupil cost of education in Smithfield is considerably lower than that of comparably successful districts. A comparison of Smithfield’s per pupil costs with surrounding districts and the state is provided in Table 2.
District |
# Pupils |
FY18 Per Pupil |
Lincoln |
3064 |
18,468 |
Scituate |
1275 |
18,106 |
Johnston |
3251 |
18,802 |
STATE |
142,428 |
17,755 |
SMITHFIELD |
2380 |
16,854 |
North Providence |
3587 |
16,633 |
Burrillville |
2250 |
15,615 |
North Smithfield |
1705 |
15,516 |
Cumberland |
4613 |
14,697 |
Table 2. Per Pupil Costs for Area Districts and the State based upon FY18 Data
While enrollment in Smithfield dropped between the years 2007 and 2015, enrollment then rose before dipping again for FY20. Projects, obtained by the New England School Development Council, predicts small but steady growth over the next few years. Figure 2 shows enrollment over the past 5 years and the projected value for October, 2021 through October, 2023.
Figure 2. Enrollment for Smithfield Schools, Actual: School Year 2010-2011 through School Year 2019-2020, Projected: School Year 2020-2021 through School Year 2023-2024
Collective Bargaining Agreements
The contract for NEA Smithfield (teachers) will expire on August 31, 2020. The negotiation process has begun and estimates have been used for the 2020-2021 budget. Actual negotiated items may affect salary and benefit costs.
Health Benefit Renewals
At the start of budget development, health and dental benefit renewal rates were not yet known but were estimated to include a 10% increase for health insurance and a 5% increase for dental insurance. Newly released figures are a 8.65% increase for health insurance and a 4.24% decrease in dental insurance.
Staffing
The resulting plan maintains class sizes to acceptable limits. The number of staff for each category of employees can be found in Table 3.
|
|
|
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
Administrative |
15.0 |
15.0 |
15.0 |
15.0 |
15.0 |
Certified |
Instructional |
156.5 |
157.5 |
157.0 |
153.6 |
152.6 |
Certified |
ESL |
0.5 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
Certified |
Special Education |
45.3 |
47.3 |
48.3 |
48.3 |
48.3 |
Certified |
Other (library, nurse, etc.) |
23.6 |
24.6 |
25.5 |
25.1 |
25.1 |
Non- Cert. |
Secretary and Clerical |
18.0 |
18.0 |
18.0 |
16.0 |
16.0 |
Non- Cert. |
Building Maintenance |
27.0 |
27.0 |
27.0 |
27.0 |
27.0 |
Non- Cert. |
Teacher Assistants |
39.5 |
38.0 |
38.0 |
39.0 |
39.0 |
Non- Cert. |
Technicians |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
Non- Cert. |
Athletic Director |
0.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
Non- Cert. |
Attendance Officer |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Non- Cert. |
CTE Coordinator |
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
0.5 |
TOTAL |
|
|
329.4 |
332.9 |
334.8 |
330.0 |
328.5 |
Table 3. Staffing for FY18-FY20 (excludes temporary staff)
Special Education
Special education programming requires over $10 million in expenditures. 9.5% of these costs are covered by funds (federal grants) outside of the local appropriation.
A performance audit identified the Smithfield Public Schools’ Special Education services as exemplary with regard to federal and state statutes and best practices. In addition, the percentage of students identified as having a disability is 14%, which is very close to the national average of approximately 14%. The budget includes purchased services that support students in the Least Restrictive Environment.
Technology
The technology budget for 2019-2020 was $329,660 (includes both pupil technology and data processing) in general funds and $350,000 in capital funds. For 2018-2019, these figures were $360,091 and $450,000, respectively. Thus, the technology budget decreased by about 20% between these two years. This budget decreased again in FY20 and will be decreasing again in FY21.. Table 5 shows how funding for technology equipment will be used for FY20.
The use of technology in various curriculum materials has increased over the past several years, increasing our reliance on this resource. This year, for example, new middle and high school math materials utilize online resources in new and novel ways. The Director of Technology continues to work on updating policies related to technology use, developing detailed inventories and replacement schedules, and improving the network infrastructure to better support teaching and learning. Projects in 2019-2020 included the installation of whiteboards and projectors at our elementary schools. Phase 2 of this project is planned for 2020-2021.
Initiatives/Items for 2020-2021 |
Estimated Cost |
Chromebook Program |
$160,500 |
Elementary classroom projector installs Phase 2 – remaining classrooms |
$11,331 |
PC Replacements at GMS |
$5,000 |
Table 4. Major Technology Equipment and Infrastructure Expenditures
Major Areas of Increase
In addition to staffing, there are a number of significant budget drivers, including retirement contribution increases, rising health care costs, and increases for transportation. Major areas of increase are provided in Table 5.
REVENUE CHANGES |
|
|
Re-Appropriated Fund Balance |
$ 0 |
|
Request 3.18% increase Town Appropriation |
$1,035,794 |
|
Miscellaneous Revenue |
$135,481 |
|
Estimated Decrease in State Aid |
($244,000) |
|
TOTAL INCREASE IN PROJECTED REVENUE |
|
$927,275 |
EXPENDITURE CHANGES |
|
|
SALARIES |
$249,869 |
|
BENEFITS |
$436,319 |
|
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS |
$10,762 |
|
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (non-salaries) |
$1,114 |
|
GENERAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION |
$95,846 |
|
SAFETY (non-salaries) |
($5,031) |
|
OPERATIONS/MAINT. OF PLANT (non-salaries) |
$31,178 |
|
OUT OF DISTRICT TUITIONS (Reg. Ed.) |
$150,735 |
|
DATA PROCESSING (non-salaries) |
$17,175 |
|
OUT OF DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION |
$53,060 |
|
SUPERINTENDENT/SC (non-salaries) |
($11,730) |
|
SPECIAL EDUCATION (non-salaries) |
$25,530 |
|
GUIDANCE (non-salaries) |
$30,127 |
|
PUPIL USE TECHNOLOGY (non-salaries) |
($94,679) |
|
LIBRARY (non-salaries) |
($7,458) |
|
CURRICULUM (non-salaries) |
($16,315) |
|
LEGAL |
($25,000) |
|
ATHLETICS AND CO-CURRICULAR |
($11,381) |
|
MISC. INCREASES/DECREASES |
($2,846) |
|
TOTAL INCREASE IN PROJECTED EXPENSES |
|
$927,275 |
Table 5. Major Areas of Increase (compares 3/2/20 draft budget to FY20 adopted budget)
Budget Summary
The School Department is requesting a 3.18% increase in the school appropriation from the town of Smithfield for FY21 above FY20. It is important to note that this does not translate into the same value for an increase in total expenditures for our district since we are experiencing a drop in state aid. While federal entitlement grants are expected to either remain level funded or decrease, the state aid to Smithfield is decreasing. Thus, the overall change in the school budget from FY20 to FY21 is 2.3%.
Salaries |
$24,311,757 |
Supplies |
$1,095,888 |
Benefits |
$9,274,519 |
Capital |
$239,114 |
Purchased Services |
$5,678,547 |
Fees and Dues |
$42,549 |
Figure 3. FY21 Budget by Categories
Concerns
Two years of state aid decreases, inherently, pose concerns to town and district leaders. In order to reduce expenditures to make up for the loss of state aid, funding professional development, curriculum development, and instructional supplies and equipment was reduced . This, combined with reduced staffing, challenges current improvement efforts as well as efforts to meet the needs of all of Smithfield’s students.
While “Every student prepared for continued learning, career, and life” remains our promise to our students and to the community, such a promise can only be realized in facilities that are safe and structured for 21st century learning. Our school facilities have considerable, unmet, capital improvement needs. The town’s support for funding the elementary reconfiguration project and for establishing a building committee to investigate options for the high school athletic facilities are greatly appreciated. Over the next two years, work on elementary facilities will improve the overall experience of our youngest students.
It’s also important, however, to ensure that annual capital facilities projects for our middle and high schools, which are funded outside the operating budget discussed here, rise sufficient to address the many facility deficiencies in these school facilities. We are recommending a FY20 capital budget to partially renovate our high school auditorium. We are also committed to using operating budget savings to complete additional projects, whenever possible. Considering both school and town needs, a comprehensive strategy for capital improvements is essential.
Finally, the future year’s state aid is not expected to rise. Two of the economic data used in the formula – median household income and the value of taxable properties in Smithfield – continues to increase disproportionately with the rest of the state. This creates challenges on top of challenges. Unless the town appropriation makes up losses in state aid, programs may be lost. Decreased programs can result in students leaving for charters and other CTE programs.
Conclusion
The proposed budget potentially continues progress on district goals in the areas of curriculum development, professional development, and technology integration, even with reductions in investments for each of those areas. Added resources for elementary librarians, coaching staff, and additional investments for interventions, would accelerate improvement efforts but cannot be supported at this time. The leadership of our schools, in collaboration with our staff, will endeavor to find new sources of income as well as low- or no-cost ways to drive instructional improvements in our schools.
While the District recognizes that our town is challenged to address its many needs in a way that has a minimal impact on taxes, its responsibility to provide quality programs, especially in its schools, directly affects the value of homes and the quality of life in Smithfield. We believe that support for the budget presented by the School Committee is essential to achieve these goals.
If you have any suggestions or questions about the budget process or the budget itself, do not hesitate to contact me or any School Committee member.
Sincerely,
Judith J. Paolucci, Superintendent of Schools