Translate
Schools
 
Chico Unified School District
Budget FAQ
Q: Is it true that the District spent over $1M in legal fees? 
A: Over the course of 3.5 years (March 31, 2006 through October 13, 2009) the District spent $1,062,948 to a legal firm as a result of several issues including but not limited to numerous Public Record Act requests, Unfair Labor Practice Charges from both CUTA and CSEA, grievances, employee termination (both CSEA and CUTA), Special Education issues, and bargaining issues. 
   
Q: Is it true the District sent the CUTA PRA request to lawyers for review?
A: No. The CUTA Public Records Act request  was processed in house.
   
Q: Is it true that the district caused delays in implementing the change of benefits for CUTA members from the Silver Plan to the Red Plan, and therefore lost a significant amount of the savings for this year?
A: The delay in implementing the change was caused by CUTA's insistence on language unrelated to health benefits that would have been detrimental to the instructional program/students.
   
Q: I heard that the work done by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) was based on the District's budget assumptions, and therefore was not an independent analysis.  Is that true?
A: No. FCMAT's report fully explains the source of their analysis and that the purpose of their work is to "create an independent multiyear financial projection" (page 1).  Pages 1, 4, 5, and 9 of the report discuss in more detail how FCMAT prepared its independent analysis and projections of CUSD's budget and cash.
  Click here to view FCMAT's Report
   
Q: What is your response to the allegation that CUSD has a history of underestimating revenues and overestimating expenditures?
A: Our response is threefold:
  (1) Revenues from the state of California have been extremely volatile, especially in recent years, so conventional wisdom is that revenue budgets for school agencies should be conservative (see page 8 of the FCMAT report).  When the state is having a fiscal crisis all school districts must brace for -- and have seen in the last couple of years -- a reduction in revenues.  The only exception was the influx of federal stimulus funds, which came in at the end of 2008-09 and caused an unexpected increase in the reserves of all school agencies in California that received those funds.
  (2) Experience has shown that school districts that are optimistic on revenue or expenditure estimates get into financial trouble -- in fact, that is one of the main causes of CUSD's current fiscal crisis.  When the 2006-07 CUSD budget was adopted in June of 2006, the assumption was that student attendance would increase, which would cause an increase in revenues -- but that did not happen.
  (3) Expenditures in CUSD decline from the original estimate to the final actuals at the end of the year because CUSD is being as proactive as possible in mitigating the fiscal crisis -- by freezing expenditures and vacancies and by making expenditure cuts.  These actions cause expenditures to decrease from the beginning to the end of the year.         
   
Q: Is the amount needed to solve the fiscal crisis $2.5 million or $9.5 million?
A: Both figures are valid.  CUSD's structural budget deficit is estimated to be $9.5 million per year.  This is how much more is being spent than what the district brings in each year.  Therefore, annual spending must be reduced by this amount on an ongoing basis in order to reach fiscal solvency and eliminate the oversight of the Fiscal Advisor. 
  Because cash comes in from revenues and cash goes out for expenses at varying degrees during a given year, in some months there is not enough cash on hand to pay CUSD's bills that are due at that time.  This is a cash flow issue. 
  CUSD can borrow from its other funds or it can issue short-term debt (known as Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes, or TRANs) in order to meet its short-term cash flow needs.  But now, with CUSD's structural budget deficit, its cash balances overall are declining and unless action is taken now to reduce expenses the district will not only run out of cash but will be unable to borrow because it cannot show that the funds can be paid back.  It is at that point when the state would be required to step in and take over. 
  The FCMAT report estimates that CUSD needs to cut at least $2.5 million in expenditures in order to be able to survive on its own cash and local borrowing for one more year. In fact, the report goes on to emphasize that $2.5 million is the bare minimum since the State Budget will likely worsen.  Even if CUSD does make $2.5 million in cuts right away, the cash problem will surface again the next year unless CUSD solves its $9.5 million structural deficit problem.



Q: Has the attendance rate been going up or down across the district? How does this impact the Chico USD budget?
A: In order to answer that, the district takes a look at the average month-end enrollment as compared to the average daily attendance (ADA).
   
  Here is the data for the last five years and the current year.
  2004-05 enrollment averaged 13,193 students and ADA was 12,546 for a 95.09% rate of attendance
  2005-06 enrollment averaged 13,130 students and ADA was 12,472 for a 94.98% rate of attendance (down)
  2006-07 enrollment averaged 12,999 students and ADA was 12,376 for a 95.19% rate of attendance (up)
  2007-08 enrollment averaged 12,890 students and ADA was 12,252 for a 95.05% rate of attendance (down)
  2008-09 enrollment averaged 12,720 students and ADA was 12,143 for a 95.46% rate of attendance (up)
  (These statistics are not complete yet for the current year, but as of February 19th):
  2009-10 enrollment averaged 12,192 students and ADA was 11,688 for a 95.86% rate of attendance (up for 2nd year in a row)
   
  So the rate of attendance is actually excellent these last two years.
  An attendance incentive program was put in place beginning in 2008-09.
   
  Here are some interesting bits about attendance:
  A 95.86% rate of attendance means the average student is absent 7 or less days all year
  For every day a student misses school, either for excused or unexcused reasons, state funding goes down $37
  An improvement of half a percent in the rate of attendance means a student misses 1 less day of school
  If all 12,000 students come to school 1 more day a year, funding goes up by about $400,000 !



Q. The District is not coming to the Table and has not bargained since October 2009. Why is the District not bargaining in good faith?
A. The District has been engaged in good faith bargaining during the entire process.
  - The district's proposal for 2009-10 was initially sunshined (shared) on June 24, 2009.
  - On October 15, 2009, the district provided a specific proposal for the CUTA team to consider. The letter with the proposal also included twelve (12) proposed dates for the teams to meet.
  - CUTA provided responses that they were not able to meet for various reasons. After a two full months of hearing that CUTA could not meet and the District making other requests to meet, the District requested the involvement of a neutral body, Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) by requesting a declaration of impasse on December 9, 2009.
  - On January 6, 2010, CUTA indicated that it would submit a proposal within one week then later stated that it would try to submit its proposal soon.
  - On February 2, 2010, PERB officially declared impasse and assigned a mediator to work with both parties on a settlement.
  - On February 3, 2010, CUTA stated in writing that it would not engage in mediation until May, 2010.
  - Formal mediation occurred on May 20, June 23 and June 25, 2010.
  - On July 28, 2010, CUTA presented ifs first and only proposal to the District.
   
Q: Why is the District forcing a strike? Does the District want a strike?
A: The District does not want a strike. Each member of CUTA must make the individual decision as to whether or not they plan to strike. No one can force a strike. Because we all know everyone loses in a strike, the district is continuing to look for ways to resolve this dispute between adults that does not put students in the middle and impact their learning.
   
Q. Did the District lose $300,000 due to the district not accepting the CUTA offer to move to the Red Plan when CUTA offered this concession
A. Had it been a stand-alone offer, it would have been accepted immediately; however, other items of importance to CUTA were tied to this issue (i.e., academic freedom).
   
Q. Why did the District make a regressive proposal during Fact Finding?
A. The district did not make a regressive proposal. In fact, the district did not have the opportunity to make a proposal at all.
   
Q. Why can't the District accept a one year offer and just wait and see how things turn out in future years?
A. The district must demonstrate solvency for not just one year, but for the entire three-year period (2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13).
  The district has been designated by the County Office of Education as having a "negative" financial status, the lowest rating given. The COE is required to evaluate the district's financial status for the current year plus two more years in determining its financial status. Negative certification means that the district is unable to meet its financial obligations including the payment of its employees.
   
Q. How much will the District's proposal reduce my current salary? 8.12% or 11% or 13%? I don t know what number to believe.
A. The District's October 15, 2009, proposal has been mischaracterized. The District's current proposal is a reduction of 5.41% from employees' current level of pay. This 5.41% pay is a reduction that includes the following:
  * 3 Furlough days equals 1.64%
  * Salary reduction equals 3.77%
  * TOTAL equals 5.41%
   
Q. How does the district's current offer impact my future pay?
A. The October 15, 2009, offer proposes to eliminate step increases for two years. An individual scheduled to receive a step increase for years of service would be held at their current level of pay for two years and the salary schedule would be rebenched (see detail in the district's proposal). At the end of two years, teachers would resume progress on the salary schedule for years of service.
   
Q. Does the district's offer include a restoration plan?
A. Yes. A restoration plan is an important part of the district's October 15, 2009, proposal to ensure employees are protected in case the district receives more funding through the revenue limit than currently expected (see detail in the district's proposal).
   
Q. The District's multi-year projections have been characterized by CUTA as wildly inaccurate. How can we trust their numbers?
A. For the last three years the district's projections have been accurate to within 1% of the total budget. We do not characterize this as wildly inaccurate.
  That said, District budget projections are complex and are based on a lot of assumptions. We must develop budgets before the year starts and before knowing how much in state funding will be received. Many other questions remain unanswered at the time the budget is developed, so we develop reasonable assumptions about several factors, such as:
  * How many students will enroll and at what sites?
  * How frequently will they attend?
  * How many teachers will we need to serve those students?
  * How many of our employees will retire? And who will be hired to replace them if the job needs to be filled?
  * How much will special education costs increase to serve the ever-growing population of special needs children and the specialized services they need to receive an appropriate education?
  * How much will the state pay us per student?
  * What one-time monies will the district not spend from year to year as our staff work hard to hold to a spending freeze enacted in 2007?
  The district's financial projections improved in recent years from original projection to actual results primarily because of unexpected one-time federal funds and because the Board has made some difficult decisions to make cuts in expenditures -- the latter was done on purpose to improve the projections and stave off further intervention from oversight authorities. This is what the board is expected to do and is not different from other school districts during this difficult economic period.
   
Q. Does the District intend to terminate/blow-up the CUTA Contract?
A. No. The district has no intention to terminate/blow up the contract. Neither party can unilaterally terminate the contract. The current contract remains in effect until a new contract is negotiated. Most collective bargaining contracts expire on a regular basis and are renegotiated at least every three years.



Q. CUTA has stated that the district's Fact Finding presentation was based on "inaccurate and unrealistic projections that we [CUTA] have proven to be historically misleading and tragically inaccurate". If this has been proven, why does CUTA anticipate that the Fact Finding report will not be in its favor?
A. The conclusions of the fact finding panel are not yet known. When the report is issued, it will clearly state the panel's finding as to which party makes the more compelling case. The district is willing to respect the process and wait for the report. Both parties had an equal opportunity to present evidence in support of their positions. The district went to great lengths to make sure the information it presented was accurate. The district's fact finding presentation is available for review at the district office.
   
Q. Why is an outside agency like School Services involved in fact finding? Does CUTA also have an outside agency involved in fact finding?
A. Each party had the opportunity to select anyone they wanted as their fact finding panel member. The district selected Ron Bennett of School Services because of his exemplary record of reaching negotiated settlements. School Services has been involved in more than 200 fact findings and mediations, of which fewer than a dozen have resulted in unilateral implementations or strikes. CUTA chose their representative, Gerry Fong, an employee of the California Teachers' Association (CTA).
   
Q. What happened to the state takeover? Why didn't FCMAT approve the takeover if this financial crisis is real?
A. The Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) is a state agency that the Butte County Office of Education (BCOE) brought in for an independent review of the district's finances.
  FCMAT concluded that the district could not meet its obligations without a state loan unless the district made an additional $2.5 million in expenditure cuts.
  The board did make further cuts, which, along with the receipt of unexpected one-time federal funds, allowed the district to avoid a state loan for the time being.
   
Q. CUSD was supposed to be out of money by August 2010 but instead has a $17M ending balance. How can the district ask employees to take a pay cut with such a large ending balance?
A. Having lost 18% of its on-going revenues due to state budget reductions, any reserve balance the district has will quickly be exhausted.
  Even after taking action to hold onto one-time federal funds and reduce expenditures, additional reductions are necessary.
  As more than 90% of the district's discretionary dollars go to personnel expenses, reducing employee compensation is necessary.
   
Q. Why isn't the board involved in negotiations?
A. The board is indeed involved in negotiations. The board sets parameters for its bargaining team, instructs the team accordingly and approves any final settlement. It is the job of the district negotiating team to negotiate within the parameters provided by the board.
   
Q. Is this proposed reduction a result of the Board's inability to manage the resources of the District?
A. No. The reality is that a loss of more than 18% of district revenues has caused nearly every district in the state to face the same situation Chico currently faces.
  The Board has already made significant reductions in programs, services, and staffing over the last six years.
  Due to state funding cuts and continuing declining student enrollment, the district is facing an ongoing deficit spending problem that is so significant that the Board can no longer cut its way out of the problem without help from its employee groups.
  A significant number of employee groups in school districts throughout California have already agreed to concessions, many of which are greater than those proposed by CUSD.
   
Q. Didn't the District lose 122 employees over the last three years? Weren't the layoffs done to avoid having to reduce salaries and benefits?
A. Yes. The loss of employees was a direct result of significant budget cutting by the district to maintain fiscal solvency.
  There is a limit on how many personnel can be released without putting academic programs at risk and the district must also maintain contractual staffing ratios.
  The layoffs reduced expenditures, but as the state's economic problems have become deeper and lasted longer, layoffs alone are not enough.
   
Q. How can you expect teachers to take an 11% pay cut?
A. The district has not requested an 11% pay cut. The district's October 15, 2009, proposal is for a 5.41% on-going annual salary reduction from current pay levels. The district's proposal has been mis-characterized.
   
Q. What is the role of BCOE? What is the role of Sheila Vickers?
A. The Butte County Office of Education (BCOE) is the first level of fiscal oversight for CUSD. Because the district has been operating under a negative budget certification, the district is required to submit a collective bargaining settlement to BCOE for their review at least 10 days before the district's Board takes action to ratify the settlement.
  BCOE, and Ms. Vickers, as the BCOE-appointed fiscal advisor, have the authority to stay or rescind any action of the district's Board that is inconsistent with the district's ability to meet its financial obligations. In short, once the district and CUTA have an agreement, it is subject to BCOE for review and final approval.
   
Q. How are students being impacted by this current disagreement? How is the community being impacted?
A. Like all other school districts in California, Chico has less money for student programs and services, creating the potential for a negative impact on students and the community. Just as families suffer when the primary wage earner loses a job, school programs suffer when the state cuts our budget.



Q: Why is CUSD spending millions on facilities when it is supposed to be in a fiscal crisis?
A: The money that is available for facilities projects can only be used for that, and cannot be used to help relieve CUSD of its fiscal crisis.  Furthermore, now is a very good time to go forward with facilities projects because costs of materials and labor are relatively low in the current economy.  It is prudent for CUSD to move forward as quickly as possible with its facilities projects so that they are done at a lower cost than if they were delayed.  Funds saved on current projects means that there can be more funds available for future projects.
   
Q: Why can't CUSD use its reserves to cover the shortfall?
A: Reserves are one-time money -- think of them as a savings account.  You can only use the money once to pay your bills, and then you need to replenish it.  CUSD is required to maintain reserves of at least 3% of total General Fund expenditures, which experts -- including FCMAT -- agree is the bare minimum.  In fact, 3% is woefully inadequate when considering that it will only pay about a week's worth of CUSD's payroll.
   
Q. What is a retirement incentive and how does it work?
A. A retirement incentive is a benefit offered to try to encourage employees who are eligible to retire to do so earlier than they normally would. When an employee at the high end of the salary schedule retires and is replaced by an employee who is at the lower end of the pay scale, there are salary savings generated.
  There are costs that come with providing an incentive including: 1) the cost of the incentive; 2) the cost of setting up the incentive; and 3) the interest, if the incentive is financed over time. Generally incentives try to achieve a two-year-earlier-than-normal retirement. Keep in mind that incentives have to be attractive enough to make up for the amount of lost service credit and age factor that is built into PERS or STRS retirement tables and everyone who retires will get the incentive, even the people who were planning to retire anyway, so that needs to be figured in as well.
  Finally, employers who provide post-retirement health benefits are at a disadvantage to be able to fund incentive plans because they have to find enough savings to pay for not only the incentive but also the extra years of retiree health benefits that the retiring employee will utilize by leaving the work force earlier than normal. Essentially the district is paying double benefits for the first two years of the incentive.
  There are some characteristics that make retirement incentives difficult to provide in CUSD:
  1) The average pay of our teachers over age 60 is $73,152, which is a relatively low number considering that the top pay of a teacher in CUSD is $84,597.
  2) The average pay of our replacement teachers is $45,718, a relatively high number considering that the incoming Step 1, Column 1 is $38,541.
  3) In addition, employees in CUSD who have worked five years are eligible for retirement benefits for themselves and their family up to the age of 65. The cost of the Red Plan for retirees is expected to be $1,240 a month in 2010-11, a 15.5% increase over the current rate of $1,027.
  To summarize, our oldest teachers are not necessarily our most expensive, our replacement teachers are relatively costly because we have been laying off staff and many "wait in the wings" serving in temporary assignments in hopes of being returned to permanent jobs eventually, and we have a very generous and costly retirement benefit plan. All of these factors contribute to making any kind of incentive for teachers difficult to provide for CUSD.
   
Q. I have followed the financial problems of the CUSD for several years and have some suggestions and insights I would like to share. (NOTE: We have listed and commented under this forum as this individual did not share their name or contact information, the suggestions are summarized.)
A. 1. Terminate employees who are not absolutely essential to the operation
  The district aligns staffing to the student count on a regular basis or both regular education and special education classroom settings. The number of teachers needed is driven by Education Code as well as the employee bargaining agreement with the Chico Unified Teachers Association (CUTA). The number of classified support hours hired for each school site is reviewed annually and reductions and eliminations are routinely made when workloads change. Administrative support is also reviewed and CUSD must certify, annually, that it does not exceed a defined Administrator Ratio -- we are, in fact, far below the norm for a district of our size.
  Some sites have additional personnel that are funded from state, federal or even local grant funds. For example, our Title I schools have additional resource teachers because of their percentage of eligible students. Schools with a higher population of English Language Learners receive additional resources that can only be spent on that population to serve the needs of those students.
  2. Replace counselors at secondary level with hourly guidance technicians
  This would need to be negotiated with CUTA insofar as it would be replacing bargaining unit work.
  3. Contract out for custodial services
  This would need to be negotiated with CSEA (our classified support union) insofar as it would be replacing bargaining unit work.
  4. Evaluate and eliminate programs which are not productive (English language learners, special education students, pregnant minors, other high intensive programs).
  We are required by both federal and state regulations to provide services to English Language Learners and to students identified as special needs through an Individual Education Plan (IEP). Regarding our pregnant minors program, we can abandon the program but the options for these students to earn their high school diploma become more limited and the district loses the funding generated by their continued attendance.
  5. Close the continuation high school, requiring students to earn their credits in regular setting rather than providing them extra opportunities to graduate
  The Board has made a commitment to provide opportunities for all students. Fair View, our Continuation High School, serves as an alternative to the traditional comprehensive high school. Many students simply cannot be and are not successful in a traditional high school setting. Fair View provides not only an opportunity for high school students to earn credits, but also an opportunity for many to stay in school and graduate. Flexibility in the schedule also allows many students to work while completing high school in this manner.
  6. Limit in-service/training to only those legally mandated requirements
  Release time for in-service training is limited to federally funded grant dollars provided exclusively for the purpose of staff development. Travel and conference expenses are limited to "have to know" activities. Many staff who are required to travel for their jobs donate both their time as well as travel expenses.
  Recently an on-line training program has been developed by our insurance provider. This program provides on-line "workshops" particularly in areas of safety related topics. The on-line program was a free service developed by Keenan and Associates for all schools, and was implemented beginning in 2009-10. It has been successful and reduced cost for the district for annual mandated training requirements and those trainings provided to new hires.
  7. Reduce or eliminate the school day for 12th grade students
  To eliminate the school day reduces income from ADA for these students. A reduced school day is a topic that is being discussed by the Board.
  8. Sell any property the district is holding and apply that money to the general fund, including the property purchased for the Canyon View High School
  Sales of surplus property cannot be used to fund "on-going expenses" in the general fund. Recent changes in law allow the district to sell surplus property and use a percentage of any "profit" towards operating expenses but only if those expenses are one-time in nature. Our largest budget expense is payroll and would not qualify for these funds. In addition, the Canyon View property was purchased for more than it would currently appraise, so there would be no gain to the General Fund. It is also a very short-sighted approach to the problem insofar as demographic projections indicate that all district owned school sites, with the exception of Cohasset, are expected to be needed for growth and expansion in the next 10-15 years.
  9. Evaluate all sports programs for the cost versus the rewards/benefits they provide
  A discussion about athletic funding for 2010-11 is scheduled for a Board Workshop being held on May 12, 2010. Watch the website for time and location. Currently the district provides about $225,000 in funding for athletic programs. This amount is far less than what is needed to actually run the program. Most of the sports programs are funded through a combination of fund raising which is accomplished through the hard work of students, coaches, booster clubs and the generosity of our parents and community. In evaluating program options issues such as compliance with Title IX (equal opportunities for boys and girls) and making sure that our sports programs serve a variety of students are considered.