Version 2.0 Budget Executive Summary - Gateway Regional School ...

Gateway Regional School District
FY’10 Budget, Version 2.0
Executive Summary and Budgetary Goals
The FY 2010 Budget document is a planning tool for the 2009-2010 school year. At this
point in time it is a preliminary document, particularly the revenue estimates. Version 2.0
of the FY’10 budget accounts for the current economic conditions throughout the country
and the potential for decreases in state aid to education from the FY’09 to at least the
FY’11 budget. This proposed budget eliminates eight staffing positions and postpones
essential activities and is as much as the school committee can reduce the budget without
seriously impacting student opportunities and success. This budget will multi-age the
elementary schools in Blandford, Chester and R.H. Conwell, turn Russell’s elementary
school into a single track school and create a one principal, one assistant principal
administrative structure to handle all five elementary schools. Further considerations for
cost reductions must be done in such a way as to not negatively impact student services
and could include requesting a waiver of the number of school days as well as
considering the consolidation or closing of three elementary schools. The anticipated
decreases in state aid will require that as a community we grapple with these very
difficult choices that will effect how we provide an education to our children.
I. The Process:
The process of developing a budget doesn’t have a definitive beginning or ending point.
Rather it is a cyclical process where the issues and concerns—facilities, staffing,
supplies, educational programs, funding, etc.—that are discussed in prior budget years
continue into the development of a new budget.
During the development of the past several budgets, it has been incumbent upon the
school district to provide a means to develop a budget that is viewed as treating schools
equitably, providing some gauge to measure this equity across the district, and attempting
to do more with less. With decreases in Chapter 70 funds and reimbursement for regional
transportation, the district was forced to eliminate many positions and reduce the hours in
many others between 2003 and 2004. The district was able to restore some positions over
the years but over the last two years has begun the process of downsizing our overall
staffing due to retirements and a decreasing student enrollment. Due to enrollment
changes the district’s state aid for education has also been decreasing—to the point where
the percentage of the district’s budget paid for by the state has decreased by nearly a third
and the actual state aid dollars per student has decreased. This means that a small increase
in the school budget yields a much greater increase in local town assessments (the
average increase in the budget for the past seven years is 2.02%, the average increase in
town assessments is 4.03%).
As during the FY’10 budget deliberations, the administration has “brainstormed” many
alternative ideas for providing services and increasing revenue. It is important to note that
administrators bring to the table ideas and issues from a number of sources including
school councils, parents, town officials, community members, staff, and school

committee members. Many of these alternatives were shared with the school committee
and can be found on-line at www.grsd.org under the budget development heading.
In developing the budget, projected enrollments, revenue sources, projected losses, the
need to enhance educational opportunities in the district, educational needs in the district,
and the intermediate and long-term direction of the district were reviewed. The
administration’s second version of the budget is a reduction from a level-funded budget
to reflect the difficult economic times faced by our member towns. This budget document
includes the goals of the superintendent and school committee (the governance team) and
how the budget attempts to address said goals.
II. The Format:
The budget document includes information related to individual schools including
enrollments, historic costs, budgeted items, and staff/student ratios for comparison with
our other schools. It is our hope that this budget format is easy to understand, presents the
information by cost center, and is transparent in terms of comparisons across the district
and with prior budgets. The budget provides estimates of state revenue, and presents a
very preliminary guess as to the impact on town assessments. As we move forward in the
budgetary process, we hope that the state will not drastically reduce either Chapter 70
Funding or regional transportation reimbursement.
The budget consists of two component parts, the foundation budget and the nonfoundation
budget. The foundation budget represents those line items that relate to net
school spending as defined by the state. Net school spending is essentially the
combination of the minimum town contributions and Chapter 70 funds. Costs that are in
excess of what the state deems the “minimum net school spending” for the foundation
budget become the above minimum contribution. Non-foundation items include
transportation and capital costs. Therefore, the final town contribution is a combination of
the minimum contributions set by the state, the amount of the above minimum approved
by the school committee, and the non-foundation costs of transportation and capital costs.
III. Budget Highlights (Major reasons for increases—supporting justifications are found
in “Budget Goals” and backup financial data are found in line item detail sheets.)
1000 Administration—$9,596 (1.13%) for costs of providing administrative
support systems including e-mail storage, 403b administration and actuary
services.
2000 Instruction---$220,610 (-2.68%) for teaching and administrative staff (the
final number is subject to completing negotiations) and includes reductions in
teaching and administrative staff and elimination of middle/high textbook money.
3000 Other School Services—($9,159) (-0.40%) a decrease due to eliminating
cross country skiing, moving graduation inside and eliminating Golf.
4000 Maintenance—($80,752) (-4.73%) a decrease due to utility costs and
eliminating contracted snow removal for R.H. Conwell, reduction in tech
maintenance and a reduction in extraordinary maintenance.

5000 Fixed Costs—(-$69,141) (-2.45%) decrease resulted from moving truck
lease to acquisition of motor vehicles and a decrease in insurance costs.
7000 Motor Vehicles—$7,275 (98.71%) to reflect a change from leasing to
owning equipment.
8000 Long-term Debt—($2,911) (-0.34%) due to decreasing principal costs.
9000 Programs with Other Schools—$7,879 (0.71%) due to an increase in out of
district tuition
IV. Summary
Anticipated reductions in state aid for education, if enacted, will force the district to
reevaluate the way in which education is provided in the district. We have reduced staff
over the years to account for decreasing student enrollment but have not had to make
decisions regarding the configuration of schools in the district. If we lose as much state
aid between this year (FY’09) and FY’11 as we did between FY’03 and FY’05, then as a
community, we’ll be faced with difficult choices. This document does not elaborate on
these choices but rather on the difficult reductions that we can enact for the upcoming
fiscal year.
As presented, the budget document shows a decrease of $357,823 (-2%) under the FY’09
budget. This budget represents a deliberate and thoughtful effort to maintain basic
educational and safety components while dealing with declining student enrollments, a
reduction in state aid to education and a reduction in local aid to our member towns. This
budget reflects a realistic look at maintaining services, meeting identified needs and
keeping five elementary schools operating while holding the budget increase to an
acceptable level for our towns.
At the present time the budget increase as presented yields an overall increase in town
assessments of approximately 1.66% based upon anticipated educational aid and regional
transportation reimbursements. In an attempt to share the risk of expenses and revenues
with the towns, this budget continues our efforts to be very conservative in anticipating
expenses and liberal in estimating receipts. This places a much greater burden on the
district’s budget to ‘make up’ any adjustments by using Excess and Deficiency Funds
(E&D) and reduces both the original town assessments as well as the probability of
returning excess funds to the towns during the fiscal year. This should result in a
lessening of the tax burden, the pressure on the levy ceiling, and a stabilizing of
assessments.
All parents, community members, and town officials are encouraged to participate in the
process of adopting, and ratifying, a final district budget for FY’10.
Dates
March 4—Public Hearing on the FY’10 Budget
March 11—School Committee Budget Adoption

BUDGET GOALS FY’10
“IMPROVING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT”
2009-2010
We are a preK-12 school district serving students from the seven hill towns of Blandford,
Chester, Huntington, Middlefield, Montgomery, Russell, and Worthington. Our
communities are essentially rural and small-town in nature, yet the geographic area
created by this seven-town district is the second largest in the state. Our district consists
of 5 elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school providing educational
services to approximately 1,300 students. Traditionally, Gateway has served as a focal
point for community activities as well as a center of learning.
“The mission of the Gateway School Committee is to ensure that a well-rounded
educational experience is available for all children in the school district that will allow
each of them to maximize their individual potential so that they may become
successful, active, integral members of an ever-changing world. The Committee
recognizes that in fulfilling its mission, it must work with all member towns to assure
that the needs and concerns of each are addressed.”
The primary aim of the district as established by the School Committee and the
Superintendent (the governance team) is to increase student performance in the areas
of:
Academic performance that reaches beyond scores on a standardized test,
Preparing for careers and building job skills,
Developing and using citizenship skills,
Appreciating the performing and visual arts,
Developing a sense of personal values and character,
Improving personal physical health and safety, and
Understanding and appreciating the diversity of American society.
In essence, we are providing students with the opportunity to become well-rounded,
productive, informed, and successful members of society.
We continue to work diligently in upgrading our curriculum, in meeting the needs of our
students, improving standardized test scores, and developing ‘in-year’ student
assessments to help shape educational practices. Our district vision statement provides a
rigorous standard yet allows the flexibility to change in ways that will benefit students.
“The Gateway Regional School District will provide an exemplary education that
challenges all students in an instructional setting appropriate to their needs.”
We are fortunate to have an outstanding and dedicated team of staff members working
for the district, a wonderful group of students, and small schools. I remain confident that
by working together with our communities we can make a positive impact on the future

of the district. I urge everyone in our communities to take the time to acquaint
themselves with our schools and become involved in preparing our children for the
challenges that the future holds.
Version 2.0 of the FY’10 budget was developed to meet the financial constraints of our
member towns while maintaining a viable education for our students. This budget doesn’t
meet all of the district’s needs or desires or provide for expanding student opportunities
or services. After extensive discussion, evaluating alternatives, and considering town
requests, Version 2.0 eliminated an elementary principal, three elementary teachers, two
middle school teachers and two high school teachers reducing the overall staffing level to
that in FY’05.
Priorities supported in the FY’10 budget that are in line with District Improvement Plan,
5-Year Goals and district vision are:
1. Maintain attributes of ‘whole child’ by continuing Art, Music and Physical
Education, supporting a full athletic schedule, supporting the after-school
programming in the middle school and increasing on-line and dual enrollment
opportunities for high school students.
2. Support student success by continuing MCAS support programs, elementary
reading positions, district wide behavioral programs and increasing professional
development of staff.
3. Support Academics by continuing curriculum work, supporting the
implementation of the ‘core’ reading program and supporting the appropriate
collection and use of data.
4. Supporting the infrastructure of the district by maintaining custodial staff,
maintenance staff and continuing capital planning.
V. Comparison Data
Chart 1: A comparison of actual budget increases compared to a 2.5% increase/year.
Average increase over past seven years for the school budget is 2.02% per year.
20
15
10
5
0
Million $
FY 03 FY 04 @2.5% FY 04
FY 05 @ 2.5% FY 05 FY 06 @ 2.5%
FY 06 FY 07 @ 2.5% FY 07
FY 08 @ 2.5% FY 08 FY 09 @ 2.5%
FY 09 FY 10

Chart 2: Total staffing by year with FY’09 as proposed.
250
200
224
180
198 200.5
215.5 216
209
200
150
100
50
0
FY 03 FT 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10
Chart 4: How your educational dollar is spent.
9000000
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
FY09
FY10
Administration
Instruction
Student Services
Maintenance
Insurance/Retire
Motor Vehicles
Long Term Debt
Tuition
Stabilization