BUDGET/FINANCE

Workbook 2013-2014 August 2013

Web Link for online Access: http://www.sdcoe.net/business-services/financial-services

SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

BUSINESS SERVICES DIVISION

 

Budget/Finance Workbook

August 2013

San Diego County Office of Education District Financial Services

I. Budget Page

# A. Proposition 98 Overview Fiscus 4 B. 2013-2014 Revenues Pickering/Fiscus/Menyon 5

• LCFF • Target Entitlement • Economic Recovery Target • Transitioning to the LCFF • K-3 Class Size Reduction Adjustment • TIIG and Home to School Transportation • CALPADS • Accountability Plans (LCAP) • LCFF District Summary • Categorical Programs now in LCFF

• Adult Ed and ROP • Basic Aid • Necessary Small Schools

6 6 8 9 11 12 13 16 23 25 26 28 30

C. Estimated Property Tax Revenue 2013-2014 Pickering 32 D. Cash Flow

• Cash Flow Changes • Apportionments – Distribution Changes • EPA

Pickering 34 35 37 39

E. State Categorical Programs Fiscus 40 • Categorical Funding • Proposition 39

41 43

F. Federal Programs Fiscus 44 • Sequestration • Title I Entitlements

45 46

G. Special Education Gómez/Curtis 50 • Mental Health Funds Saba 51

H. Mandated Cost Update Thompson-Nobile 53 I. Lottery Menyon 57 J. Budget Calendar Menyon 59

 

K. Retirement – Updates Britt 63 • CalPERS Pension Reform Impacts • CalSTRS Pension Reform Impacts

64 91

• New Applicant Questionnaire for Entities Requesting to Participate in CalPERS Benefit Plans

• Current Rules on Working After Retirement

• CalSTRS Request for Separation-from-Service Requirement Exemption

98 109 112

L. Charter Schools Update Garcia 116 M. Legislative Update Garcia 122 N. Fiscal Disclosure Forms Garcia 136

II. Year-End 2012-2013 143 A. Estimated Annual Revenue Limit 2012-2013 Pickering 144 B. Annual J29B Property Tax Revenue 2012-

2013 Pickering 155

• RDA Residual Balance & Pass-Through Payment

157

C. Special Education Gómez/Curtis 161 • 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 AB 602

Recertifications 162

• 2012-2013 P-2 Certification • 2012-2013 Federal and State Grants

162

• SEMOE Saba 168

III. Reference Materials 187 • 2013-2014 Contracted Services (Fee

Schedule) 188

• Interest Rate History 213 • PERS/STRS 2012-2013 Year-To-Date

Summary (As of June 2013) 214

• CalPERS Legislation • CalSTRS Legislation • Payroll Expense Employer Rates

216 224 226

• School District Audits 227 • 2011-2012 Audit Findings 227 • 2012-2013 Audit Contracts 244

 

• Projected Employer Benefit Rates & Costs 2013-2014

245

• Online Tutorials & Manuals Webpage Section:

o Commercial Warrants Claims Manual Commercial Warrants o Financial Accounting Manual Financial Accounting &

Reporting Manual

o Financial Data Analysis Tool Financial Reporting o FIS Tutorial Additional Information o GASB 34 (TABS) Webcast TABS Workshops o GASB 34 (TABS) PDF handout TABS Workshops o GASB 45 (TABS) Webcast TABS Workshops o GASB 45 (TABS) PDF handout TABS Workshops o GASB 45 Accounting Entries Workshops on the Web o GASB 54 Implementation Issues Webcast Workshops on the Web o GASB 54 Presentation PDF handout Workshops on the Web o Sample Fund Balance Policy-1 Workshops on the Web o Sample Fund Balance Policy-2 Workshops on the Web o Sample Fund Balance Policy-4 Workshops on the Web o CDE Sample Language Policy-3 Workshops on the Web o Sample Resolution-1 Workshops on the Web o Payroll Extract Excel Import Worksheets Additional Information o Payroll Extract File Sweep Tutorial Additional Information o Payroll Manual Additional Information o TREEV Web cast Additional Information

DOF Economic Forecast Estimates 

Introduction On June 27, 2013, the Governor signed the 2013-14 Budget (AB 110), and on July 1 he signed education trailer bill AB 97 (and clean-up bill SB 91) which establishes the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The Budget provides increased funding for schools, primarily in the form of $2.1 billion to implement the LCFF. Additionally, the Budget provides $1.25 billion in one-time money for Common Core implementation, and $250 million in one-time funds for CTE grants. While some significant changes were made to the LCFF since the May Revision, the Legislature approved all the major elements of the Governor’s landmark school finance reform proposal. The LCFF is intended to correct historical inequities and increase flexibility, but it also brings new challenges, as LEAs must quickly adapt to a new funding model. In addition, many of the details of the new accountability structure are yet to be determined. Key components, including regulations on the use of Supplemental and Concentration Grants and the format for Local Control Accountability Plans, will be determined by the State Board of Education, which will take action on these items by the first quarter of 2014. This Budget book will provide information on the Governor’s 2013-2014 Adopted Budget, year-end data for fiscal year 2012-2013, reference materials and guidance with regards to multi-year projection planning for districts. Situational Guidance

On July 18, the Department of Finance (DOF) updated its estimates for LCFF gap funding for 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Year 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Gap Funding 11.78% 16.49% 18.69%

The 2013-14 enacted state budget provides each district and charter school with increased funding equal to approximately 11.78% of the difference between their current funding level and their LCFF target in 2013-14. The percentages provided are based on the economic forecasts provided by the DOF as of the enacted budget. These percentages are derived from growth in Proposition 98 funding as directed toward funding the LCFF until full implementation. According to the DOF, Prop. 98 growth is projected to provide increased LCFF funding equal to 16.49% of the remaining difference in 2014-15 and 18.69% in 2015-16.

1

The LCFF will uniquely impact each district and, consequently, budget guidance must be situational. Some districts will receive no additional funding, while others may receive a significant down payment toward their LCFF targets. Current estimates for gap percentage funding are dependent on projected increases in state revenue growth. The State’s economy is in the early stages of an economic recovery period. The extent of this recovery is estimated based on factors known today. These factors will likely change. Multi-Year Projection Recommendations As multi-year projections are created, districts will need to assess individual situations when projecting increases in revenues based on transition funding under the LCFF. In the event that a district projects an increase in revenues and they should fail to materialize:

• Some districts will have excess reserves available to cover the shortfall • Some districts may not have excess reserves available. These districts would

need to have a viable contingency plan in place or reserve any additional increases that are projected in the ending fund balance

• Some districts will have no reserves or ability to plan for reductions. These districts should budget flat funding only beyond 2013-14 projected levels

(It should be noted that the CDE will not be able to certify transition funding until P-2 in June 2014). Please feel free to contact our office to discuss this process in more detail.    

2

Section  I:  Budget  

 

A Proposition 98 Overview

3

Proposition 98 For 2012-13, state revenues are not projected to change from the May Revision budget proposal. The lack of a change in revenue keeps Proposition 98 steady at $56.5 billion. (Actual cash receipts for 2012-13 exceeded the budget by just over $2 billion.)

Fiscal Year

2012-13

Projected Statewide Revenue

Prop 98 Calculation

Property Tax

Portion of Prop

98

State Budget Portion of Prop

98

Non-Prop 98 Budget

Ending Balance

January $ 95.4 53.6 16.1 37.5 55.4 0.8 May 98.2 56.5 16.1 40.4 55.2 0.9 Adopted 98.2 56.5 16.1 40.4 55.2 0.9 (all numbers in billions) For budget year 2013-14, state revenues are not projected to change significantly. As a result, Proposition 98 remains virtually unchanged at $55.3 billion – down $1.2 billion from 2012-13.

Fiscal Year

2013-14

Projected Statewide Revenue

Prop 98 Calculation

Property Tax

Portion of Prop

98

State Budget Portion of Prop

98

Non-Prop 98 Budget

Ending Balance

January $ 98.5 56.2 15.4 40.9 56.8 1.6 May 97.2 55.3 16.0 39.3 57.0 1.7 Adopted 97.1 55.3 16.3 39.0 57.2 1.7 (all numbers in billions) Analysis: The Legislative Analyst’s Office as well as the Legislature projected significantly more revenue in 2013-14 than the final numbers included in the adopted state budget. In addition, as of the end of June, revenues for 2012-13 were $2 billion higher than the numbers contained in the adopted state budget. These factors indicate there could eventually be a moderate but positive change in the 2013-14 statewide budget.

4

Section  I:  Budget  

 

B 2013-14 Revenues

• LCFF • Adult Ed and ROP • Basic Aid • Necessary Small Schools

5

Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Target Entitlement

Base Grant & Grade Span Adjustment:

The LCFF provides a base grant and grade-span adjustments that will be adjusted annually by the statutory COLA beginning in 2013-14 as follows:

Grade Level Base Base + 2013-14 COLA

(1.565%)

Base Grade Span Adjustments

Grades K-3 $6,845 $6,952 $723 (10.4%)

Grades 4-6 $6,947 $7,056

Grades 7-8 $7,154 $7,266

Grades 9-12 $8,289 $8,419 $219 (2.6%)

Supplemental Grant & Concentration Grant:

Education Code Section 42238.02 increases the LCFF base grant by a supplemental grant and a concentration grant. These are determined by the district’s or charter school’s unduplicated count of pupils who are eligible for free and reduced price meals, or who are classified as English Learners, or as Foster Youth. The use of these funds will be subject to regulations to be adopted by the State Board of Education on or before January 31, 2014.

The unduplicated pupil count percentage is computed as follows:

1. For the 2013-14 fiscal year, divide the total sum of unduplicated pupil counts for the 2013-14 fiscal year by the total enrollment for the 2013-14 fiscal year.

2. For the 2014-15 fiscal year, calculate the total unduplicated pupil count for both 2013-14 and 2014-15 and divide by the total enrollment for both 2013-14 and 2014-15.

6

3. For the 2015-16 fiscal year and thereafter, calculate the total unduplicated pupil count for the current and two previous fiscal years and divide by the total enrollment for the current and two prior fiscal years.

The supplemental grant is equal to 20% of the grade span base grant as increased by the grade-span adjustments of 10.4% in K-3 and 2.6% in 9-12, multiplied by the unduplicated pupil count percentage calculated above.

If the LEA’s unduplicated pupil count percentage exceeds 55% then the district or charter school will receive a concentration grant. The concentration grant is equal to 50% of the grade span base grant for each applicable grade level, after being increased by the additional adjustments for the K-3 and 9-12 grade span adjustments. For example, an LEA with a 60% unduplicated percentage would receive a concentration grant for 5% of its ADA.

For a charter school physically located in one school district, the charter school’s percentage of unduplicated pupils in excess of 55% used to calculate the concentration grant cannot exceed the percentage of unduplicated pupils in excess of 55% of the school district in which the charter is located. If the charter school is physically located in more than one school district, the charter’s percentage of unduplicated pupil count in excess of 55% cannot exceed that of the school district with the highest percentage of unduplicated pupil count in excess of 55%.

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs)

20

New System of School District Support and Intervention

21

Implementation Timeline

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Section  I:  Budget  

 

C Estimated Property Tax

Revenue 2013-2014

31

32

33

Section  I:  Budget  

 

D Cash Flow

• Cash Flow Changes • Apportionment – Distribution

Changes • EPA

34

35

36

37

38

Education Protection Account

A significant change to LEA cash flows occurred in 2012-13 with the passage of Proposition 30, which established the Education Protection Account (EPA), whereby temporary sales tax and income tax revenues are collected and distributed to schools. A $6.509 billion EPA apportionment was made on June 27, 2013 for the 2012-13 fiscal year. Beginning in 2013-14, the EPA revenues will be apportioned within the last ten day of each quarter.

Using a 2013-14 EPA revenue estimate of approximately $5.6 billion, the CDE recalculated EPA offsets against the 2012-13 P-2 revenue limits as adjusted for class size penalties, and general purpose entitlements, using a factor of 17.91987342%. If the 17.92% calculation is greater than state aid then the EPA revenue can be estimated at the greater of state aid or $200 per ADA. To estimate quarterly 2013-14 EPA apportionments, divide the result of the previous calculation by four. CDE has posted the advance apportionment summary at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/pa/iassf13adv.asp.

Although the LCFF is effective beginning in 2013-14, EPA entitlements will still be based on the revenue limit formula. LEAs may estimate their 2013-14 EPA by multiplying total revenue limit funding.

39

Section  I:  Budget  

 

E State Categorical Programs • Categorical Funding • Proposition 39

40

41

42

Proposition 39 SB 73 (Chapter 29/Statutes 2013) is the implementation bill for Proposition 39, the California Clean Energy Jobs Act. Proposition 39 provides for the creation of clean energy jobs, including funding energy efficiency projects and renewable energy installations in public schools, universities, and other public facilities. For five fiscal years, 2013-14 through 2017-18, K-12 education will be allocated $381 million of the total Proposition 39 funding. Distributions will be based 85% on a per-ADA allocation and 15% on the basis of free and reduced price meal-eligible students. Minimum grants will be

• $15,000 for districts with 100 or less ADA, • $50,000 for districts with more than 100 to 1,000 ADA, and • $100,000 for districts with more than 1,000 but less than 2,000 ADA.

In addition, districts with 1,000 or less ADA may receive advances on future allocations, allowing them to bundle two years of funding. The web-based application to elect to receive two years of funding was available at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r14/prop39cceja13rfa.asp. Eligible districts should have received an e-mail, addressed to the district contact identified in the California School Directory, with instructions on obtaining a password to logon to the Proposition 39 web-based application. The due date to make this election was Thursday, August 1, 2013. Districts that receive more than $1 million must spend at least 50% of the funding on projects larger than $250,000 that achieve substantial energy efficiency, clean energy and jobs benefits. The California Energy Commission will provide specific guidance for the use and reporting requirements associated with Proposition 39 funds. Districts should not commit the anticipated funds until the guidelines are released. It is expected that the CEC will require advance approval of projects prior to expenditure of funds.

43

Section  I:  Budget  

 

F Federal Programs

• Sequestration • Title I Entitlements

44

Federal Programs Federal Sequestration: For the 2013-14 school year, it is recommended that districts assume a 5.2% reduction in most federal education programs including:

• Title I, Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) • Title II, Teacher Quality Grants • IDEA, Part B and Preschool Grants • 21st century After School Programs

Please note that the Child Nutrition Program is exempt from the sequestration cuts.

While the amount of potential cuts for subsequent years is unknown at this time, OMB has recommended that revenue for subsequent years be projected with an 8.2 percent reduction. Title I: CDE has published preliminary entitlements for 2013-14. The amounts will change based on unknown factors at this time, however, actual grant amounts are usually within a percent or two of the preliminary estimates. See the following pages for a listing of Title I Preliminary Entitlements Please Note – The 2013-14 Preliminary Entitlements do not consider upcoming changes in data, including: 1) the 2013-14 “Application for Funding” election in the Consolidation Application and Reporting System (CARS) for reports filed after July 2, 2013, 2) district reorganizations, or 3) funding for new or significantly expanding charter schools. Revisions to entitlements will be posted by CDE as additional data becomes available.  

45

Local Educational Agency

2013-14

PRELIMINARY

Entitlement

2012-13

Final

Entitlement Change % Change

San Diego County Office of Education $1,370,665 $1,633,020 ($262,355) -19.14%

Alpine Union Elementary $131,219 $157,682 ($26,463) -20.17%

Bonsall Union Elementary $227,908 $267,747 ($39,839) -17.48%

Borrego Springs Unified $66,493 $68,582 ($2,089) -3.14%

Cajon Valley Union $4,196,764 $4,437,413 ($240,649) -5.73%

Cardiff Elementary $62,654 $67,444 ($4,790) -7.65%

Chula Vista Elementary $4,669,490 $4,816,213 ($146,723) -3.14%

Coronado Unified $147,178 $175,354 ($28,176) -19.14%

Dehesa Elementary $16,550 $17,804 ($1,254) -7.58%

Del Mar Union Elementary $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Encinitas Union Elementary $410,494 $441,588 ($31,094) -7.57%

Escondido Union $3,964,535 $4,270,724 ($306,189) -7.72%

Escondido Union High $1,520,978 $1,568,769 ($47,791) -3.14%

Fallbrook Union Elementary $1,096,139 $1,145,211 ($49,072) -4.48%

Fallbrook Union High $563,640 $581,350 ($17,710) -3.14%

Grossmont Union High $3,034,755 $3,344,144 ($309,389) -10.19%

Jamul-Dulzura Union Elementary $173,715 $179,173 ($5,458) -3.14%

Julian Union Elementary $50,535 $54,631 ($4,096) -8.11%

Julian Union High $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Lakeside Union Elementary $384,200 $461,683 ($77,483) -20.17%

La Mesa-Spring Valley $1,971,663 $2,033,615 ($61,952) -3.14%

Lemon Grove $872,214 $899,620 ($27,406) -3.14%

Mountain Empire Unified $389,687 $401,931 ($12,244) -3.14%

National Elementary $1,854,820 $1,994,269 ($139,449) -7.52%

Poway Unified $1,591,411 $1,820,283 ($228,872) -14.38%

Ramona City Unified $497,691 $598,063 ($100,372) -20.17%

Rancho Santa Fe Elementary $0 $0 $0 0.00%

San Diego Unified $34,810,317 $39,506,725 ($4,696,408) -13.49%

San Dieguito Union High $774,011 $798,332 ($24,321) -3.14%

San Pasqual Union Elementary $37,875 $39,066 ($1,191) -3.14%

Santee Elementary $380,654 $457,422 ($76,768) -20.17%

San Ysidro Elementary $1,221,367 $1,259,744 ($38,377) -3.14%

Solana Beach Elementary $156,635 $168,500 ($11,865) -7.57%

South Bay Union Elementary $1,866,754 $2,118,606 ($251,852) -13.49%

Spencer Valley Elementary $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Sweetwater Union High $8,430,695 $8,695,601 ($264,906) -3.14%

Vallecitos Elementary $75,350 $81,015 ($5,665) -7.52%

Vista Unified $4,631,935 $5,256,849 ($624,914) -13.49%

Carlsbad Unified $798,418 $858,896 ($60,478) -7.57%

Oceanside Unified $4,220,382 $4,789,772 ($569,390) -13.49%

TITLE I, PART A, IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES,

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001

46

Local Educational Agency

2013-14

PRELIMINARY

Entitlement

2012-13

Final

Entitlement Change % Change

San Marcos Unified $2,131,588 $2,293,052 ($161,464) -7.57%

Warner Unified $32,397 $38,931 ($6,534) -20.17%

Valley Center-Pauma Unified $336,914 $404,861 ($67,947) -20.17%

Charter School of San Diego $395,759 $408,194 ($12,435) -3.14%

Darnall Charter $208,077 $214,615 ($6,538) -3.14%

Harriet Tubman Village Charter $114,637 $118,239 ($3,602) -3.14%

O'Farrell Community Center for Advanced Academy$359,419 $370,712 ($11,293) -3.14%

Guajome Park Academy Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Discovery Charter $47,349 $48,837 ($1,488) -3.14%

Mueller Charter (Robert L.) $269,192 $277,650 ($8,458) -3.14%

Museum $9,969 $10,282 ($313) -3.14%

McGill School of Success $68,043 $70,811 ($2,768) -4.07%

Escondido Charter High $0 $0 $0 0.00%

River Valley Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Feaster (Mae L.) Charter $297,640 $306,992 ($9,352) -3.14%

Nubia Leadership Academy $0 $91,087 ($91,087) -100.00%

Chula Vista Learning Community Charter $129,116 $133,173 ($4,057) -3.14%

Helix High $447,105 $461,154 ($14,049) -3.14%

Preuss School UCSD $340,873 $366,501 ($25,628) -7.52%

Classical Academy $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Pacific View Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Greater San Diego Academy $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Holly Drive Leadership Academy $70,943 $76,277 ($5,334) -7.52%

Julian Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

High Tech High $50,993 $52,595 ($1,602) -3.14%

Explorer Elementary $15,298 $15,779 ($481) -3.14%

MAAC Community Charter $30,853 $0 $30,853 100.00%

San Diego Cooperative Charter $29,333 $30,255 ($922) -3.14%

Literacy First Charter $147,692 $152,333 ($4,641) -3.14%

Audeo Charter $108,360 $111,765 ($3,405) -3.14%

Dehesa Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

King-Chavez Academy of Excellence $126,735 $130,717 ($3,982) -3.14%

Barona Indian Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Arroyo Vista Charter $38,882 $40,104 ($1,222) -3.14%

Einstein Academy $28,046 $28,928 ($882) -3.14%

California Virtual Academy @ San Diego $454,667 $468,954 ($14,287) -3.14%

Coastal Academy $0 $0 $0 0.00%

RAI Online Charter $28,782 $29,686 ($904) -3.14%

High Tech Middle $30,941 $31,913 ($972) -3.14%

KIPP Adelante $153,807 $162,275 ($8,468) -5.51%

Integrity Charter $52,585 $54,237 ($1,652) -3.14%

Heritage K-8 Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

47

Local Educational Agency

2013-14

PRELIMINARY

Entitlement

2012-13

Final

Entitlement Change % Change

High Tech High Media Arts $50,981 $52,583 ($1,602) -3.14%

High Tech High International $48,572 $50,098 ($1,526) -3.14%

SIATech $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Learning Choice Academy $0 $114,148 ($114,148) -100.00%

High Tech Middle Media Arts $39,284 $40,518 ($1,234) -3.14%

Iftin Charter $144,988 $149,544 ($4,556) -3.14%

EJE Elementary Academy Charter $112,372 $115,903 ($3,531) -3.14%

Keiller Leadership Academy $157,465 $162,413 ($4,948) -3.14%

Magnolia Science Academy San Diego $0 $26,298 ($26,298) -100.00%

King-Chavez Arts Academy $68,864 $71,028 ($2,164) -3.14%

King-Chavez Primary Academy $153,534 $164,882 ($11,348) -7.39%

King-Chavez Athletics Academy $70,317 $74,368 ($4,051) -5.76%

Bayshore Preparatory Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

SBC - High Tech High $243,323 $250,968 ($7,645) -3.14%

Classical Academy High $0 $0 $0 0.00%

King-Chavez Preparatory Academy $157,713 $165,576 ($7,863) -4.99%

Albert Einstein Academy Middle $35,667 $36,788 ($1,121) -3.14%

Health Sciences High $111,395 $114,895 ($3,500) -3.14%

Arroyo Paseo Charter High $50,078 $53,843 ($3,765) -7.52%

North County Trade Tech High $25,139 $25,929 ($790) -3.14%

Steele Canyon High $0 $0 $0 0.00%

National University Academy $132,634 $150,528 ($17,894) -13.49%

Urban Discovery Academy Charter $34,002 $40,858 ($6,856) -20.16%

King-Chavez Community High $181,455 $187,156 ($5,701) -3.14%

Juan Bautista de Anza $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Innovations Academy $48,169 $57,883 ($9,714) -20.17%

All Tribes Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

EJE Middle Academy $55,301 $57,039 ($1,738) -3.14%

California Pacific Charter School of San Diego $0 $0 $0 0.00%

San Diego Neighborhood Homeschools $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Gompers Preparatory Academy $290,447 $299,573 ($9,126) -3.14%

Leonardo da Vinci Health Sciences Charter $31,075 $32,051 ($976) -3.14%

Diego Hills Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Mountain Peak Charter $72,004 $86,526 ($14,522) -20.17%

Pacific American Academy $36,656 $37,808 ($1,152) -3.14%

Iftin High $58,085 $59,910 ($1,825) -3.14%

Evangeline Roberts Institute of Learning $31,906 $32,909 ($1,003) -3.14%

Mandarin Language Academy $0 $0 $0 0.00%

College Preparatory Middle $0 $0 $0 0.00%

San Diego Global Vision Academy $43,638 $45,009 ($1,371) -3.14%

Coleman Tech Charter High $14,697 $15,159 ($462) -3.14%

All Tribes Elementary Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

48

Local Educational Agency

2013-14

PRELIMINARY

Entitlement

2012-13

Final

Entitlement Change % Change

San Diego Virtual $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Pivot Charter School - San Diego $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Old Town Academy K-8 Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

America's Finest Charter $55,893 $57,649 ($1,756) -3.14%

Diego Valley Public $0 $0 $0 0.0%

Howard Gardner Community Charter $37,179 $18,016 $19,163 51.54%

City Heights Preparatory Charter $17,467 $0 $17,467 100.00%

Guajome Learning Center $0 $0 $0 0.00%

California Virtual Academy @ Santa Ysabel $0 $0 $0 0.00%

San Diego Global Vision Academy Middle $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Save our Future $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Academy of Arts and Sciences: El Cajon Elementary (K-5)$0 $0 $0 0.00%

Academy of Arts and Sciences: Del Mar Elementary (K-5)$0 $0 $0 0.00%

Academy of Arts and Sciences: El Cajon Middle and High (6-12)$0 $0 $0 0.00%

Academy of Arts and Sciences: Del Mar Middle & High (6-12)$0 $0 $0 0.00%

The Heights Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

Community Montessori Charter $0 $0 $0 0.00%

49

Section  I:  Budget  

 

G Special Education

• Mental Health Funds

50

51

Section  I:  Budget  

 

H Mandated Cost Update

52

53

54

55

Section  I:  Budget  

 

I Lottery

56

57

Section  I:  Budget  

 

J Budget Calendar

58

59

60

61

62

Section  I:  Budget  

 

K Retirement – Updates

• CalPERS Pension Reform Impacts • CalSTRS Pension Reform Impacts • New Applicant Questionnaire for

Entities Requesting to Participate in CalPERS Benefit Plans

• Current Rules on Working After Retirement

• CalSTRS Request for Separation-from-Service Requirement Exemption

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

Section  I:  Budget  

 

L Charter Schools Update

115

Charter Schools Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) Charter school funding under LCFF will be largely identical to district funding, except that in certain circumstances charter funding will be constrained by factors related to the district in which the charter is physically located. Assembly Bill 97 (LCFF) and Senate Bill 91 (LCFF clean-up) establish the base grants as well as the supplemental and concentration thresholds for the LCFF. The rates for charters schools and school districts are the same. The formula provides a base grant and grade-span adjustments that will be adjusted annually by the statutory COLA beginning in 2013-14 as follows:

Grade Level Base Base + 2013-14 COLA

(1.565%)

Base Grade Span Adjustments

Grades K-3 $6,845 $6,952 $723 (10.4%)

Grades 4-6 $6,947 $7,056

Grades 7-8 $7,154 $7,266

Grades 9-12 $8,289 $8,419 $219 (2.6%)

Supplemental and Concentration Grants Supplemental and concentration grants are added to the base grants based on an LEA’s unduplicated pupil count percentage of pupils who are eligible for free and reduced price meals, or are classified as English Language Learners or Foster Youth. (See the LCFF section for more details). Charters will receive supplemental and concentration grants, but a charter school’s concentration grant percentage will be limited to the percentage associated with the school district where the charter school resides. For a charter school physically located in one school district, the charter school’s percentage of unduplicated pupils in excess of 55% used to calculate the concentration grant cannot exceed the percentage of unduplicated pupils in excess of 55% of the school district in which the charter is located. If the charter school is physically located in more than one school district, the charter’s percentage of unduplicated pupil count in excess of 55% cannot exceed that of

116

the school district with the highest percentage of unduplicated pupil count in excess of 55%. Other aspects of charter school funding remain unchanged in the LCFF, including in-lieu property tax transfers, and the use of current year ADA even in the case of declining enrollment. Hold Harmless Per the LCFF, local education agencies are to receive minimum state funding of no less than the total received in the 2012-13 fiscal year, as adjusted for changes in ADA and property taxes. The calculation of the “hold harmless” for charter schools is made on a per-ADA basis and is a combination of the following funding sources:

• All charter general purpose block grant received in 2012-13 and the amount of in-lieu property tax received in 2012-13 divided by 2012-13 ADA, multiplied by current ADA.

• Charter categorical block grant and charter supplemental categorical block grant received in 2012-13, divided by 2012-13 ADA, multiplied by current year ADA.

BASC LCFF Calculator The BASC LCFF Calculator is designed to calculate the LCFF for 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The calculator accommodates all types of districts, including basic aid districts and necessary small schools, as well as charter schools. Further, this tool provides input fields to incorporate year-to-year changes in COLA, ADA, property taxes, unduplicated counts and LCFF implementation (gap funding). Additional features include K-3 Class Size penalty and ERT payment calculations have also been added. Finally, the calculator incorporates the hold harmless aspects of the LCFF and EPA funding. The BASC LCFF Calculator has been updated to reflect AB97/SB91. The DOF has reviewed, verified and provided input during the development of the BASC LCFF Calculator. Charter School Accountability The adopted budget also requires charters to abide by many of the same elements as required in district’s Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP). Charters will be required to annually update goals related to those elements:

117

• A charter school petition must include a description of the school’s annual goals for all students and for each subgroup of students to be achieved in applicable state priority areas.

• A charter school must update its goals as identified in the charter petition

beginning in 2015, no later than July 1 of each year, using a template adopted by the State Board of Education and including the following:

o A review of the progress toward the goals included in the charter,

and an assessment of the effectiveness of the specific actions of the charter school in meeting its schools

o A list and description of the expenditures for the subsequent year

implementing the specific actions included in the charter

• If a charter school fails to improve outcomes, as identified in the charter petition, for three or more pupil subgroups (or all of the charter school’s pupil subgroups if the charter school has less than three pupil subgroups), all of the following apply:

o The chartering authority shall provide technical assistance to the

charter school, using an SBE adopted evaluation rubric o The SPI may assign, at the request of the chartering authority

and approved by the SBE, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence (CCEE) to provide technical assistance to the charter school

o The chartering authority shall consider charter revocation for a

charter school that receives CCEE technical assistance, and either fails to implement the CCEE recommendations or has persistently or acutely underperformed based on the SBE adopted evaluation rubric

• Requires a chartering authority to consider the increases in pupil academic achievement for all groups of pupils served by the charter school as the most important factor in determining whether to revoke a charter. Further prohibits a charter school from appealing a revocation determined based on the provisions of the measure.

118

Other Charter School Provisions in the 2013-14 State Budget Charter schools are eligible to receive funding from Proposition 39 for energy efficiency projects and Common Core State Standards (CCSS) one-time funding. Please refer to those sections in this budget workbook for more details. Other provisions for charter schools include:

• Gives charters priority claim on surplus district property for five additional years. This extends the current one-year requirement for school districts with surplus property to first offer to sell or lease the facility to charter schools.

• Consolidating charter financing authority by shifting the Charter School

Facility Grant program and the Charter School Revolving Loan program from the CDE to the California School Finance Authority.

• Allowing online charters to access facilities funding by expanding the

Charter Schools Facility Grant program to include eligibility for non-classroom based charter schools.

Charter Oversight SDCOE has posted guidelines and tools for charter school oversight on the Charter School Resources webpage at: http://www.sdcoe.net/business-services/financial-services/Pages/charter-school-resources.aspx New Charter Schools Education Code section 47605(i) requires petitioners of a charter school approved by a school district governing board to provide written notice of the approval, including a copy of the petition, to the County Superintendent of Schools. Education Code Section 47604.4(b) requires a charter school to notify the County Superintendent of Schools of the location(s) of the charter school prior to commencing operations. Please notify SDCOE of any new charter schools beginning operation in 2013-14 by submitting the following information:

• Name of Newly Approved Charter School • Date of Approval by the School District Governing Board • School District Board Minutes Approving the Charter School • District Contact Person

119

• Charter Contact Person(s), Principal/Director/CEO, Business Manager (phone, email)

• Charter School Location(s) • Charter School Mailing Address • Charter Document, with retirement provisions under CalPERS or CalSTRS • Charter School Grade Levels and Opening Date for Students • Board approved resolution from sponsoring district for authorization to set up an

Oracle account with the County Treasury for the new charter school and a district number in FIS/PeopleSoft (if applicable). A sample governing board resolution for establishing a “Charter Schools Fund” (Fund 09) or a “Charter Schools Enterprise Fund” (Fund 62) is available at:

http://www.sdcoe.net/business-services/financial-services/Pages/Fund-Resolutions.aspx Charter School Closure Please notify SDCOE and CDE regarding the closing of any charter school per Section 11962, Title 5, California Code of Regulations. Include the following in a notice of closure:

• Charter school name and charter number • Effective date of closure • Name(s) and contact information for inquiries about the closure • District contact person • Independent Final Audit • Completion/filing of annual reports (EC § 47604.33)

120

Section  I:  Budget  

 

M Legislative Update

121

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Current legislation of interest to school districts and charter schools (as of July 12, 2013) is listed immediately below. This material has been compiled from SSC and other sources. Text and current status of each bill can be found using the Bill Search feature at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml  Accountability & Assessments AB 484 (Bonilla) - Pupil Assessments: California Measurement of Academic Performance and Progress for the 21st Century (CalMAPP21) Assembly Bill 484 would revise and recast numerous statutes relating to pupil assessment, and would establish the California Measurement of Academic Performance and Progress for the 21st Century (CalMAPP21), which would succeed the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program, and would specify procedures and policies for CalMAPP21. The bill would suspend the administration of the STAR Program beginning in 2013-14, except for those tests necessary to meet federal accountability requirements. The bill calls for a plan to include cost estimates and a plan to implement, beginning in the 2016-17 school year, one assessment in each of the following grade spans: (i) Grades 3 to 5, inclusive (ii) Grades 6 to 9, inclusive (iii) Grades 10 to 12, inclusive SB 247 (Liu) - Pupil Assessment: Grade Levels Assessed Senate Bill 247, beginning July 1, 2014, would exclude pupils in grade 2 from the state testing (STAR) program. The bill would require the State Department of Education, by November 1, 2014, to identify and make available to school districts information regarding existing assessments in language arts and mathematics aligned to the adopted common core academic content standards for pupils in grade 2 for diagnostic use by classroom teachers. The bill would require the savings realized from the elimination of the grade 2 standards-based achievement testing to be used by local educational agencies to administer the identified assessments. Charter School Legislation AB 622 (Campos) - School Districts: Charter School Petitions: Internet Posting Assembly Bill 622 would require a local educational agency (LEA) to post a charter school petition on the LEA’s website. Any costs associated with posting the petition

122

would be borne by the petition circulators. AB 913 (Chau) - Charter Schools Assembly Bill 913 would state that a charter school is subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, relating to public meetings, unless the charter school operator is already governed by the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. The bill would also expressly state that a charter school is subject to the California Public Records Act as well as the Political Reform Act of 1974. Finally, the measure would state that an employee of a charter school is not prohibited from serving on the charter school’s governing board due to employment status nor is a person who provides a loan or loan guarantee to the charter school disqualified due to the loan. AB 917 (Bradford) - Charter Schools: Authorization: Petition: Signatures Assembly Bill 917 would require that a charter school petition signed by teachers be signed by a number of at least half of nonsupervisorial certificated and classified staff estimated to be employed at the proposed charter school. For a charter school conversion, the number of signatures required would be equal to at least half of the total number of permanent nonsupervisorial certificated and classified staff and the public school proposed to be converted. AB 948 (Olsen) - Charter Schools: School Facilities: Charter School Facility Grant Program In any year there remains additional funds after charter schools that meet the existing free and reduced-price meals (FRPM) threshold are funded. Assembly Bill 948 would reduce the FRPM-eligibility requirement for charter school facilities grant program by one percent, not to go below 60%. SB 379 (Hancock) - School Attendance: Early and Middle College High Schools For the purposes of calculating average daily attendance apportionment at an early college or middle college high school operated by a charter school, this bill would require that at least 80% of the instructional time be at the school site. This bill would also require that the charter school require the attendance of the pupil in grades 11 and 12 for a minimum of 50% of the required instructional time. District Operations SB 49 (Lieu) - School Safety Plans Existing law provides that school districts and county offices of education (COEs) are responsible for the overall development of a comprehensive school safety plan for each of their constituent schools. Existing law requires school districts and COEs annually to

123

notify the State Department of Education regarding schools that fail to adopt a school safety plan. This bill would revise and recast those procedures. The bill would require each school to adopt its comprehensive school safety plan by October 15, 2014, and to review and update its plan every third year thereafter. The bill would require local educational agencies (LEAs) to provide written notification to the Superintendent of Public Instruction identifying each school within the school district or county that has not complied with the requirement to adopt, and periodically review and update, a comprehensive school safety plan. By requiring school and LEA officers to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. SB 177 (Liu) - Homeless Youth Education Success Act Among other things, this bill expands current law which requires a foster child who changes residences, pursuant to a court order or decision of a child welfare worker, to be immediately deemed to have met all residency requirements for participation in interscholastic sports or other extracurricular activities to students who are homeless and meet that definition under federal law. SB 581 (Wyland) - School Bonds: Bond Accountability This bill would require that a copy of annual independent financial and performance audits be submitted to the Citizens Oversight Committee at the same time they are submitted to the local educational agency (LEA). The governing board would also be required to provide the Citizen’s Oversight Committee any response to any or all findings, recommendations, or concerns regarding the audits within three months. Employees – Benefits & Labor Relations AB 10 (Alejo) - Minimum Wage: Annual Adjustment Existing law requires that, on and after January 1, 2008, the minimum wage for all industries is not less than $8.00 per hour. This bill would increase the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2014, to not less than $8.25 per hour. The bill would further increase the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2015, to not less than $8.75 per hour; on and after January 1, 2016, to not less than $9.25 per hour; on and after January 1, 2017, to not less than $9.50 per hour; and on and after January 1, 2018, to not less than $10.00 per hour. AB 25 (Campos) - Employment: Social Media Current law prohibits a private employer from requiring or requesting an employee or applicant for employment to disclose a username or password for the purpose of accessing personal social media, to access personal social media in the presence of the employer, or to divulge any personal social media. This bill would apply the provisions described above to public employers. The bill would state that its provisions

124

address a matter of statewide interest and apply to public employers generally, including charter cities and counties. AB 155 (Alejo) - Employment: Payroll Records: Right to Inspect This bill would require the employee to elect to inspect or copy, or receive a copy of, or any combination thereof, his or her employment records and would require the employer to comply with that election. The bill would entitle a former employee terminated for workplace violence or harassment only to receive a copy of the records, without any charge by the employer. The bill would define “actual cost of reproduction” to mean only the per page cost to the employer for the physical duplication of the records. The bill would also declare the Legislature’s intent in this regard. AB 349 (Gatto) - Classified Employees: Allegations of Misconduct: Reports Assembly Bill (AB) 349 adds Education Code Section 45118 relating to misconduct involving a child by a classified employee. The bill would require the superintendent of the employing school district, county office of education, or a charter school administrator to report a change in employment status to the California Department of Education (CDE) when a classified employee is dismissed, is suspended, resigns, retires, or is otherwise terminated by a decision not to employ or reemploy, as a result of allegations of misconduct against a child, as defined. The bill would require the report to the CDE to contain the name of the classified employee, the current address of the classified employee, the name of the reporting school district or charter school, the name of the last school of employment, an explanation of the allegation of misconduct or pending allegation of misconduct, current contact information for all persons who may have information relating to allegation of misconduct, and any and all documentation related to the case. It is the intent of the Legislature that the CDE and Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) enter into an interagency agreement for a minimum of three years, in order for the commission to provide assistance to the CDE in administering this new section. The bill was amended on May 24, 2013, to remove references to “misconduct involving a child” and replaced it with references to offenses described in the Penal Code and Education Code including voluntary manslaughter, felony convictions, and controlled substance offenses. AB 375 (Buchanan) - School Employees: Dismissal or Suspension: Hearing This bill seeks to streamline the teacher dismissal process in California but is opposed by the Association of California School Administrators, California Association of School Business Officials, the California School Boards Association, and many county offices of education who believe that while the bill contains some positive proposals, others will make it harder and more costly to dismiss tenured teachers. The bill, which is supported by the California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, and the

125

Superintendent of Public Instruction, has been amended numerous times in an effort to address the concerns of the opposition. However, the concerns raised have not been alleviated and many questions remain. It is questionable whether or not the bill accomplishes its intended objective. Assembly Bill 375 failed passage in the Senate Education Committee on July 3, 2013, but was granted reconsideration, which means it could resurface. AB 449 (Muratsuchi) - Elementary and Secondary Education: Certificated School Employees: Allegation of Misconduct: Reports to Commission on Teacher Credentialing This was a bill that previously related to school safety plans, but was amended and now relates to the reporting of educator misconduct. Specifically, AB 449 would repeal existing criminal sanctions for principal, teacher, employee or school officer who fails to make required reports and establishes a much narrower criminal sanction for county and district superintendents and charter school administrators. The Assembly Analysis states that “according to the author, in November 2012, the California State Auditor released a report regarding Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD’s) handling of allegations of teacher misconduct. The State Auditor found that LAUSD failed to timely report at least 144 cases of teacher misconduct when required to do so, with at least 31 of these cases reported 3 years late. As a result, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) was not able to review teachers who may have been unfit for the classroom.” AB 449 would require the superintendent of a school district or county office of education, or the administrator of a charter school to report to the CTC any change in the employment status of a credential holder, not later than 30 days after the change in employment status, if the credential holder, while working in a position requiring a credential, and as a result of an allegation of misconduct or while an allegation of misconduct is pending, is dismissed, is nonreelected, resigns, is suspended or placed on unpaid administrative leave for more than ten days as a final adverse action, retires, or is otherwise terminated by a decision not to employ or reemploy. The bill would make the failure to make the report unprofessional conduct and would authorize the superintendent of the school district or county office of education, or the administrator of a charter school, to be subject to adverse action by the CTC, and would make the refusal or willful neglect to make the report a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

126

AB 729 (Hernández, Roger) - Evidentiary Privileges: Union Agent-Represented Worker Privilege The bill would add to the Evidence Code provisions that grant union representatives the same level of privilege provided to attorneys, physicians, clergypersons, and psychotherapists. AB 729 was amended to provide that this privilege does not apply if the union representative reasonably believes that disclosure of any confidential communication is necessary to prevent a crime or result in the death of or bodily harm to an individual. Recent amendments also provide that the privilege granted would not apply in criminal proceedings. SB 160 (Lara) - Classified School Employees: Misconduct Against a Child: Statewide Tracking This bill would require a school district or charter school to notify the California Department of Education (CDE) when one of their classified employees is dismissed, suspended, or terminated from employment as a result of misconduct against a child. As amended, the district would be required to inform the employee within 15 days that they are subject to this notification. The bill would require the CDE, upon request by a school district or charter school, to provide that information for purposes of verifying previous employment of a classified employee. SB 590 (De León) - School Personnel: Professional Development for Classified Employees Senate Bill 590 proposed the establishment of the Classified School Employee Staff Development and Training Program under which local educational agencies (LEAs), as defined, would be authorized to set aside funding for professional development in various areas, including, among others, pupil learning and achievement, campus safety, and special education. Recent amendments to the bill eliminate the establishment of a designated program and provide instead that if an LEA expends funds for professional development, the LEA shall consider the needs of its classified school employees. Facilities AB 182 (Buchanan) - Bonds: School Districts and Community College Districts Amended July 1, 2013. Currently, school districts and community college districts may issue general obligation bonds under the authority of the Government Code, which allows for bonds with terms of up to 40 years and a maximum of 12% interest, or the Education Code, which limits the term of bonds to no more than 25 years and a maximum interest rate of 8%. This bill amends the authority of school districts and community college districts to issue general obligation (GO) bonds under provisions of

127

the Government Code, limiting issuances to a maximum term of 30 years and requires the district bond issues under terms of the Government Code comply with specific requirements in the Education Code. It also establishes additional parameters for GO bond issuances under the Education Code, including:

• Limiting the ratio of total debt service to principal for each bond series to no more than four to one.

• Requiring that a Capital Appreciation Bond (CAB) be callable ten years after its date of issuance.

• Providing that if the sale of bonds includes CABs, the agenda of the governing board meeting approving the sale must identify that CABs are proposed, and requiring that the governing board be presented with specific information about the proposed CABs.

The bill allows a school or community college district to seek a waiver of the limitations imposed by the bill in the case that the district is seeking to issue bonds solely for the purpose of retiring notes that were issued prior to December 31, 2013, in anticipation of the future sale of facility bonds. AB 308 (Hagman) - School Facilities: Sale of Surplus Real Property: Return of State School Facilities Funding Program Funds This measure would allow the State Allocation Board (SAB) to require that a local educational agency (LEA) reimburse the SAB for any funds received from the state school facilities funding program for purchase, modernization, or construction purposes, provided the following criteria are met:

• The real property was not sold to another LEA or to an agency exclusively providing child care and development services

• The proceeds from the sale of the real property are not used for capital outlay • The real property was modernized, purchased, or received construction

improvements within the ten years preceding the sale • The monies to be returned to the SAB would only be those funds received within

the ten years preceding the sale of the real property.

AB 621 (Wagner) - Local Government: Bonds For bond issues requiring voter approval after January 1, 2014, this measure would prohibit a local agency from entering into specified financial or legal relationships with an individual or firm that has provided or will provide services for the bond campaign.

128

AB 56 (Weber) - School Facilities: Carbon Monoxide Devices Assembly Bill 56 would require a carbon monoxide detector be installed near any furnace located within a school building. This requirement would apply to any public or private school buildings built after January 1, 2014. AB 939 (Melendez) - Pupil and School Personnel Health: Automatic External Defibrillators Assembly Bill (AB) 939 would authorize a school district to solicit private funds to purchase and maintain an automatic electronic defibrillator (AED). The measure would also limit a school district's liability for civil damages from the use or nonuse of an AED, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct. If an AED is placed in a school, AB 939 would also require the principal of a K-12 school to do the following:

• Provide school administrators and staff a brochure on the proper use of an AED on an annual basis

• Notify all school employees of the location of the AED • Designate school employees who volunteer to be designated as responders to

emergencies that may necessitate the use of an AED during normal operating hours

SB 39 (De León) - Energy: School Facilities: Energy Efficiency Upgrade Projects This bill requires the Office of Public School Construction, in coordination with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (SERDC), to develop the Clean Energy Employment and Student Advancement (CEESA) program to award grants, based on the average daily attendance, to a school district, for energy efficiency upgrade projects pursuant to Proposition 39. School districts will be eligible to compete for funding up to the maximum allocation for each county based on average daily attendance (ADA) and weighted toward the district’s eligibility under Title I. The bill would require the development of criteria for project approval and ranking, and criteria and guidelines for the following:

• Energy audit standards and procedures • Evaluation, measurement, and verification standards • Inventory and reporting standards • Project approval criteria • Project priorities relative to energy standards

129

For 2013-14, the bill provides that monies from the fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would be available to fund energy efficiency projects that are on the Emergency Repair Program unfunded approval list as of January 1, 2013. Instruction AB 342 (Blumenfield) - Online Instruction and Independent Study This bill makes various revisions to last year’s Assembly Bill (AB)644, which allows school districts to claim pupil attendance for funding purposes for students receiving synchronous, online education, including that testing results may be disaggregated for the purpose of comparing technology-based pupils’ testing results to the results of those pupils enrolled in regular classroom courses. This bill would require technology-based, synchronous instruction to:

• Be approved by the governing board of the school district • Be as rigorous as a classroom-based course • Meet or exceed all relevant state standards

AB 342 would also make changes to statutory requirements governing independent study, including:

• Requiring periodic contact between the certificated employee and the pupil to monitor progress

• Requiring a pupil to make satisfactory progress in order to remain in independent study

• Allowing independent study agreements and other required documents to be maintained electronically

AB 570 (Jones-Sawyer) - Continuation Schools: Policies and Procedures: Voluntary Placement This bill requires school districts that choose to voluntarily enroll pupils in a continuation school to adopt policies and procedures regarding the voluntary transfer of pupils. The bill clarifies that a pupil voluntarily enrolled in a continuation school has a right to return to his or her previous school if the transfer does not meet the educational needs of the student; that the parent or guardian meet with specified staff from the transferring and receiving school to verify that the continuation school placement is the best option for the student; and, to the extent possible, that the voluntary transfer occur within the first four weeks of the school year. SB 185 (Walters) - Instructional Materials: Digital Format As amended on June 25, 2013, this bill authorizes school districts to negotiate the price of instructional materials, requires publishers to offer instructional materials as

130

unbundled elements, and authorizes school districts to create a district wide online digital database of instructional materials. Recent amendments clarify that nothing in the bill prohibits a local educational agency, including a charter school, from negotiating the purchase price of instructional materials. AB 133 (Hagman) - Instructional Materials: Digital Format This bill would require a publisher or manufacturer that submits a printed instructional material for adoption by the state board or the governing board of a school district, on or after January 1, 2014, to ensure that the printed instructional material is also available in an equivalent digital format during the entire term of the adoption, and that it meet accessibility standards for students with disabilities and web content accessibility guidelines. SB 173 (Liu) - Education Funding: Adult Health and Safety Education For K-12 education, this bill would delete the authorization for adult programs in parenting, home economics, and health and safety education, and adult programs for older adults to be offered for funding purposes from the Adult Education fund. The California Department of Education and the California Community College (CCC) Chancellor’s Office would jointly issue guidelines regarding adult education placement assessments to be used, and the evaluation and data collection to document participant outcomes and placement. The bill would also require the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the CCC Academic Senate to develop recommendations for modifying or establishing reciprocity standards for instruction of adult education. Finally, the bill states the intent of the Legislature to base adult education funding allocations on a combination of enrollment and performance beginning in 2015-16. The bill was amended to clarify that nothing in the provisions should be construed to limit the authority to offer adult education programs and courses outside those that remain available for funding, provided that those programs or courses are funded through alternative funding sources, including fees, if the district is authorized to charge them. SB 344 (Padilla) - English Learners: Supplemental Funding: School District Master Plans Beginning in 2014-15, as a condition for receiving supplemental funds for English learners under the Limited English Proficient Student Program, a school district shall adopt a master plan every three years for how those supplemental funds will be spent,

131

covering expenditures from these funds at each affected school within the district. Among other requirements, the master plan would include:

• A listing of the instructional materials provided for English learners • A description of how professional development programs will assist in meeting

annual, measurable achievement objectives, including the Academic Performance Index, graduation rate, access to classes necessary for college admission, and academic content standards

• A description of the monitoring of reclassified English learners and long-term English learners

• The process and criteria for reclassification The bill would require, in developing or renewing master plans, the district to seek input from teachers, principals, administrators, English learner advisory committees, school site councils, and parents, both district wide and from each school. SB 714 (Block) - Schools: Average Daily Attendance: Online Instruction Senate Bill 714, beginning with the 2015-16 fiscal year, permits a school district, county of office of education (COE), or charter school providing classroom-based instruction to claim funding up to 10% of the total average daily attendance (ADA) in grades 9-12, for three consecutive years for asynchronous (defined as “where the teacher and the pupil are online at different times and do not interact simultaneously”) attendance of pupils in “online educational learning programs” (OELPs). OELPs may include one online course, multiple online courses, or a combination of online coursework and classroom-based coursework, as specified. This bill requires a school district, COE, or charter school that enrolls pupils in an online course or courses to develop and adopt policies that evaluate if a pupil is achieving satisfactory pupil progress and if a pupil should be allowed to continue to enroll in the OELP. It requires that teachers of online courses be credentialed, highly qualified, and employed in California. SB 594 (Steinberg) - California Career Pathways Investment This bill would establish the California Career Pathways State Revolving Fund for the purpose of providing financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and community college districts that have entered into agreements to implement and operate career pathways programs. The bill would establish a Career Pathways Grant Account and authorize LEAs to enter into a pay-for-performance contract for a career pathways pay-for-performance pilot project to fund career pathways programs operated by the business entity and a school district, community college district, or a consortium of school and community college districts, and under which a business entity partner may be compensated for its costs.

132

SB 660 (Hancock) - Career Technical Education: Funding Senate Bill 660 preserves funding provided in the annual budget for the following Career-Technical Education (CTE) programs: Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROC/Ps), Partnership Academies, Specialized Secondary Programs, and the Agricultural Career-Technical Education Incentive program. This bill allows local educational agencies (LEAs) that operate CTE programs to form a Regional Career Technical Education Collaborative (RCTEC). This bill also establishes an accountability system for these CTE programs based upon the criteria currently used to assess the effectiveness of programs receiving federal Carl Perkins funds. The bill requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction, beginning in 2013-14 and each year thereafter, to apportion funds appropriated for ROC/Ps, Specialized Secondary Program Grants, Partnership Academies, and Agricultural Career-Technical Education to each county office of education (COE) based on the same relative proportion that LEAs within that particular county received funding for those programs in 2012-13. Each COE would be required to allocate the funds to ROC/Ps and LEAs in the same relative proportion of the total funds that these entities received in 2012-13. For the 2014-15 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, this bill requires the allocation made to each ROC/P and LEA be adjusted annually for increases in costs of living and for equalization of ROC/P funding. Miscellaneous SB 302 (Cannella) - School Cafeterias: Cafeteria Fund This bill makes various changes related to the oversight of school district cafeteria funds, including:

• Requires cafeteria fund expenditures to be part of the annual financial and compliance audit.

• Requires school districts to maintain all financial records related to its cafeteria fund for five years.

• Clarifies that school districts are not authorized to charge a food service program any charge prohibited by state or federal law or regulation or guidance.

• Prohibits a school district from withholding from its food service director any financial records involving school nutrition programs.

• Deletes the authorization for a school district to establish and maintain a cafeteria fund reserve to purchase, lease, maintain, or replace cafeteria equipment and to enter into a revenue sharing agreement with the associated student body.

133

The bill also requires the California Department of Education to prepare guidelines on acceptable and unacceptable charges to the food services program and to post on its website all enforcement actions taken on school agencies. State Budget/Finance AB 564 (Mullin) - Community Redevelopment: Successor Agencies Current law requires successor agencies to previously established redevelopment agencies (RDAs) to wind down the affairs of the dissolved RDAs. The successor agencies are required to make payments due for enforceable obligations, dispose of assets of the former redevelopment agency, and remit unencumbered balances of redevelopment agency funds to the county auditor-controller for distribution to taxing entities. This bill would prohibit the Department of Finance from taking any future action to modify the enforceable obligations described above following the effective date of the approval of those enforceable obligations after review by the oversight board and the department.

134

Section  I:  Budget  

 

N Fiscal Disclosure Forms

135

FISCAL DISCLOSURE FORMS Remember to disclose to SDCOE in a timely manner:

• Collective Bargaining Agreements (due 10 days prior to Board approval) • GO bonds, Revenue bonds, or school construction bonds (due upon approval of

Board for issuance) • Non-voter approved debt and agreements under California School Finance

Authority Act, including COP’s, BAN’s (due no later than 30 days prior to Board approval)

• Self-insured worker’s compensation claims (submitted with Adopted Budget by July 1st each year)

Disclosure forms can be found in the Reference Manual, or at the following link: http://www.sdcoe.net/business-services/financial-services/Pages/Business-Advisory-Services.aspx Disclosure Requirements Assembly Bill 1200 (Chapter 1213, 1991 Statutes), AB 2756 (Chapter 52, 2004 Statutes), and subsequent revisions established three categories of disclosure of school district fiscal obligations: (1) collective bargaining agreements, (2) non-voter-approved debt and agreement under California School Finance Authority Act, and (3) self-insured workers' compensation claims. Collective Bargaining Agreements The following excerpts provide Education Code and Government Code requirements as it relates to Collective Bargaining Agreements. The San Diego County Office of Education requires all school districts to disclose provisions of Collective Bargaining Agreements 10 days prior to board action. A Collective Bargaining Agreement must be disclosed even if the settlement has zero or positive impact (i.e. salary rollback, furlough days) on the district budget. A disclosure form in Microsoft Excel format is available at: http://www.sdcoe.net/business-services/financial-services/Pages/default.aspx under the Business Advisory Services section.

Prior to governing board approval, school districts are required to disclose the major provisions of the proposed written agreement with an exclusive representative, including costs and itemized budget revisions necessary to meet the costs of the agreement in each year of its term. The Superintendent and Chief Business Official must certify in writing that the costs incurred by the school district can be met by the district during the term of the agreement. [GC § 3547.5]

School districts must adopt budget revisions needed in the current fiscal year to

136

meet the costs of a collective bargaining agreement. [GC § 3547.5(c)] Districts must also submit a copy of the board-approved budget revisions and board minutes to the County Office as soon as these documents are available (Page 4, column 2 of the Disclosure of Collective Bargaining Agreement form and general instructions (Revised 7/04) may be used to disclose the impact of a final collective bargaining agreement upon the school district budget).

If a school district has a qualified or negative certification, the district must

provide the county superintendent with ten working days to review and comment on a proposed bargaining unit agreement. The county superintendent is also required to provide notification to the county board of education, school district governing board, district superintendent, and each parent-teacher organization of the district if, in his or her opinion, the reviewed agreement would endanger the fiscal well-being of district. [GC § 3540.2]

Within 45 days of approval of a collective bargaining agreement, school districts

must forward any required budget revisions to the county superintendent. [EC § 42142]

If a school district governing board does not adopt all of the revisions to its

budget needed in the current fiscal year to meet the costs of the agreement, the County Superintendent of Schools must issue a qualified or negative certification for the district on the next interim report. [GC § 3547.5]

Non-Voter-Approved Debt and Agreement under California School Finance Authority Act Assembly Bill 2197 (Chapter 128, 2008 Statutes) amended the requirement for disclosure of any agreement for financing school construction pursuant to the California School Finance Authority Act and disclosure of other non-voter-approved debt. School districts must provide 30 days notice to the county superintendent of schools and county auditor prior to governing board approval to proceed with the issuance of certificates of participation and other debt instruments that are secured by real property and do not require approval of the voters of the school district. This includes Bond Anticipation Notes, Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZAB), Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCB), Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBS), Lease Purchases (not equipment leases), and Lease Lease-Back Construction Agreements. The school district must provide information necessary to assess the anticipated effect of the debt issuance, including the repayment schedules for that debt obligation, evidence of the ability of the school district to repay that obligation, and the issuance costs. This information must be provided to the county superintendent, the governing board, and the public. The county superintendent of schools and the county auditor may comment publicly to the governing board of the

137

school district regarding the capability of the school district to repay that debt obligation within 15 days of receipt of the information. [EC §17150.1] If a district is issuing revenue bonds or is conducting a financing through the California School Finance Authority, a disclosure is required upon approval by a school district board to proceed with issuance of the debt. The school district must provide the disclosure to the county superintendent of schools, the county auditor, governing board, and the public. The disclosure must include the repayment schedules for the debt obligation and evidence of the ability of the school district to repay that obligation. Within 15 days of the receipt of the information, the county superintendent of schools and the county auditor may comment publicly to the governing board of the school district regarding the capability of the school district to repay that debt obligation. [EC §17150] The form, Certification of Superintendent Regarding Public Disclosure of Non-Voter-Approved Debt (Revised 9/10), or Certification of Superintendent Regarding Public Disclosure of Agreement under California School Finance Authority Act (Revised 9/10) may be used to transmit debt obligation repayment schedule, projection of revenues and expenditures, and other information demonstrating the district's ability to repay the debt obligation to the county superintendent of schools and the county auditor. These forms are on our website at http://www.sdcoe.net/business-services/financial-services/Pages/default.aspx. This information should be provided at a meeting of the Governing Board for disclosure to the board and the public. Proceeds obtained by the school district from certificates of participation or other debt instruments that are secured by real property and do not require the approval of the voters of the school district shall not be used for general operating purposes of the school district. [EC § 42133.5] Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Claims

Disclosure of fiscal obligations for districts/JPAs with self-insured workers' compensation claims requires public meeting disclosure as a separate agenda item and annual certification by school district governing boards to the County Superintendent of Schools of their ability to fund claims. [EC § 42141]

The self-insured workers' compensation disclosure must be based upon an actuarial report that is to be completed at least every three years. A copy of the Annual Certification Regarding Self-Insured Workers' Compensation Claims (SACS Form CC) must be signed and filed with the July 1 budget whether or not the district provides such benefits. This form is also on our website at http://www.sdcoe.net/business-services/financial-services/Pages/default.aspx. A copy of the current actuarial report must be filed with the San Diego County Office of Education after approval by the district governing board.

138

139

140

141

142

Section  II:  Year-­‐End  2012-­‐13  

 

 

A Estimated Annual Revenue

Limit 2012-2013

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

Section  II:  Year-­‐End  2012-­‐13  

 

 

B Annual J29B Property Tax

Revenue 2012-2013 • RDA Residual Balance & Pass-

Through Payment

154

 2012‐13 Annual Amount of Taxes Collected and DistributedJ29‐B

As of August 15, 2013

Prior Community Redevelopment RedevelopmentHomeowners' Secured Unsecured Years' Supplemental ERAF Redevelopment Property Tax Agency AssetExemptions Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Funds Trust Fund Liquidation

8021 8041 8042 8043 8044 8045 8047 8047 8047

Alpine Union 36,763 3,782,467 131,182 (10) 89,235 (430,994) 3,608,643 0 0 0 3,608,643Bonsall Union 46,593 4,780,456 166,435 (13) 85,943 (546,230) 4,533,184 0 0 0 4,533,184Cajon Valley Union 239,797 24,740,658 854,832 (71) 749,186 (2,811,199) 23,773,203 2,358 1,857,335 884,197 26,517,093Cardiff 54,662 5,602,337 194,632 (17) 0 0 5,851,614 0 0 0 5,851,614Chula Vista Elementary 664,140 68,204,733 2,373,908 (178) 1,221,827 (7,785,939) 64,678,491 151,853 3,475,826 287,850 68,594,020Dehesa 6,435 661,231 22,951 (1) 83,234 (75,436) 698,414 0 0 0 698,414Del Mar Union 311,470 31,817,673 1,110,811 (103) 0 0 33,239,851 0 0 0 33,239,851Encinitas Union 323,174 33,128,762 1,151,788 (108) 0 0 34,603,616 0 0 0 34,603,616Escondido Union 309,439 31,954,702 1,104,778 (47) 837,540 (3,627,644) 30,578,768 1,361 3,153,907 2,025,728 35,759,764Fallbrook Union Elementary 70,425 14,621,388 263,521 (22) 253,835 (825,697) 14,383,450 0 0 0 14,383,450Jamul‐Dulzura Union 24,133 2,504,049 86,046 (6) 57,352 (282,921) 2,388,653 0 0 0 2,388,653Julian Union 15,027 1,568,834 54,294 (4) 110,630 (176,171) 1,572,610 0 0 0 1,572,610La Mesa‐Spring Valley 215,680 22,257,042 768,833 (64) 540,929 (2,528,474) 21,253,946 76 983,863 162,857 22,400,742Lakeside Union 66,836 6,926,203 238,312 (20) 221,031 (783,534) 6,668,828 0 200,749 362,232 7,231,809Lemon Grove 40,871 4,227,169 145,791 (14) 166,070 (479,153) 4,100,734 4,652 400,919 17,986 4,524,291National 43,770 4,565,027 155,891 (12) 260,651 (513,113) 4,512,214 43,513 1,649,437 7,491 6,212,655Rancho Santa Fe 71,494 7,320,753 255,006 (16) 0 0 7,647,237 0 0 0 7,647,237San Pasqual Union 11,050 1,133,180 39,372 (4) 24,185 (129,538) 1,078,245 0 0 0 1,078,245San Ysidro 133,036 13,629,364 512,954 24 223,710 (1,559,664) 12,939,424 143,597 1,227,941 114,452 14,425,414Santee 96,067 9,922,735 375,691 (12,648) 280,736 (1,126,230) 9,536,351 141,511 2,146,746 402,256 12,226,864Solana Beach 268,730 27,518,179 957,965 (79) 0 0 28,744,795 95,068 0 41,996 28,881,859South Bay Union 75,632 7,840,153 269,501 (19) 336,312 (886,651) 7,634,928 188,691 103,624 0 7,927,243Spencer Valley 1,697 172,847 6,050 (1) 113,310 (19,900) 274,003 0 0 0 274,003Vallecitos 6,242 655,688 22,256 (1) 16,718 (73,181) 627,722 0 0 0 627,722

Elementary Totals 3,133,163 329,535,630 11,262,800 (13,434) 5,672,434 (24,661,669) 324,928,924 772,680 15,200,347 4,307,045 345,208,996

ELEMENTARY DISTRICTS Subtotal Grand Total

155

 2012‐13 Annual Amount of Taxes Collected and DistributedJ29‐B

As of August 15, 2013

Prior Community Redevelopment RedevelopmentHomeowners' Secured Unsecured Years' Supplemental ERAF Redevelopment Property Tax Agency AssetExemptions Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Funds Trust Fund Liquidation

8021 8041 8042 8043 8044 8045 8047 8047 8047

Escondido Union High 246,375 25,523,018 879,935 (26) 401,478 (2,888,328) 24,162,452 1,034 2,394,133 1,537,727 28,095,346Fallbrook Union High 75,311 11,907,059 280,758 (22) 132,552 (882,936) 11,512,722 0 0 0 11,512,722Grossmont Union High 736,005 76,016,872 2,657,226 (12,837) 1,049,661 (8,628,408) 71,818,519 124,140 5,233,802 1,746,689 78,923,150Julian Union High 12,786 1,375,502 46,297 (4) 0 0 1,434,581 0 0 0 1,434,581San Dieguito Union High 747,974 76,570,458 2,666,587 (228) 0 0 79,984,791 12,296 0 33,225 80,030,312Sweetwater Union High 568,061 58,391,327 2,069,451 (95) 1,776,183 (6,659,579) 56,145,348 244,634 3,936,644 248,598 60,575,224

High School Totals 2,386,512 249,784,236 8,600,254 (13,212) 3,359,874 (19,059,251) 245,058,413 382,104 11,564,579 3,566,239 260,571,335

UNIFIED DISTRICTS 8021 8041 8042 8043 8044 8045 Subtotal 8047 8047 8047 Grand TotalBorrego Springs Unified 17,203 1,796,225 64,470 (2) 23,393 (201,687) 1,699,602 0 0 0 1,699,602Carlsbad Unified 554,189 57,616,982 3,598,394 (9,540) 0 0 61,760,025 0 1,116,426 2,292,295 65,168,746Coronado Unified 28,672 3,036,420 102,691 (8) 134,568 (336,147) 2,966,196 0 2,390,264 3,193,819 8,550,279Mountain Empire Unified 46,622 4,961,979 166,776 (9) 119,703 (546,560) 4,748,511 0 0 0 4,748,511Oceanside Unified 404,287 41,701,979 1,447,279 244 908,978 (4,739,583) 39,723,184 172,670 1,849,875 2,998,871 44,744,600Poway Unified 1,075,074 110,103,658 3,833,572 (363) 1,494,781 (12,603,478) 103,903,244 0 9,126,296 6,596,096 119,625,636Ramona Unified 159,494 16,449,812 611,731 108 272,824 (1,869,808) 15,624,161 0 0 0 15,624,161San Diego Unified 4,956,468 512,646,501 18,378,013 2,710 5,636,983 (58,106,280) 483,514,395 1,045,038 55,784,892 5,758,192 546,102,517San Marcos Unified 302,935 31,109,985 1,080,081 (92) 811,062 (3,551,403) 29,752,568 31,631 13,008,175 3,542,379 46,334,753Valley Center‐Pauma Unified 135,146 13,881,843 492,406 (33) 183,834 (1,584,381) 13,108,815 0 0 0 13,108,815Vista Unified 489,893 50,367,639 1,746,368 (149) 1,107,762 (5,743,158) 47,968,355 0 1,489,314 0 49,457,669Warner Unified 9,728 1,035,645 41,963 (2) 13,332 (114,048) 986,618 0 0 0 986,618

Unified Totals 8,179,711 844,708,668 31,563,744 (7,136) 10,707,220 (89,396,533) 805,755,674 1,249,339 84,765,242 24,381,652 916,151,907

County Totals 13,699,386 1,424,028,534 51,426,798 (33,782) 19,739,528 (133,117,453) 1,375,743,011 2,404,123 111,530,168 32,254,936 1,521,932,238

Note: For Sweetwater Union HSD, the Community Redevelopment Funds were reduced by $59,519 due to that amount being reported in FY 2011‐12.

HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS Subtotal Grand Total

156

157

158

159

160

Section  II:  Year-­‐End  2012-­‐13  

 

 

C Special Education

• 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 AB 602 Recertifications

• 2012-2013 P-2 Certification • 2012-2013 Federal and State

Grants • SEMOE

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

Section  III:  Reference  Materials  

 

 

Reference Materials

• 2013-14 Contracted Services (Fee Schedule)

• Interest Rate History • PERS/STRS 2012-2013 Year-To-Date

Summary (As of June 2013) • CalPERS Legislation • CalSTRS Legislation • Payroll Expense Employer Rates • School District Audits • 2011-2012 Audit Findings • 2012-2013 Audit Contracts

• Projected Employer Benefit Rates & Costs 2013-2014

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

FISCAL 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Average YEAR July - Sept Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Apr - Jun Annual Rate

2003/04 1.676% 1.618% 1.530% 1.516% 1.585%2004/05 1.817% 2.044% 2.444% 2.649% 2.238%2005/06 2.740% 3.221% 3.707% 4.210% 3.470%2006/07 4.686% 5.138% 4.826% 5.351% 5.000%2007/08 5.320% 5.046% 4.603% 3.468% 4.609%2008/09 3.224% 2.800% 1.958% 1.456% 2.360%2009/10 1.362% 1.064% 0.946% 0.818% 1.047%2010/11 0.810% 0.660% 0.637% 0.543% 0.663%2011/12 0.575% 0.556% 0.383% 0.363% 0.469%2012/13 0.435% 0.351% 0.346% 0.791% 0.481%

10 Year Average 1.993%

SAN DIEGO COUNTY'S HISTORICAL INTEREST RATES2002 through 2012

Annualized Rates by Quarter and Year

1.59%

2.24%

3.47%

5.00%

4.61%

2.36%

1.05%

0.66% 0.47% 0.48%0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Inte

rest

Rat

es

Fiscal Year

Historical Interest Rates

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

San Diego County Office of Education

Board of Education

Mark C. Anderson • Susan Hartley • Sharon C. Jones • Lyn Neylon • J. Gregg Robinson

San Diego County Superintendent of Schools

Randolph E. Ward, Ed.D.