130 likes | 286 Views
Second Interim Budget Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007. Leon Glaster, Assistant Superintendent Business Services Madeline Gabel, Director Business Services March 20, 2007. Acknowledgments.
E N D
Second Interim Budget Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007 Leon Glaster, Assistant Superintendent Business Services Madeline Gabel, Director Business Services March 20, 2007
Acknowledgments • The development of the 2006-2007 Second Interim Report would not be made possible without the dedicated work of certain individuals who deserve special recognition today….. Doug D’Amour, Accounting Manager Kathy Lan, Budget Technician Teresa Zumbo, Community Services/AP
Overview • This is the second of two interim reports filed during the fiscal year on the District’s financial status. • A positive certification is assigned when the District will meet its financial obligations for the current and two fiscal years
Revenue Variances Between Reporting Periods General Fund • Additional equalization funding $4.19/ADA and 60 Revenue Limit ADA +$368,203 (Unrestricted) • Increase in Hourly Programs +$277,276 (Unrestricted) • Decrease Prior Year Revenue Limit Adjustments -$284,978 (Unrestricted) • ASES Prop 49 +$562,500 (Restricted ) • Arts and Music Block Grant +$141,829 (Restricted) • Microsoft Voucher Program +399,434 (Restricted one-time) Adult Fund • Chabot College donation $500,000 • Head Start matching fund $250,000 Building Fund • General Obligation Bond Series A closed on March 7, 2007 at higher rates
Expense Comparison Between Reporting Periods General Fund – mainly found in the Services and Other Expense category • ASES Prop 49 +$531,362 (Restricted) • Title 1 +89,718 (Restricted) • Special Ed Transportation +482,322 (Restricted) Adult Fund – related to the new Community Learning Center construction costs Building Fund – shifted the expenditures of bond projects out into subsequent years
Second Interim Budget Summary • All funds balance • General Fund Unrestricted resources continue to deficit spend and has minimal available reserves • Governor’s May Revise proposal could negatively impact future year projections.