E N D
1. Dresden Cost Reduction CommitteeInterim Board Report 8/24/2010 Mission & Governance
Members
Work plan
Work-to-date
Cost growth primer
Ideas being evaluated
Defined potential savings
Undefined potential savings
Some preliminary conclusions
Work ahead of us
Implementing change
2. Mission & Governance 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee
Board Presentation 2 MISSION: The Dresden Cost Reduction task force will work to identify areas of possible savings at the Richmond Middle School and Hanover High School, and potentially at the SAU administrative level, that could be acted upon for the 2011-2012 budget and beyond.
GOVERNANCE: The committee will be advisory to the Dresden School Board, and may refer relevant matters to the standing committees – notably the Budget, Negotiating Education and Athletic committees.
3. Members 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee
Board Presentation 3 Carey Callaghan, Chair, CIO American Trust
John Aubin, Assistant Superintendent for Business
Kari Asmus, Dresden Chair
John Dolan, Executive Director of VINS
Kristi Fenner, CPA and Treasurer of Ansys, Member of DFC
Dr. Wayne Gersen, Superintendent
Hilary Pridgen, Proprietor, Trumbull House B&B
Rick Sayles, CFO of KVO Capital Management
Gordon Spaeth, Dresden Board
4. Work Plan 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee
Board Presentation 4
5. Work-to-date 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee
Board Presentation 5 Solicit ideas from the community at large, and from all of the relevant constituencies of the schools, on areas where we can reduce expenses and potentially increase income
Brainstorm approaches that could result in savings with relevant administrators
Understand best practices and approaches that have been used successfully by area organizations
Refer ideas to relevant standing committees
6. Cost growth primer, part I
7. Cost Growth primer, part I 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee Board Presentation 7
8. Cost growth primer, part I
9. Cost growth primer, part II
10. Cost growth primer, part II
11. Cost Growth Primer, Part III 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee Board Presentation 11
12. Cost growth primer, part IV For 2011-12, a zero increase in base salary and zero increase in all budget areas except benefits and special ed yields a 3.2% annual budget growth!
Assumes a 10% increase in both benefits and special ed
Assumes 1.25% increase in salary accounts as a result of step
Over five years, this would result in a 17.1% increase in the total budget, roughly $4,000,000 over current year budget
Cost shifts from State likely to increase cost and diminish revenue
Retirement costs likely to be downshifted to local government, employees
This could be a $360,000 item in 2011-2012 budget year NOT in our plans, with more increases in following years
Building aid, other State aid revenues likely to be cut
BUSINESS AS USUAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE
13. Ideas being evaluated
To date, the Dresden Cost Reduction Committee brainstormed over 35 cost savings ideas, some of which are outlined in subsequent slides, and some of which will be shared with the Dresden Negotiations Team
The Dresden Cost Reduction Committee seeks more ideas from the public and staff. To share your thoughts, e-Mail us at budgetcuts@sau70.org 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee
Board Presentation 13
14. Defined potential savings 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee
Board Presentation 14 Health insurance renegotiations $ 50,000 +/-
Refinance of debt service $ 25,000 +/-
Limit elective offerings at HS $124,000 +/-
Limit elective program at MS $ 78,000 +/-
Reduce custodial work force $ 50,000 +/-
Join Federal Lunch program $ 23,000 +/-
Increase teaching load of HS department heads to 4 $ 65,000 +/-
Peak Power Management $ 8,000 +/-
Increase average # of students assigned to teachers $130,000 +/-
from 82.5-per-core academic teacher to 90-per-core
Academic teacher at HHS to reduce 2.0 FTEs
15. Undefined potential savings 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee
Board Presentation 15 Explore deployment of Special Ed staff
Expand on line instruction
Offer AP courses and eliminate advanced electives in academics to reduce staff
Institute Post-Graduate program at HHS to increase revenue
Eliminate additional elective courses at RMS, HHS to reduce staff
Increase class sizes at HHS, RMS to reduce staff
Increase # of courses assigned to teachers to reduce staff
Replace textbooks with Kindles (or on-line texts) to lower textbook costs
Explore use of grant writer to increase revenue
Promote the rental of facilities to increase revenue
Explore Combining services with town (payroll, grounds, maintenance, custodial)
16. Some preliminary conclusions Special Ed, benefits, and salary schedule structure– even without adjustments to pay schedule– are built-in cost drivers for Dresden
Savings of over $500,000 could be realized if ALL defined savings were adopted by Dresden Board
The cuts under consideration will require shared sacrifice among all constituents: staff, students, parents
DCRC has identified several savings opportunities that could limit growth rate of total compensation in future. These will be shared with negotiating team.
DCRC recommends focus on total compensation in negotiations with employee groups
17. Work ahead of us 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee
Board Presentation 17 Continue evaluation of existing ideas
Solicit new ideas from schools, community and organizations through one or more of the methods:
Community forum
School meetings
E-mail suggestion box
Work with relevant committees on referred ideas
Finalize recommendations
Communicate recommendations
18. Implementing change 8/24/2010 Dresden Cost Reduction Committee
Board Presentation 18 Assess ability of school community to assimilate multiple cost initiatives
Realistic view of what change can be managed
How to maintain or even improve excellence of education with reduced resources
Short term versus long term tradeoffs
Long term cost savings accruing from negotiations may impose an upfront cost. How do we measure the tradeoff? How much tolerance does the community have for tradeoffs in the current environment? Can we effectively communicate the value of such tradeoffs?