08-12-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

k 24. Now do Wootonlui'4 oporatinfp oxpondituros eompaio with othor school districto? *Now: estimated operaiinii expenditures for 2001-2002 and 2002-200d assume no chani'es in current projections of student enrollment and/or state fundinf;. OraK-Ck. 12 TOTAL OKfUTIIMI EXPKNDITURtS 2000*2001 Sources: Dept. ofChildren, FamiliesS I eamirtg "SchoolDistnet Profiles 2000-2001’. httpj/dtstatemn usFIMOtdistprolileshtml 'Schod Board-adopted budgets Student count Minnetonka' 7.613 Orono’ 2.626 Westonka I 2 357 1 1 Westonka esi. 1 2001-2002 j Westonka est I 2002-2003 Dist & Sch Admin $2,957,986 50%$906,083 48%$1,195,128 6 7%S892.584 4 7% ! S812341 4 3% Oist Suppoit Serv 2.694,731 45%672.284 3 6%939.777 53%872.680 4 6^0 879.553 4 7% Reg instruc 26.757.409 450%9.256.820 490%7.229.373 40 7%8.177.520 42 8»o i 8.176.754 43 5% Voc Instruc 1.503.459 2.5%305.018 1.6%427.506 2 4%435.704 2 3%356 547 1 9“o Spec Educ 8.715.473 14.7%2.601.171 138%2.738.490 15 4%2.984.009 15 6%i 3.014.301 16 0% Instruc Support 3.239.438 5.5%630.028 33%678.823 3 8%692.287 3 6%634.216 34% Pupil Support 2.739.018 4.6%403.881 2.1%807.856 4 6“o 832.504 44%860.775 4 6% Op & Main!4.719.538 8.0%1.839.772 97%1.737.069 98%1.910.340 100%j 1.870.647 10 0% Food Serv 2.651.005 4.5%850.799 45%771.891 4.3%816.944 4.3% 820.123 44% Pupil Transp 3.216.120 5.4%1.369.451 73%1.096.423 6.2% 1.258.945 66%i 1.102.639 252.000 • 59% Other operating 204.925 0.3% 48.192 03%144.308 08%220.015 11%1 3% TOTAL Operating Expenditures $59,399,102 100 0%$18,883.4991000%$17,766,644 100 0%$19,093.5321000% j ; $18 779 896 100 0% 2S. How do Wostonka*0 odministrotivo staff costs comparo to othor districts? Administrative Stalt Costs Per Pupil Minnetonka $223 Westonka $277 Orono $283 ‘2001-2002 data, based on research regarding comparable stall positic • The ScluHiI Board is keenly aware of the public's desire for lower administrative costs, and it has alrcady taken steps to reduce costs for 2IH)2-2IK)3. Regardless of the outcome of the levy vote, additional administrative cuts will be taken for 2(K)3-2(K)4. 26. Why is tho district building athletic facilitios and an Kducatlonal Sorvico Cantor whon it Is facing budget cuts? in the late '60s. the Schinrl District's plan was to have athletic fields liKated at the new high schm)!. The sale of the downtown propeny in 2000 provided the funds to move Haddorff Field to the high schix)! and to create two additional irrigated practice fields. The sale of the dowmown property provided funds to move district offices u» a new ItK'ation on the high schtH>l site, as well. 1 he new building will lx; more efficient and less e\pensi\e to ojvrate than the foiincr Communitv ('enter. There are seseral additional reasons why the athletic facilities and l-dticational .Service Center projects should go forward: 1 ) Stale law pnihibils the mixing of funds fnmi building projects to operating budgets. I:\en if the schtMil district had chosen not to use the funds all(K'ated for the prryect. it would have Kvn prohibited from spending them, or the interest accrued on those funds, for educational programs. 2) Construction costs will continue to increase. 3) The School District has entered into legal, binding contracts with vendors working on all parts of the project. HaddorfI' I'ield. the twi> additional practice fields, and the Educational Service Center are proceeding on time and under budget, requiring no additional funds from taxpayers. Questions? Please callX2.491.8443 or e-mail welisten9westonka.k12 mn.us II II Mill la ■ I «