HomeMy WebLinkAbout12a COW (Budget) Report 4 5 Jul 2006 Minutes PublicOTTAWA- CARLETON DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
REPORT NO. 4, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE (BUDGET)
TO: The Board DATE: 5 July 2006
A meeting of Committee of the Whole (Budget) was held this evening commencing at 7:17 pm in
the Board Room, 133 Greenbank Road, Ottawa, with Trustee Jim Libbey in the Chair, and the following
in attendance: Trustees Bronwyn Funiciello, Alex Getty, Lynn Graham, Margaret Lange, Norm
MacDonald, David Moen, David Primeau, Lynn Scott, and Joan Spice.
Student Trustee: Steven Robins
Non - Voting Representatives: Special Education Advisory Committee, Lamar Mason, Professional
Student Services Personnel Unit (OSSTF), Tom Bickford, Educational Assistants (OSSTF), Cindy Dubuc,
Unaffiliated, Dave Miller, Ottawa - Carleton Assembly of School Councils (OCASC), Elaine Morgan,
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (Teachers Unit), Susan Rab; Ottawa - Carleton Elementary
Operations Committee (OCEOC), Colleen Robazza; and Ottawa Carleton Secondary School Administrators'
Network (OCSSAN), David McMahon, Plant Support Staff Unit (OSSTF), Sandy Stewart.
Staff. Coordinating Superintendent, Diane Jeudy -Hugo; Chief Financial Officer, Michael Clarke,
Superintendents Michael Carson and Janice McCoy, Assistant Treasurer, Cathy Dempsey, Executive
Officer (Administration), Michele Giroux, Manager, Communications and Information Services, Maggie
Melenhorst; Coordinator of Budget Services, Financial Systems Support & Labour Relations Costing,
Charles D'Aoust, A/V Technician, Robert Giekes; and Committee Coordinator, Brenda Cooper.
Call to Order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:17 pm.
Chair Libbey thanked everyone for coming out on a nice summer evening, and encouraged the
representatives to participate in the meeting.
2. Approval of Agenda
Trustee Primeau moved THAT the agenda be approved as presented.
Trustee Scott moved in amendment THAT the delegations be followed by a short in camera
session. The amendment was carried.
Trustee Spice reported that at about 5:00 pm on Tuesday, 4 July she had e- mailed a notice of
motion regarding an analysis of transportation costs to all trustees. It was intended to give sufficient notice
for either this meeting or the Special Board meeting on 6 July, but unfortunately the e -mail notices to
trustees on the Board's e -mail system (BEAM) bounced back as undeliverable (due apparently to an
"unsuitable" abbreviation that was misinterpreted by the gateway software). She did not realize the problem
until the next day.
Trustees who do not use BEAM confirmed that they received Trustee Spice's motion on time.
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 1 - 5 July 2006
The Chair of the Board and the Executive Officer (Administration) advised that any recommen-
dations from tonight's meeting would require unanimous consent to be placed on the Board agenda for the
meeting on 6 July. Trustee Scott noted that a report from this meeting is not scheduled for the Special
Board meeting so it would be difficult to have any recommendations from the Committee added to the
Special Board meeting agenda.
Trustee Spice moved in amendment THAT the motion on transportation be added to Committee
of the Whole (Budget) agenda after the item on Board budget priorities as a new item 8. The amendment
was carried.
Trustee Moen reported that he had also given sufficient notice to have two notices of motion
regarding special education go to the Special Board meeting on 6 July. He acknowledged that unanimous
consent would be required to add them to the Board agenda, and moved in amendment THAT the motion
on special education grants be added as new item 9 on the Committee of the Whole (Budget) agenda, and
THAT the multi -part motion be added as new item 10.
Trustee Moen remarked that trustees could take note of tonight's discussions of the three
additional motions as sufficient notice had been given in advance. That is, action this evening at
Committee of the Whole (Budget) would not appear to preclude action at the Special Board meeting.
The amendment was carried.
The agenda, as amended, was approved.
Public Question Period
There were no questions from the public.
4. Delegations:
(a) Autism Society of Ottawa, Susanne Striegler
Susanne Striegler, the representative on the Special Education Advisory Committee for
the Autism Society of Ottawa, recommended that the Board create at least one
intermediate aged, semi integrated system class for high functioning autism/Aspergers
students for September 2006, and an additional high school semi - integrated autism
spectrum disorder (ASD) class.
By way of background, Ms Striegler noted that the rate of autism diagnoses is increasing
rapidly. Elementary autistic children are, for the most part, served well in their home
schools with the support of educational assistants (EA). Children with autism do not
cope well with change, however, and the transition to intermediate and secondary schools
with rotary systems, revolving timetables, etc., tends to lead to inappropriate behaviour
when the necessary supports are not in place.
The Society recommends that the proposed intermediate class be designed to gradually
introduce the students to the changes in intermediate and high school. This would not be
a permanent placement. The high school class would be to address the waiting list and
ensure a successful transition to secondary school.
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 2 - 5 July 2006
In response to a trustee query about how these classes would be paid for given the
Board's financial position, Ms Striegler stated that although she had no advice, she was
sure it would be less costly to have an educational assistant serving ten students in
accordance with a plan, rather than one or two on an emergency basis mid -year. She also
noted that because they cannot cope with the changes, many of the autistic students leave
the OCDSB when they reach intermediate or secondary school. Those who leave may go
to the Royal Ottawa Hospital or other boards, choose to be home - schooled or drop out.
(b) Canterbury High School Council, Judy Murray(Chair) and Cynthia Pohran (Vice- Chair)
Speaking as an advocate for the fine arts program at Canterbury High School and
students from across the district, Judy Murray asked that the Board support fully the
system programs it offers. In the case of the Canterbury arts program, it has been
sustained and subsidized by parents and the community with contributions about $1
million over the last few years, supplemented by school - generated funds (SGF), and
many hours of volunteer work.
Ms Murray drew attention to one of the documents distributed before the meeting, which
shows that each zone in the Board's jurisdiction is well- represented by students attending
the arts program at Canterbury High School. She spoke of the Board's vision statement
and pointed out that Canterbury is an example of education excellence and a school of
choice, and asked trustees to think about resuming the full funding of system programs
including, at a minimum, the current transportation to Canterbury.
The Chair noted that the Council would receive an answer during the budget debate in
August. During questions, Ms Murray pointed out that the arts program at Canterbury
was established over 20 years ago, and that although new programs (e.g. house builders)
are fully funded by the Board, the arts program has been maintained through community
and parental support. Parents are "running out of steam" and would appreciate a return to
full funding.
In response to queries, Ms Murray advised that although she does not have numbers, the
program attracts students from the Catholic Board, private schools, and from school
boards outside Ottawa. She confirmed that if the Board restores funding, the "upgrade
charge" will disappear.
(c) Hilson Avenue Public School Council, Paul Badertscher /Dorothy Harrison
Paul Badertscher pointed out that the graduation of a particularly large grade 6 class is
the main factor behind a projected 14% decline in enrolment at Hilson Avenue Public
School. The cost of a 14% enrolment decline is the loss of almost 25% of the school's
teachers (2.5 of 12 positions), 50 % of its educational assistants (2 of 4 positions) and
33.3% of its office positions (0.5 of 1.5 positions). The reductions will make it difficult
to attract students.
Despite the loss of staff, the number in special education classes remains about the same
at approximately 30 students, and Hilson is one of the only schools in the Board with
three system classes, and the need to support these children has not diminished.
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 3 - 5 July 2006
Mr. Badertscher noted that the primary classes at Hilson Avenue Public School are all
projected to be over 20.
The members of the Hilson School Council believe that the composition of the school
population should be taken into account when deciding staff reductions, not just enrol-
ment numbers. For safety reasons, the reduction in office staff is of particular concern,
especially in light of a recent series of incidents. The Council asks that the Board
reconsider the reductions and at a minimum, reinstate the 0.5 office assistant position.
In Camera Session
During an in camera session from 7:55 to 8:30, trustees received an update on a meeting between
OCDSB officials (Chair, Vice - Chair, Director, and Chief Financial Officer) and the Minister of Education
and Ministry staff. The meeting was cordial, but no commitments were made regarding additional funding.
Trustees were also briefed on staffing issues vis -a -vis the 2006 -2007 budget.
6. Staff Presentation - Overview of 2006 -2007 Budget
Your Committee had before it for information staff report 06 -172, providing preliminary
background information on the 2006 -2007 budget situation. Using overhead projection, Superintendent
Clarke gave an overview of the 2006 -2007 budget, noting that funding had not increased as much as staff
had hoped. At the meeting with the Ministry, (item 5 above) the Board's budget concerns were conveyed
to the Ministry.
In reviewing the expenditure budget, Superintendent Clarke pointed out that there is a funding
shortfall of $32.2 million. One -time funds for 2006 -2007 will reduce the net shortfall to $21 million for
the coming year only. Permanent reductions in expenditures to replace the one -time funding will have to
be made in 2007 -2008. Almost the entire shortage is from the instruction envelope.
The declining enrolment grant will be considerably less than projected in April. School boards
across Ontario assumed that the grant would continue using the same calculations. The previous method
will not be continued, and rather than the anticipated $10 million declining enrolment grant, the OCDSB's
grant has been reduced to $3.1 million, creating a shortage of almost $7 million in 2006 -2007 operating
funds.
Superintendent Clarke noted that the special education grant is $1.4 million less than expected.
The special education grants will now be based on average daily enrolment (ADE) with no link to the
number of special education students or the level of service. The new grants assume that the number of
special education students will change in proportion with overall changes in enrolment. He remarked that
this is not encouraging news given that the OCDSB tends to draw a larger than usual number of students
with higher cost special needs.
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 4 - 5 July 2006
In reviewing the summary of grant and non -grant revenues, Superintendent Clarke pointed out
that the foundation grant of $315.0 million has been divided into two parts, the Pupil Foundation Grant
and the School Foundation Grant. There appears to be a large increase in the total amount, but with other
grants included with the foundation grants, the net change is a $1.7 million increase. The folding -in of
other grants applies to most apparent grant increases. In all, operating grant revenues are down from
projections by $2.6 million.
He also noted that facilities renewal grants are down from the projected $12.3 to $11.8 million
($0.5 million).
In order to reduce the projected budget shortfall, staff plan to recommend the use of $6 million in
operating reserves and the projected $2.3 million surplus for 2005 -2006. If this is done, there will be no
reserves to fall back on next year.
The surplus exists because the 2004 -2005 ISA clawback was returned to the Board.
Unfortunately the 2006 -2007 base will be reduced by an equivalent amount.
The shortfall for elementary and secondary, administrative, teaching and office staff salary and
benefits amounts to $36.3 million. The great bulk of this is for elementary teachers ($13.8 million) and
secondary teachers ($11.9 million).
The underfunding of English as a second language (ESL) has been emphasized to the Ministry by
many school boards over the years, but there have been no improvements.
Superintendent Clarke remarked that, given the Board's funding shortfall and need to make major
reductions, there would be no point in reviewing the list of potential new initiatives.
During questions, the following points were noted:
The grid for teacher salaries is comparable to others across the province, except that it is
somewhat higher at the entry level due to market conditions and local factors in the past. By
level A4, the OCDSB salaries are in line with those across Ontario. The Ministry bases its
grants on the provincial averages on grid, not the actual OCDSB grids, so due to its higher
salaries at the entry level, the Board's grants do not cover its expenses.
• The rise in instruction costs is out of sync with declining enrolment because salaries have
risen faster than the decline, i.e., the rate of decline is about 1% (with teacher staffing
numbers in line with this), but the increase in salaries and benefits is rising at about 4 %.
Superintendent Clarke also described the three major kinds of expenditures in the Board's
operating budget, viz:
(a) Fixed
Fixed expenditures are those which the Board is locked into and cannot change due to
legislation, regulations or contracts.
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 5 - 5 July 2006
The fixed expenditures include:
• Classroom teachers (including class size and preparation time), fixed at
$278 million,
• Special education teachers, where there is discretion about the number of teachers,
but any change would have to have been made by March 2006. This is therefore
locked in at $48.9 million,
• School foundation staff,
• Other teachers, including English as a second language (ESL) teachers,
• Occasional teachers because sick leave and compassionate leave are fixed,
• Transportation contracts, where any reductions would have to have been made
earlier,
• Phones, wide area network (WAN), etc,
• Facilities Renewal Plan
• Software licenses,
• Health and safety, and
• Insurance premiums.
Superintendent Clarke pointed out that the late release of the grants had tied the Board's
hands with regard to many of these expenditures.
(b) Committed
Committed expenditures are those which the Board is not locked into, but which are still
necessary. Among the committed expenditures are:
• Facilities staff (when changes were attempted in the past, there was dissatisfaction
with the service),
• Educational Assistants (EA) and Professional Student Services Personnel (PSSP),
$22.3 million. When this amount is added to the expenditure for special education
teachers, it makes up the special education budget,
• School support staff,
• Maintenance (ranging from mechanical repair and snow clearing to building repair),
• Computer equipment in schools, and
• Printing.
(c) Variable
Superintendent Clarke noted that although variable costs totalling $45.2 million are not
fixed or committed, this does not mean that the Board could cut all these items, e.g., payroll.
He emphasized that the Board cannot find all its reductions in this area, and that some of the
reductions needed to achieve a balanced budget will have to come from instruction.
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 6 - 5 July 2006
Superintendent Clarke remarked that there is a gray area between committed and variable,
but at some point, the Board will have to look at materiality. The proposed reductions
will be included in the staff - recommended budget, which staff plan to send out on
Tuesday, 8 August 2006 in preparation for the budget meeting on 15 August.
Some of the variable areas are:
• Central administration,
• Continuing education,
• Special education expenditures which exceed the envelope,
• Drug and alcohol dependency counselling, and
• Professional development and non - regulated workshops.
Superintendent Clarke stated that the reductions will be very difficult for all involved, but staff
must, by law, recommend a balanced budget.
In response to a query about the inclusion of several special education items in the variable list,
Superintendent Clarke advised that staff had produced the breakdown of fixed, committed and variable
items at the request of trustees. The special education items in the variable category exceed the envelope,
but will not necessarily be recommended for reduction.
At the request of Trustee Moen, folio 13 will be re- issued (correction to second last line).
In response to other queries, Superintendent Clarke confirmed that a reduction in the continuing
education staff would mean a reduction in revenue, and advised that school foundation staff are part of the
Ministry's formula for school staffing. Changes can be made in school office staffing, but some level of
office staff is needed to keep the schools open.
Staff confirmed that there is no way to break the transportation contracts now in place. Superin-
tendent Carson advised that the bulk of the transportation contracts are in place for next year.
With respect to the actual expenditures for variables, Superintendent Clarke advised that, as usual,
the forecast indicates that these expenditures will be close to budget. The actuals will not be known until
November.
In response to a query, Superintendent Clarke confirmed that not all of the reductions can come
from the variables, and some will have to come from the committed area. He noted that variable does not
mean expendable: the Board cannot operate without many of these functions /positions. These items are
variable because they provide the most immediate ability to change if that is what the Board chooses to do.
7. Overview of Budget Proposals
Superintendent Clarke reiterated that in view of the Board's financial position, there is no point in
reviewing the list of potential new initiatives, and stated that staff will not be including any proposed
additions in the staff - recommended budget.
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 7 - 5 July 2006
Establishment of Board Priorities
During a discussion of establishing Board priorities for the 2006 -2007 budget, the following
points were noted:
• The Board must look at areas of overspending, e.g., trustees knew that special education
funding was going to change, but did not learn that the Intensive Support Amount (ISA) grant
would be discontinued until June 2006,
• Staff advised that the increase in Facilities staff was due in part to the number of new schools.
Staff will issue a new analysis of the increase (reference folio 9), and
• A greater breakdown on the increase in staffing costs was requested.
With regard to special education funding, Superintendent Clarke remarked that it was understood
in March 2006 that provincial special education spending would be frozen, but it came as a shock in June
when it was learned there would be no change to this policy. The new approach to special education fund-
ing, and the Ministry's firm stance, will be in the background governing the Board's budget decisions in
2006 -2007 and 2007 -2008
Several trustees made strong statements about the need for strategic and multi -year planning. It
was suggested that given the funding shortfall, any new initiatives should be based on priorities which
enable the Board to deal with changes in funding and enrolment, i.e., strategic planning and
implementation of the first year of the special education review recommendations.
Superintendent Jeudy -Hugo noted that trustees would be carrying out multi -year planning in
tandem with staffs own initiative in this area. She suggested that an indication of trustees' multi -year
priorities would be helpful.
In response to queries, Superintendent Clarke confirmed that the only areas of the budget where
reductions can be made are in the committed and variable categories. The $478.0 million in fixed
expenditures cannot be touched. Areas proposed for reduction will be included in the staff - recommended
budget.
The Chair thanked Superintendent Clarke for his clear review of the various budgetary issues.
9. Analysis of Transportation Costs, Trustee Spice
Notice having been given, Trustee Spice moved as follows:
WHEREAS Section 234 (2) of the Education Act (page 144 of 2006 Edition) requires that regula-
tions governing education funding shall "operate in a fair and non - discriminatory manner, (a) as
between English - language public boards and English - language Roman Catholic boards... ",
WHEREAS data compiled about two years ago by the Ministry of Education show that the
Ottawa - Carleton District School Board (OCDSB) and its coterminous Ottawa - Carleton Catholic
School Board (OCCSB) have equivalent needs for student transportation, based on objective
factors such as home -to- school distances, geographic distribution, local topography, etc.,
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 8 - 5 July 2006
WHEREAS Ministry staff and local MPPs have recently questioned this equivalency apparently
based on an assumption that the OCDSB's transportation costs may be higher partly because the
OCDSB offers a greater degree of program choice than the OCCSB and a program delivery
model for special education that is more focused on integration than specialized classes,*
WHEREAS without taking this recently mentioned factor (e.g. greater choice and specialized
classes) into account, the OCDSB has calculated that the OCDSB would require an additional
$7 million in funding to provide the same level of service as is provided by the OCCSB (reference
OCDSB presentation to the Eastern Ontario Liberal Caucus, 28 April 2006), and
WHEREAS it is important that the OCDSB can provide a well founded estimate of its
transportation costs vis -a -vis the OCCSB,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT staff provide an analysis of the transportation costs associated with program choice and
specialized classes.
Trustee Spice stated that she is interested in determining the actual transportation funding gap by
learning how much of the $7 million required to provide the same level of service as the OCCSB is due to
the OCDSB's greater level of program choice and special education program delivery model. In response
to Superintendent Carson's advice that these factors are part of the Board's transportation costs, Trustee
Spice stated that she does not believe these two differences are responsible for the entire gap.
Trustee Spice recalled that the Minister had stated that she does not wish to have parents choosing
school boards because of transportation. She pointed out that the OCDSB's case will be stronger with this
information in hand if the Board raises the issue with the Minister in the fall.
An amendment by Trustee Moen, to change specialized classes to special education placements in
the motion itself was accepted as friendly.
Superintendent Clarke confirmed that the motion would have no impact on the 2006 -2007 budget.
Two trustees indicated that they did not support the motion because it was not directly budget -
related. Other trustees felt that the motion should be referred, or that the information should be provided
to the appropriate committee in the fall.
Several trustees felt that it would be useful to have the information so that further action could be
pursued in the fall. The information is necessary because the Board has been promised every year that the
formula would be placed on a fair basis. The province back - tracked on its fair formula one year ago due
to protests from those boards which would lose funding under the new formula. The new formula would
not have increased the Board's transportation funding, but it would have been fair.
Lamar Mason reported that this was the first time she had heard of the Minister and local MPPs
questioning the Board's case, and stressed that it is important to get the information together and pursue
the missing funds.
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 9 - 5 July 2006
In response to a query, Superintendent Carson advised that staff are assembling some of this
information as time permits. He suggested that as summer is one of the Transportation division's busiest
times, the report be scheduled for the October or November Business Services Committee (or its
replacement).
The motion was carried, and it was noted that because this will have no effect on the 2006 -2007
budget, a staff report will be submitted to the appropriate committee in the fall of 2006.
On a motion by Trustee Spice, therefore, your Committee recommends:
WHEREAS data compiled about two years ago by the Ministry of Education show that the
Ottawa - Carleton District School Board ( OCDSB) and its coterminous Ottawa - Carleton Catholic
School Board ( OCCSB) have equivalent needs for student transportation, based on objective
factors such as home -to- school distances, geographic distribution, local topography, etc.,
WHEREAS Ministry staff and local MPPs have recently questioned this equivalency apparently
based on an assumption that the OCDSB's transportation costs may be higher partly because the
OCDSB offers a greater degree of program choice than the OCCSB and a program delivery
model for special education that is more focused on integration than specialized classes,*
WHEREAS without taking this recently mentioned factor (e.g. greater choice and specialized
classes) into account, the OCDSB has calculated that the OCDSB would require an additional
$7 million in funding to provide the same level of service as is provided by the OCCSB (reference
OCDSB presentation to the Eastern Ontario Liberal Caucus, 28 April 2006), and
WHEREAS it is important that the OCDSB can provide a well founded estimate of its
transportation costs vis -a -vis the OCCSB,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
THAT STAFF PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSPORTATION COSTS
ASSOCIATED WITH PROGRAM CHOICE AND SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENTS.
*Trustee Spice will be correcting this to "... more focused on specialized classes than integration,"
10. Special Education Grants, Trustee Moen
Notice having been given, Trustee Moen moved as follows:
THAT staff be directed to provide by 22 July 2006, a written report giving a complete accounting
of all the grants for Special Education that changed under the Net New Needs calculation and for
any other reason for the 2005 -2006 school year, and any further change in Special Education
Grants for the 2006 -2007 year, and THAT this report itemize the amount gained or lost for each
different reason, and where a change was different from a normal year to year fluctuation,
provide an explanation for the difference, including the number of students that drives the change.
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 10 - 5 July 2006
In response to comments that the report would have no value because the grant structure has
changed, Trustee Moen pointed out that the net new needs calculations are based on the previous year's
experience. Referring to an apparent discrepancy in the loss of grants due to students leaving the system,
he stated that if previous data were incorrect, then a case could be made to the Ministry for an adjustment.
The question the 22 July due date was not addressed, but it was understood that the report and
recommendations would not be going to the Board until the end of August. In response to questions, staff
made it clear that the motion would not have any effect on the 2006 -2007 budget, and that perhaps the
report should be submitted to the appropriate committee in the fall.
The motion was carried.
Note: The staff report was subsequently provided to trustees as indicated in the motion.
11. Adjournment
A two - thirds majority was not obtained to continue the meeting past 10:30 pm, and the meeting
adjourned at 10:31 pm.
Jim Libbey, Acting Chair
Committee of the Whole (Budget)
BLC /cb
Budget_060705.doc
Committee of the Whole (Budget) - 11 - 5 July 2006