School officials try to plan for cuts amid uncertainty - News

PRINT THIS Popular

Jan. 08, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

School officials try to plan for cuts amid uncertainty

By LISA KIM BACH
REVIEW-JOURNAL

The only thing Clark County School District Superintendent Walt Rulffes knows with any certainty is that statewide education cuts totaling $96 million are coming -- soon.

He doesn't know what they'll be.

Most Popular Stories

Three suspects arrested in shooting death of police officer

FATAL SHOOTING: Police again mourn comrade

NORM: Biden finds rank has its privileges

NORM: Walton: Coach deserved a punch

Two of three suspects in slaying of officer could face death penalty

DEADLY HOME INVASION: Police suspect link to family

Station Casinos posts $455 million third-quarter loss

Las Vegas police shoot at man fleeing after traffic stop

NORM: 'Girls Gone Wild' creator feels heat

UNLV sacks football coach Sanford

He's also not clear on what's legally allowed.

State budget officials are looking at reducing one-time funding earmarked for full-day kindergarten and remediation. One legislator now is saying that money can't be used for any other purpose because it's restricted from returning to the state's general fund.

"There's not a lot of definite direction," said Rulffes, who is at the helm of the nation's fifth-largest public school system. "The $96 million is all we're sure of."

That's how much needs to be absorbed by K-12 education as Gov. Jim Gibbons tries to offset a shortfall in Nevada tax revenues by reducing state spending. Gibbons' decision to include public schools in the 4.5 percent budget reductions over the 2007-09 biennium came in December after he had said schools would be exempt from the cuts.

At a Monday meeting of the Clark County School Board, board members and budget personnel outlined a broad strategy for approaching the state cuts.

Focus on reducing "one-shot funding" and keep the ax away from per-pupil spending, finance administrators advised.

Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, told board members that she did not think any cuts were necessary.

"We don't have to do this," she said. "We have a rainy day fund. We created a rainy day fund just for this purpose."

Instead of taking a slice out of education, Gibbons should withdraw the $96 million from the state's rainy day fund, which has about $267 million, Buckley said.

Gibbons already has proposed using $126 million of the fund to make up the shortfall in expected tax revenues.

"Our schools simply cannot take the hits that the governor is proposing," said Buckley, who noted that Nevada ranks 46th in the nation in per-pupil funding.

In the 2007 session, legislators appropriated $55.2 million for new or expanded education programs statewide for 2007-09.

The 4.5 percent cut proposed by Gibbons not only wipes out the 3.27 percent increase in education funding passed during the session, it also cuts into the existing programs, Buckley said.

She told School Board members that millions of dollars allocated to full-day kindergarten and empowerment schools are protected from being used for any other purpose.

That's not the message District Chief Financial Officer Jeff Weiler got when he met with Gibbons' staff in Carson City on Monday afternoon, Rulffes said. Weiler was told that the one-shot money could be counted toward the cuts.

State officials recognize the money would remain in trust, Rulffes said, but at that point, they could return to the Legislature and ask to have the money revert to the state's general budget.

But there's no guarantee the Legislature would allow that, Rulffes said. The situation is only serving to muddy the waters.

"That's one of our big questions," Rulffes said. "Is the governor going to declare that the one-shots will be reduced?"

Rulffes also said the state is asking the district to identify specific cuts this week, something that is not going to be possible.

Rulffes said the issue requires board input and public feedback. Also, many of the rural districts do not have school board meetings scheduled until February.

He had hoped that Clark County would be allowed to count $66.6 million saved because of projected enrollment declines toward the cuts, but Weiler had no success in carrying that message to Carson City.

The governor's budget staff had factored that savings into the budget picture before arriving at the need for 4.5 percent reductions.

School Board member Carolyn Edwards was angered by the fact that although the district has returned $391 million in general funds to the state since 2001, none of that was taken into account when the time came to cut.

Instead of returning such dollars to the state general fund in the future, a special account should be created, Edwards said. The reversion funds then should be held in trust for budget shortfalls like this, Edwards said.

"The Education First governor is putting Nevada at the bottom," Edwards said.

While the district might not know what is going to happen at the state level, officials know what they don't want to see happen.

The cost-of-living raises that are planned for school employees aren't on the table, Rulffes said. State Superintendent of Schools Keith Rheault said that money is negotiable, but Rulffes said he is not interested in reducing teacher salaries.

District employee groups already have gotten a 2 percent raise worth more than $29 million. Next year's cost of living increase is scheduled at 4 percent, which Rulffes said amounts to more than $50 million for district employees.

"Our intent is to protect cost-of-living increases for teachers who are already underpaid," Rulffes said.

Rulffes also wants to protect per-pupil funding.

This year, the district's per-pupil funding is at $4,891. Without reductions, it's expected to be at $5,051 in 2008-09. If cuts are made to that allocation, the effect carries over in every subsequent year, Rulffes said.

School Board members were told that cuts to per-pupil spending could snowball into a loss of $302.6 million by 2011.

Contact reporter Lisa Kim Bach at lbach@reviewjournal.com or (702) 383-0287.

Share & Save

Leave Your Comment	11 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Please enter your name Name: Please enter your email Email: Please enter a comment COMMENTS : (word count limit is 300) You have reached the maximum number of words allowed Current Word Count: Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background. Kim Galliher wrote on January 08, 2008 02:18 PM: Heaven forbid a government agency work within their budget! Instead of taking money away from the school children and their sparse programs why not take the money from other areas. If schools were built bigger (as opposed to more of them) you would cut down on land, construction and administrative costs-which would save millions of dollars. Making the budget effective instead of just cutting spending is the key. It is a crying shame that cutting an already inept educational budget is the best idea they could come up with. James H. wrote on January 08, 2008 01:31 PM: Our beloved CCSD cuts back on everything except hiring child molesters who migrate to the "Vegas Track" to get their groove on with kids BECAUSE CCSD DOESNT SCREEN THEM! A district should never be too desperate to not screen out the weenie-wackers. CCSD is a joke. Dave L wrote on January 08, 2008 12:16 PM: For Publius; Ask and it will be answered! Here are the budgets! ccsdbudgetpage ...and here are the Accountability Reports. I wonder how many fiscal cost containment items outlined in the included 'MGT Audit Presentation' have been initiated/completed? ccsdaccountabilityreports Publius wrote on January 08, 2008 11:27 AM: Aside from some of the other poignant comments already made, I still fail to see how a smaller budget INCREASE can be (mis)characterized as a cut. The only additional money that needs to be spent at this point is in the hiring of a respected, out-of-state, politically inactie accounting firm to provide we the people of Nevada with a full and accurate accounting of every dollar spent in the bloated education budget. If CCSD and the other counties' school administrators clearly have the best interests of the students at heart, they will welcome the additional sunshine on their outstanding fiscal practices. So should the legislature. I have the sneaky suspicion that there is adequate funding to do a lot more than is being done with our education dollars. Let our school administrators proudly assuage this suspicion! John O'Neill wrote on January 08, 2008 10:21 AM: Another thing; If a developer wants to build a new area, they must build a new school for each grade level no matter how small and fund its operation and start up costs for the first 10 years. Ahhh, the sweet sound of growth control will ensue... John O'Neill wrote on January 08, 2008 10:15 AM: With all due respect to the previous commentators, YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT! ILLEGAL IMIGRATION IS THE CAUSE! End illegal immigration and you end the need for constantly expanding education budgets. The CCSD and the state should be suing the FEDS in court to recover costs associated with the failure to protect our borders! Say thank you to the corporate communists BUSH and friends, and extreme leftist on the democratic side. Oh conservatism, where art thou? Brendan Perez wrote on January 08, 2008 09:33 AM: Maybe the school district should have stood up at the 2007 legislature and argued AGAINST raising the compulsory attendance age from 17 to 18. Did the CCSD factor in how much that might cost? We all have to deal with budget shortfalls in our lives, the school district should have to as well. Besides, aren't they always telling us that the reason that some schools ban jeans or non-solid color is to prepare students for th real world? Well, here's another lesson-sometimes you have to make cuts in spending to survive. How the state ranks in per-pupil spending is irrelevant. Areas like DC that are near the top have terrible performance records while states like UT near the bottom financially are always at the top academically. If the #1 state paid $10,000 per student, the #2 $9,999; the #3 $9,998 and so on, the education industry would still be crying for more money due to our status at #46-$9,955 in my example. Enough is enough. If things keep going this way, we seriously need to look at ending public education in favor of something more efficient, less wasteful, and more flexible to change. Dave L wrote on January 08, 2008 08:20 AM: When will the lying by the School District end?! Seriously, when? The article reports; "This year, the district's per-pupil funding is at $4,891." However, the District's own website reports per pupil expenditure at $6,827, or, 40 percent MORE than they claim in today's article. Secondly, Clark County's School District (CCSD) received an increase in State funding of more than 17 percent this fiscal year. Too, CCSD had a $35m unreserved ending fund balance that was carried into fy 2007-2008 school year Conclusion? If they will lie about facts that are easily disputed by their own published data, can we trust anythinhg Superindedent Rulffes and the School Board says as the real truth? No. They are turning the budget issue into one of credibility and in losing on truth, they will lose the support of the public...well, if the R-J will publish the real facts. ccsdfastfacts BR wrote on January 08, 2008 08:01 AM: Move Ruffles, the big edurat, and all his little edurats out of their palace over on Sahara. Sell the place and replace it with some of those free FEMA trailers left over from Katrina. Lawrence Hyde wrote on January 08, 2008 07:39 AM: Cutting school costs shouldn't be that hard. Stop giving cars to everyone above the rank of teacher. Cut about two thirds of the administration, cut all the assistants and other non necessary people in sports, (have a coach and no more) and then stop building castles for kids and build schools Read All Comments