Reviewing and Analyzing Huffman ISD's M&O Fund

 Reviewing and Analyzing District Maintenance & Operations Fund

Total revenues:                                $21,336,637  (12,603,473 state; 8,563,164 local; 170,000 federal)

Some of the expenditures include:

11 (Instruction)                             $11,715,012            54%

12 (Instruction resources)                 313,638             02%
13 (Curr and Staff Devel)                   398,175             02%
23 (School Leadership)                    1,166,831            06%
36 (Extra/Co Curricular)                      607,672            03%
34 (Transportation)                              982,703           05%
41 (Central Admin)                               978,201           05%
51 (Plant M & O)                                2,492,911           12%
93 (elect co-op)                                  1,030,000           05%

Fund Balance:   $6,737,146

WADA                                   3,856  (unweighted ADA 3005.00)

Rev per WADA                  $5,298.146

Rev @ Comp Rate            $20,432,047
Found School Grant        $  1,015,855

(Note:   w/o weighted ADA:       $15,920,928)

Huffman ISD is a 3A school with approximately 3,100 students.  We are unincorporated and have little business support as a source of revenue.  Most local revenue is derived from homeowners.  We have one Title 1 campus.  Our total revenue for 2010-2011 was $21,336,637 and is comprised of: 

  $8,563,164        local

                        $12,336,637        state
                             $170,000        federal

As is the case with all school districts, the majority of our revenue is expended in function 11, Instruction (54% to be exact), and includes most of the district teacher positions.  The next major expenditure is function 51, Plant Maintenance and Operations (17%).  I don’t think we are much different than most other districts with this breakdown.   Transportation comprises about 5%.  Functions 41 (Central Administration) and 23 (School Leadership) comprise 11%, which accounts for campus and central office administrator salaries as well as office staff payroll.  Clearly, district personnel expenses comprise the majority of the budget.

I’m interested in the remaining funds and how they are expended.  These funds reflect a budget that clearly supports our district goals.  We place a strong emphasis on continuing professional development and on providing our teachers and students with the materials needed to support our new curriculum programs.  Adequate funding is allocated to do so, 4% to be exact.  Our goals also strongly emphasize student involvement –our budget supports extra/co-curricular programs by allocating 3% of the revenue for this (this includes the athletic budget as well).

Having been involved in the budget planning for the past 8 years, I have experienced a process that works to create a budget that supports the goals and instructional needs of the district.  We have open communication and involve many stakeholders as we hammer a budget out.  Our Board insists on a balanced budget, and they expect the budget to reflect the goals and the needs – and each year the budget is developed to do just that.

It’s interesting to note what the difference in our revenue would be without WADA; the weighted ADA gives us an additional 850 students!  If we didn’t have weighted ADA and were allocated the same per student revenue, we would receive $5,415,709 less than when the ADA is weighted.  To a district our size, this is a significant amount – a 25% difference!  This shows how critical it is for districts to ensure correct PEIMS reporting.  It also tells me how critical it is for our district to keep/increase our attendance numbers and to make sure our PEIMS data reflects our district and high school programs (CTE).