CUSD lays out $2.5 million in school budget cuts

Breaking news

Posted by
Thu, February 25, 2010


The Cabrillo Unified School District will cut the high school’s counselors and librarian, all athletics funding, and all class-size reduction if the proposed parcel tax does not pass.

The CUSD board voted to accept superintendent Rob Gaskill’s proposed cuts from the district’s budget, designed close the district’s forecast budget deficit for 2010-11 school year, at an increasingly emotional meeting in the Cunha Intermediate School library.

The district forecasts a $2.5 million budget shortfall if its proposed five-year $150/year parcel tax does not pass, and $1.0 million if the tax passes. Superintendent Gaskill also noted that the cuts were reduced by a one-time federal stimulus payment of $545,000 and that this money will have to be made up in the 2011-12 school year.

Superintendent Gaskill said that his proposed cuts were informed by his past experience as a high school principal during budget cuts in 1992, and that his priorities were protecting the classroom and maintaining safety.  All cuts in the first $1 million would come from administration. The next $1.5 million would cut the high school’s counselors, librarians, athletics funding, and class-size reduction.

Some cuts that were on an earlier list were not on the final version: closing Kings Mountain School, eliminating literacy coaches in the elementary schools, and eliminating all regular ed busing.

Many parents and teachers came to speak in favor of athletic programs, counseling, and the high school librarian—all of which will be cut if the parcel tax fails, but which will be saved if the tax passes. Board president Dwight Wilson reminded the speakers that they might want to work to pass the parcel tax.

In the list of proposed cuts, those items at the top of the list would be cut first. Those at the bottom of the list would be cut last and would be reinstated first if additional money or savings are found. In other words, the district’s highest priority items are at the bottom of the list.

Proposed cut (first cut, last reinstated) Parcel Tax fails Parcel tax passes
Increase current rates charged for facility use to non-school groups by 50% $35,000 $35,000
Staff-to-Ratio in Special Services, cut 3.0 FTE’s $199,800 $199,800
Cut eight additional hours of District classified positions $72,852 $72,852
Cut transportation administrative position $40,972 $40,972
Cut BTSA Coordinator position (new teacher training) $37,000 $37,000
Cut one addl Senior District Adminstrative position (attrition) $129,363 $129,363
Use one-time federal stimulus dollars as temporary backfill $545,000 $545,000
Reduce HMBHS Registrar from 12 to 11 months $4,200
Reconfigure Pilarcitos/Adult Education Secretary position $4,754
Reduce Repo Depo position to .5 FTE $32,600
Reduce Custodial workforce by 1.0 FTE $60,600
Cut 1.0 Groundskeeper position $67,300
Cut balance of School Clerk positions $106,460
Cut High School Librarian position and replace with Library Tech $44,199
Cut all remaining contributions to athletic programs $90,275
Reduce Class Size Reduction by 50% $302,254
Cut remainder of Class Size Reduction $332,790
Reduce counseling positions by 1.0 FTE in High School and 1.0 FTE in Middle School $101,216
Cut remainder of school Counseling positions $318,972
Total cuts $2,525,607 $1,059,987

 


Comment 1
Thu, February 25, 2010 9:30pm
Carl May
All my comments

Ah, yes, the board’s usual CUSD parcel tax campaign threat. Predictable.

Comment 2
Fri, February 26, 2010 6:22pm
Barry Parr
All my comments

This is not like the phony-baloney threat we got from Half Moon Bay in their effort to pass AB1991.

I’m no fan of the board, but they’re up against it right now.  A longer list of reductions considered by the administration can be found here:

https://coastsider.com/index.php/site/news/cusd_will_seek_150_parcel_tax/

“...This is not like the phony-baloney threat we got from Half Moon Bay in their effort to pass AB1991…”

Oh, you mean that bill AB 1991 involving development of new subdivisions (i.e., Beachwood &  Glencree) which had nothing to do with the school board’s mission, but which the pro-development school board went out of their way to endorse anyway?

Comment 4
Fri, February 26, 2010 7:52pm
Barry Parr
All my comments

Yeah, that AB1991. Are you suggesting voting against the parcel tax because the school board endorsed AB1991?

No, I’m not suggesting that.