LINN — Linn R-2 Superintendent Bob James told board members at their Nov. 20 meeting that he is already planning for a move to the minimum base salary next year to $41,200, which would include …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your member account, or purchase a new membership.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for becoming a member.
Please log in to continue |
|
LINN — Linn R-2 Superintendent Bob James told board members at their Nov. 20 meeting that he is already planning for a move to the minimum base salary next year to $41,200, which would include a decompression of the salary schedule. “Part of me wants to make that $41,250, just so we can say we’re not shooting for the bottom,” he added.
James explained that the base-salary grant may continue, as he hasn’t heard anything to the contrary. He met with Sen. Ben Brown recently about the district’s concerns.
“He didn’t say it this way, to be fair, the burden that would be placed on small schools, but he did acknowledge that small schools are struggling to make that base salary as a result,” said James. “I think his understanding of that suggests we’re going to have some support, at the very least, to consider continuing that base-salary grant at the state level. I don’t think they’re going to want to mandate us and then tell us they’re going to take away the program that helped mitigate the cost. The bad news for us is that it places us in last place in terms of salaries and compresses our salary scale.”
Teachers in the district for several years would make the same salary as a brand-new teacher. “It’s paid out a little bit differently because of how we lump base salary, but that’s not a message I want to give to our mid-career teachers — that we’re not going to pay you for your experience,” said James.
A $41,200 base salary for next year and a 3% increase every year after is a focus for R-2. “I think we’re going to make it there, but narrowly, with our operating levy as it is now. Actually, I think we’ll eat into our operating levy for one to two years, at least, before we have a hope. By that time, we’ll be looking at a new state funding formula, so we’ll have to completely re-evaluate them, and I’ll have to get a different crystal ball.”
James added that though he’s known how education funding has worked for probably a decade intimately, he said there’s a difference between knowing and understanding the bind it puts districts in to submit a budget before the school has an assessed valuation right after legislation goes through. “We don’t know what’s going to hit and what’s going to be mandated before a state budget is established,” he said. “The federal budget is established by calendar year, and you really are guessing step one, which will tell you how to guess step two, and step three. If you mess up on step one, it can really put you off course with your budget prediction. So that’s part of the reason that I really try to stay pretty conservative.”
Related concerns include staffing. “We’ve had about 10 students move into the district who qualified for special education,” said James. “We’ll be looking at another Special Education teacher for next year. We’re going to post general positions soon. The fight for good quality staff is starting earlier and earlier, so when I say general positions — Math, Science, English, Social Studies — we’ll probably put a general elementary posting out there to catch anybody that might already be looking for next year.”
James noted the district will likely need an additional Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) teacher, especially since the program is directly tied to pre-K funding. “You have to have a certain number of students qualify for those services, and we have fallen below that for the second year in a row,” he explained. “There are other grants out there I’ll be applying for to take that funding burden off, which would be about equivalent.”
Linn typically receives about $130,000 a year for ECSC. “There is money out there, but we would have to be full to get that much,” said James. “That’s going to be a pressure for us.”
In other business, the superintendent continues to monitor the Formula Task Force, which determines the state funding model. “We are on track with our budget because of our AV balance and a couple of other things,” said James. “I tend to predict conservatively.”
He anticipates the district finishing closer to 40% in reserves by the end of the current fiscal year, but there are concerns in the meantime. “The state approved fully funding the formula, but our November payment was $6,899.41 instead of $7,145, which is fairly typical. They hold back some of your funding, just in case, through the spring. It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to get full funding. It’s just that they’re paying below that right now.”
James added that the Classroom Trust Fund is about $16 million behind for this year.
* Linn R-2’s recent audit by Gerding, Korte & Chitwood CPAs, of Boonville, went very well, as James noted the district’s fund balance of 35.6% as of June 30, 2025, was higher than expected.
James told the board that early budget predictions —prior to the state budget and county assessed valuation — predicted an ending fund balance closer to 31.5%. Conservative expenditure and revenue estimates created a nearly 4% cushion. James said he would continue that approach as he plans for the 2026-27 budget.
“Our goal as a board is a 30% fund balance,” said James, noting the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) requires an adequate balance of 20%. “We’re going to look to hold onto as much of that money as we can in preparation for what I hope is a base salary bump next year.”
Chelsie Miller and the office staff did incredibly well in preparation for the audit, James told the board. “We got a lot of compliments from the accounting firm,” he added.
As previously reported, the audit was completed in a single day without issue and/or additional fees beyond the base charge. Improvements to accounting practices have resulted in a 32.6% lower cost for the annual audit compared to the last three years. The average cost for fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022 was $15,492 versus an average of $11,656 for fiscal years 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026.
“We’ve saved about 35% of the cost of our budgets, just because we don’t really get charged much of anything outside of the base cost,” said James. “So, we’re essentially charged based on what we paid for before. We’re kind of getting this year for free as far as the average, just in terms of the efficiency, and that doesn’t even include the increased cost of the audit. Even with that, we’re still about 32% to 33% better.”
Auditors recommended alternate coding procedures for bond-related expenses that would route revenues and expenditures more accurately and efficiently.
Additionally, Linn R-2’s successful accounting practices and efficient audit processing resulted in the district being given the opportunity to select audit dates. “Typically, this is only given to customers who have a proven track record of smooth audits and a low expectation of significant findings,” said James. “This is a big win for our board office staff!”
“It doesn’t get much better than a clean audit with no findings,” said Board President Dr. Shawn Strong. “Congratulations.”
* The district’s Missouri United School Insurance Council (MUSIC) rate went up 28% and that’s a combination of two things. “We’re building all this nice new stuff, and that costs more,” said James. “They had a base increase of 4% and our new facilities and locally increased valuation resulted in a $28,000 increase.”
* James noted that moving to the four-day week did not reduce teacher leave at all.
“If you just use your leave, it’s gonna jump up,” he said. “Of course, we give it to them, so we want them to use it, but we’re also constantly short on subs, and covering and combining classes. We did an analysis of the four-day week versus the five-day week. Employees take more leave now than they did then. Part of that is because you have the same amount of leave days, but it doesn’t seem to be helping that we have Mondays for appointments and things like that. I think something that I’ve heard very common is, ‘Well, my doctor is not available on Monday, or my dentist isn’t available on Monday,’ so the net result is that staff attendance is worse than it was on Fridays.”
Board members agreed that further consideration is necessary.
Remaining business will be presented next week.