Pupil Transportation Finance Study Report

Transcription

COMMISSIONER:
CHRISTINE JAX, Ph.D.
PUPIL
TRANSPORTATION
FINANCE
Report to the
Legislature
As required by
Laws of Minneso ta,
2001
First Special Session
Chapter 6, Article 1,
Section 51
March 2002
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Tom Melcher
Manager, Program Finance Division
Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning
T: (651) 582-8828
FAX: (651) 582-8878
E-MAIL: tom.melc her@state.mn.us
Roseville, MN 55113-4266
TTY: (800) 627-3529 OR (651) 582-8201
Upon request, this report can be made available in alternative formats.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... i
Study Process.................................................................................................................................... i
FY 2000 Pupils Transported, Costs, Mileage, and Vehicles ...........................................................ii
Analysis of FY 2000 Transportation Data......................................................................................iii
Transportation Funding and Costs, FY 1996 – FY 2003 ................................................................ v
Transportation Funding – Equity Issues ........................................................................................vii
Transportation Funding Options ..................................................................................................... ix
Nonpublic and Charter School Costs vs. Funding........................................................................ xxi
Public Transportation Options ...................................................................................................... xxi
Recommendations .......................................................................................................................xxii
1. Overview .........................................................................................................................................1
2. 1999-2000 Pupil Transportation Statistics ......................................................................................3
3. Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................10
4. Transportation Funding Overview ................................................................................................20
A. Summary of Funding Formulas: FY 1996 – FY 2003 ...........................................................20
B. State Total Transportation Funding and Costs by Category: FY 1996 – FY 2003 ................24
5. Transportation Funding – Equity Issues ........................................................................................28
A. Transportation Costs vs. Funding by District Category: FY 2000.........................................28
B. Ratio of Costs to Funding – Percentiles..................................................................................30
C. Incentive to Over-Allocate Cost to Disabled Category...........................................................31
D. Inconsistent Funding for Capital Costs of Disabled Transportation
That are Included in Contract/Lease vs. Use of District Vehicles .......................................31
E. Nonpublic and Charter School Costs vs. Funding ..................................................................31
6. Transportation Funding Options ....................................................................................................32
A. Options for Allocating Regular Transportation Funding Based on FY 2000 Data.................32
B. Impact of Replacing the Current Transportation Sparsity Formula for
FY 2003 with Selected Options ...........................................................................................57
C. Categorical vs. General Education Funding............................................................................61
D. State and Local Shares of Transportation Funding .................................................................63
E. Special Transportation Funding Options .................................................................................63
F. Nonpublic and Charter School Costs vs. Funding ..................................................................64
G. Other Transportation Funding Options ...................................................................................64
7. Public Transportation Options .......................................................................................................65
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDIX A: Summary of Public Meetings
Transportation Study – Public Meeting – September 28, 2001.....................................................66
Public Transportation Use in Pupil Transportation Meeting – December 13, 2001 .....................67
Transportation Study – Review Meeting – January 24, 2002 .......................................................69
APPENDIX B: Supplemental Data Collection Form, Definitions, and Comments
1999-00 Pupil Transportation Data Supplemental Data Needed for a
Report to the Legislature (ED-02271-02)...................................................................................70
Definitions .....................................................................................................................................74
Survey Comments .........................................................................................................................76
APPENDIX C: District-by-District Data
Transportation Costs by School District, FY 2000 .......................................................................90
To and From Transportation Data by School District, FY 2000 ...................................................96
Topographic Characteristics by School District ..........................................................................103
Transportation Revenues as a Percent of FY 2000 Transportation Costs...................................109
APPENDIX D: Regression Statistics and Scatterplots for Transportation Funding Options
Option 1 .......................................................................................................................................120
Option 2 .......................................................................................................................................122
Option 4 .......................................................................................................................................124
Option 5 .......................................................................................................................................126
Option 6 .......................................................................................................................................128
Graphs ..........................................................................................................................................130
APPENDIX E: District-by-District Impact of Funding Options – FY 2000 Data
Option 1 .......................................................................................................................................135
Option 2 .......................................................................................................................................145
Option 4 .......................................................................................................................................155
Option 5 .......................................................................................................................................165
Option 6 .......................................................................................................................................175
Option 7 .......................................................................................................................................185
APPENDIX F: District-by-District Impact of Funding Options – FY 2003 Data
FY 2003 Transportation Sparsity Revenue Estimates per Pupil Unit Based Options
(Options 1, 2, 7) ........................................................................................................................195
FY 2003 Transportation Sparsity Revenue Estimates per Pupil Unit Based Options
(Options 1, 2, 7) ........................................................................................................................202
FY 2003 Transportation Sparsity Revenue Estimates per Pupil Transported Based Options
(Options 4, 5, 6) ........................................................................................................................209
FY 2003 Transportation Sparsity Revenue Estimates Per Pupil Transported Based Options
(Options 4, 5, 6) Amounts Shown Per AMC Pupil Unit ..........................................................216
APPENDIX G: Transportation Funding in Other States
1998-1999 Transportation Programs ...........................................................................................223
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, FAMILIES & LEARNING
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION FINANCE STUDY REPORT
Summary and Recommendations
Laws of Minnesota, 2001 First Special Session, Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 51, requires the
Department of Children, Families & Learning to study pupil transportation costs and funding, and
prepare a report for the 2002 Legislature. The commissioner must consult with transportation
professionals throughout the state in developing and preparing the report. The report must:
(1) identify funding inequities;
(2) make recommendations for providing equitable transportation funding;
(3) consider changes in student demographics, attendance patterns, declining enrollment, district
topography, labor and fuel costs; and
(4) examine whether public transportation options can be used more effectively to provide
transportation services.
Study Process
Children, Families & Learning staff identified the data elements needed to analyze transportation costs
and funding, broken down by the categories specified in the legislation. Data elements already
available from ongoing data collection activities were identified, and a preliminary list was made of
additional data needed to fulfill the study requirements. A survey instrument was designed to gather the
data needed for the study but not available from ongoing data collection activities.
A public meeting was held on September 28, 2001, to gather input from transportation professionals
throughout the state on the study design and the survey instrument. A summary of the meeting,
including a list of participants, appears in Appendix A. Those in attendance at the meeting were
encouraged to submit additional written comments to the department. The survey was modified to
reflect certain recommendations made at the public meeting and through written comments submitted to
the department. The modified survey was distributed electronically to school district transportation
directors and school bus contractors for additional comments before being distrib uted to all school
districts and charter schools. There was a 67% return on the survey. Appendix B includes a copy of the
survey form, definitions, instructions, and supplemental district comments on the survey.
In order to gather information regarding the requirements concerning public transportation, the
department scheduled a meeting with public transportation officials and representatives from school
districts that were known or believed to be utilizing public transportation. All charter schools were also
invited to attend the meeting on public transportation. The meeting was held on December 13, 2001. A
summary of the meeting, including a list of participants, can be found in Appendix A.
The department also contracted with Minnesota Planning to obtain certain topographic information not
already available at the department. Meetings were held with staff from MN Planning to identify data
items available on the MN Planning database that could be used to explain differences in transportation
costs among school districts. The items selected for the study included, but are not limited to: total
miles of roads by classes of roads; total miles of roads within four selected slope ranges; areas of lakes,
streams and public lands; areas of zero population; and circumference of the school districts. Minnesota
Planning completed its analysis and provided data to the department in late January 2002.
Pupil Transportation Finance Study
i
On January 24, 2002, the department held another public meeting to give transportation professionals
througho ut the state and other interested persons an opportunity to review the progress that had taken
place and to make further suggestions before the study was completed. School district and charter
school administrators, school bus contractors, public transportation officials, certain legislators and
legislative staff were invited to attend this meeting and 51 individuals attended. A list of participants at
the meeting can be found in Appendix A.
In early February 2002, department staff built a data base including information from ongoing
transportation and pupil accounting reports, the transportation survey, and the topographic data from
MN Planning. Data analysis was completed, breaking down FY 2000 transportation costs, mileage and
various transportation service indicators by school district strata (e.g., Minneapolis and St Paul, metro
suburbs, nonmetro by enrollment size). In addition, several topographic indexes were developed and
broken down into percentiles.
Next, changes since 1996 in pupil transportation funding formulas were reviewed, and trends between
1996 and 2003 in state total pupil transportation costs and revenues attributable to transportation were
analyzed. To statistically assess the equity of transportation funding, the relationships between costs and
funding were broken down by various factors, and variations among groups in the ratio of revenue to
cost were examined. The breakdowns were done by school district strata, economic development
region, population density category, percent of students transported to nonpublic schools category,
topography category (as measured by road slope), and enrollment growth/decline group. In addition,
percentiles were calculated for the ratio of transportation revenue in relation to costs. Incentives to over
allocate costs to certain transportation categories, inconsistent funding for capital costs of disabled
transportation between district-owned and contracted operations, and under funding of charter school
and nonpublic pupil transportation costs were also examined as potential equity issues.
Finally, several transportation funding options were developed and assessed. The primary focus was to
develop options for allocating regular transportation funding among districts, using FY 2000 base data.
Seven options were considered. These options range from simply updating the current formula to reflect
newer data to changing the basis for transportation funding from a rate per pupil unit to a rate per pupil
transported, and including topographic data, mileage, and actual costs in the formula calculations. Six
of the seven options were further developed to show how each option could be incorporated into general
education funding calculations for FY 2003. In addition, the issues involved with categorical versus
general funding, use of set-asides, and transportation levies were briefly reviewed.
A copy of the legislation requiring the study and more details on the study process are found in
Section 1, Overview.
FY 2000 Pupils Transported, Costs, Mileage, and Vehicles
Pupils Transported – 843,083 pupils were transported to and from school, including 768,461
public school pupils and 74,622 nonpublic school pupils. This includes 616,750 pupils
transported in the regular category, 134,046 in the excess category (1 – 2 mile secondary or
extraordinary hazards), 26,705 in the disabled category, 60,693 in the desegregation category,
and 4,889 ineligible students.
ii
Costs – School district expenditures for pupil transportation, excluding bus depreciation and
capital costs, totaled $362.6 million. This includes $193.7 million for regular and excess
transportation, $78.5 million for disabled student transportation, $27.8 million for desegregation
transportation, $10.3 million for noon kindergarten transportation, $36.2 million for student
activity trips and field trips, and $16 million for all other transportation.
Mileage – Total mileage for pupil transportation was 159.7 million miles. Forty-two percent of
the total mileage was on school district vehicles, and 58 percent was on contracted vehicles.
Vehicles – Total of 13,573 school buses and other vehicles were used for pupil transportation
including 5,429 owned by school districts, 7,978 owned by contractors, and 166 owned by
nonpublic schools. As of June 30, 2000, school districts owned 2,693 school buses eight years
old or newer, valued at $128.6 million, and 508 Type III vehicles (cars, station wagons and vans)
five years old or newer used for pupil transportation, valued at $10.6 million. School distric ts
purchased a total of 407 school buses and Type III vehicles in FY 2000 at an average cost of
$44,248.
More detailed information on state total FY 2000 pupils transported, costs, mileage and vehicles
is found in Section 2, 1999-2000 Pupil Transportation Statistics. District by district data on
transportation costs, pupils transported, mileage, and topography is shown in Appendix C.
Analysis of FY 2000 Transportation Data
Table 1, in Section 3 of the report, shows breakdowns of pupils transported, population density,
transportation costs per pupil, and transportation costs per mile by school district strata, (e.g.,
Minneapolis and St Paul, metro suburbs, and nonmetro districts broken down by enrollment
size). Data reported by school districts through UFARS,MARSS, and the Pupil Transportation
Annual Report was used for this analysis.
Ninety-one percent of the state’s total public school students are eligible to be transported. The
metro suburban school districts reported the highest percentage of eligible students with 93.0%
followed by outstate school districts with enrollments between 1000 and 1999 (92.7%) and
urban districts (91.5%).
The number of pupils transported per square mile ranges from 891.90 in Minneapolis and St.
Paul and 122.12 in metro suburbs to a low of 1.35 in outstate districts with enrollment less than
500. The statewide average cost per student transported for regular/excess transportation is
$257.96. The average cost per student transported is lowest in the metro suburbs ($198.66) and
highest in outstate districts with an enrollment less than 500 ($378.44). Desegregation costs per
student transported are the highest in the metro suburban school districts ($1,241.72), compared
with $454.53 for outstate districts and $289.82 for Minneapolis and St. Paul.
iii
Cost per mile varies inversely with population density. Statewide, the regular/excess cost per
mile is $2.34. Urban districts report the highest cost per mile with $3.79 and outstate school
districts with enrollment less than 500 report the lowest with $1.53. Cost per mile for
desegregation is higher than for regular/excess with a state average of $3.66 per mile. The metro
suburban school districts have a slightly higher cost per mile ($3.84) than the urban school
districts ($3.67).
Tables 2 through 5 in Section 3 of the report summarize data that was reported on the
transportation survey. Approximately two thirds of the state’s school districts and charter
schools completed and returned this survey. Because of the one-time nature of the reporting and
the incomplete response, data obtained by the survey are not as reliable as data from ongoing
reports.
Table 2 compares regular/excess transportation costs for public, charter and nonpublic students
by strata. This table sho ws the average cost to transport excess students is about 80% of what it
costs to transport regular students. The urban school districts have the lowest ratio with .71.
Outstate school districts with enrollment less than 500 have the highest ratio with .98.
Comparison of regular/excess costs for students transported to and from regular district schools
versus charter schools shows that for the state as a whole it costs almost twice as much to
transport students to charter schools. For urban school districts it costs 3 times as much and for
the metro suburban school district it costs about 1¼ times as much.
Statewide, the cost to transport nonpublic students is the same as for regular/excess public
students. However, urban school districts reported a much higher cost with a ratio of 1.69. The
lowest ratio, 0.83 occurred in outstate districts with an enrollment between 500 and 999.
Table 3 shows bus driver compensation by strata. The statewide average hourly salary for bus
drivers was $14.32. Outstate school districts in the three smallest enrollment strata reported a
higher hourly wage than the larger school districts. The same trend is true for average hourly
benefits. The statewide average for hourly benefits was $2.07. Almost 70% of the full-time bus
drivers in districts responding to the survey received benefits, while 38 percent of the part-time
bus drivers received benefits. The percent of full- and part-time drivers receiving benefits in
responding districts varied significantly among strata.
Table 4 shows fuel costs by strata. Fuel costs per gallon and per pupil unit are the lowest in the
metro area and the highest in small rural districts. The average cost per gallon was lowest in the
metro area ($1.11), and highest in outstate school districts with enrollment less than 500 ($1.23).
The cost per student ranged from a low of $19.97 in Minneapolis and St. Paul to a high of $59.29
in outstate school districts with enrollment less than 500.
Table 5 looks at transportation trends between 1995-96 and 1999-2000. Statewide, the average
ride time increased for all grade levels by about two minutes per ride (from 44.5 to 46.2 minutes
for elementary schools, from 45.5 to 47.4 minutes for middle schools, and from 45.3 to 47.1
minutes for secondary schools). Minneapolis and St. Paul reported larger increases in average
ride times (4.5 minutes), but still had the shortest average ride times (27 minutes) of any group.
iv
The statewide average age of buses increased from 5.36 years to almost 6 years. All strata
groups reported an increase. The urban districts reported the largest increase with the average
age increasing by 1 year. The metro suburban school districts reported the smallest increase with
an increase of .4 years.
There was little or no change from 1995-96 to 1999-2000 in the average distance to pick up
points for all strata groups. For 1999-2000, the statewide average distance required of students
to walk to their pick up point was .21 miles.
Table 6 in Section 3 of the report shows that the number of school buses purchased by school
districts has declined in recent years. The decline in FY 2000 would be larger were it not for the
purchase of an entire bus fleet by the Bloomington School District, which changed from
contracted transportation to a district-owned and operated system.
Table 7 shows the variations among districts on various topographical characteristics using
percentiles. The percent of total road miles with greater than a five degree slope ranges from
0% to 50%, with a median value of 2.50%. The total number of road miles per square mile
ranges from .37 to 21.57, with a median value of 1.95. There are very few districts that have a
significant percentage of interstate miles to total road miles within their district. The median for
this category is 0.00% as is the lowest value. The highest value is 13.17%.
The ratio of circumference in miles to a district’s area looks at the irregularities in the shape of a
district that might impact the efficiency of transporting students within a school district. The
median of the ratio of the circumference in miles of a school district to its area is .58. The lowest
value is .11 and the highest value is 3.11.
The percentage of total square miles in a district with populatio n ranged from a low of 9.82% to
a high of 97.84%. The median is 81.09%.
Transportation Funding and Costs, FY 1996 – FY 2003
Section 4 of the report summarizes the changes that have occurred since FY 1996 in pupil
transportation funding formulas, and sho ws the changes in state total transportation costs and
revenues attributable to transportation from FY 1996 through FY 2003. FY 1996 was the last
year of separate categorical funding for pupil transportation, before the roll- in of regular/excess
transportation funding to the general education formula, enacted by the 1995 Legislature, took
effect in FY 1997. Beginning in FY 1999, funding for disabled student transportation is included
in special education aid and funding for desegregation transportation is included in integration
revenue. Nonpublic pupil transportation aid provides funding for nonpublic pupil transportation.
Table 8 provides a breakdown of revenue attributable to pupil transportation and “authorized”
transportation costs for FY 1996 – FY 2003. Totals from Table 8 are shown below. Data for
FY 1996 – FY 2000 are actuals; data for FY 2001 – FY 2003 are estimates. “Authorized”
transportation costs are the costs of transportation services authorized for categorical funding in
FY 1996. This excludes the costs of transportation services not eligible for categorical funding
in FY 1996, such as activity trips, field trips, transportation of ineligible students, open
enrollment transportation outside of the district, and nonlearning year summer school
v
transportation. Because school bus depreciation is calculated using original purchase prices
instead of replacement costs, an adjustment factor has been added to the bus depreciation line to
reflect the gap between bus depreciation and the cost of bus replacements (previously funded
with bus purchase levy).
Pupil Transportation Funding and Costs, FY 1996 – FY 2003
$ in Millions
FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003
Total revenue attributable to
transportation
Annual Percent Increase
"Authorized" Transportation Costs:
Total Cost minus Total Revenue
Revenue Attributable to
Transportation as Percent of Cost
287.0
5.4
306.7
6.8%
306.1
4.7%
(0.6)
322.3
5.1%
315.8
3.2%
(6.4)
322.2
0.0%
327.0
3.5%
4.8
337.3
4.7%
344.3
5.3%
7.0
351.0
4.1%
365.1
6.0%
14.0
364.1
3.7%
379.9
4.1%
15.8
377.9
3.8%
395.0
4.0%
17.2
98.1%
100.2%
102.0%
98.5%
98.0%
96.2%
95.9%
95.7%
292.5
For FY 1996, the last year of categorical funding, state total transportation revenue was $287
million, or 98.1% of total authorized transportation costs. During FY 1997 and FY 1998, the
first two years of the “roll- in”, the general fund revenue attributable to transportation increased
more rapidly than transportation costs, as districts with relatively low transportation costs and
low categorical funding (compared to other districts having similar population density) received
significant increases, while districts with relatively high transportation costs and high categorical
funding were held harmless with transition revenue. State total revenue attributable to
transportation was 100.2% of costs in FY 1997, and 102.0% of costs in FY 1998.
Between FY 1998 and FY 1999, the general fund revenue attributable to transportation remained
flat, while transportation costs increased 3.5%, thereby reducing the revenue as a percent of costs
to 98.5%. This was attributable to two factors. First, training and experience revenue was rolled
out of the basic formula, thereby reducing the base for calculating 4.85% of basic revenue and
transportation sparsity revenue. Second, the roll- in of disabled student transportation into the
special education formula reduced the funding for excess costs of this transportation because (1)
the special education excess cost formula uses a lower reimbursement percentage, (2) state total
special education funding is capped, and (3) the transportation excess cost formula had no
deduction for general education revenue, while the special education excess cost formula does
have a deduction. Because of the deduction, districts with low overall excess special education
costs no longer qualify for excess cost aid on their excess transportation costs.
From FY 1999 – FY 2003, the general fund revenue attrib utable to transportation is projected to
grow more slowly than transportation costs, increasing the gap between formula revenue
attributable to transportation and costs to $17.2 million by FY 2003. Districts may choose to
fill this gap by reducing transportation services, increasing fees, or cross-subsidizing
transportation costs with other general fund revenues. The impact of the $415 transfer on basic
revenue is excluded from the calculations for FY 2003 because, for districts with existing
referendum revenue, the $415 transfer did not generate any new money, but simply transferred
vi
referendum revenue (which was committed to other purposes) to the basic formula. If 4.85% of
the full basic revenue, including the $415 transfer, is included in the analysis, the gap between
transportation funding and costs would be eliminated, and total revenue attributable to
transportation would exceed projected costs for FY 2003 by $1.6 million. However, this would
assign 4.85% of the referendum revenue transferred to the basic formula to transportation,
thereby creating a funding gap for other general fund programs.
While this study makes an effort to compare the general fund revenue attributable to
transportation with authorized transportation costs, certain caveats should be noted. School
districts are not required to reserve or expend the general fund revenue attributable to
transportation for pupil transportation purposes. Fees charged for transportation services
previously funded through aid and levy are not reflected. While this study attempts to track the
funding added to the general education, special education and integration formulas to replace
categorical transportation aids and levies, the tracking becomes more tenuous with the passage of
time. For example, the roll- in and roll-out of various funding components from the general
education formula makes comparisons difficult. The roll-out of T&E revenue, the roll- in of
graduation standards revenue and district cooperation revenue, and the increases in the portion of
basic revenue reserved for class size reduction since FY 1997 are not adjusted for in this
analysis.
Transportation Funding – Equity Issues
Allocation of Regular Transportation Funding Among Districts
To analyze the equity of funding for regular transportation through the general education
program, FY 2000 authorized transportation costs, (excluding the cost of transporting students
with disabilities and ½ of the cost of integration/desegregation transportation, which are funded
separately), were compared with FY 2000 revenues provided through the transportation sparsity
formula and 4.85% of the basic revenue. Breakdowns were calculated by school district strata
(e.g., Minneapolis and St. Paul, metro suburbs, and nonmetro districts broken down into
enrollment size groups), population density categories, economic development regions,
enrollment change groupings, road mile slope groupings, and groups broken down by nonpublic
school students transported as a percent of total students transported. Tables showing revenues
as a percent of by district type, under current law and several alternative funding options, are
shown in the Funding Options section below.
•
Breakdown by Strata – State total revenue under the current funding system equals 97% of
cost for FY 2000. Revenue as a percent of cost is nearly uniform among school district
strata. Minneapolis / St Paul and metro suburbs have nearly 99% of their costs funded on
average, while non metro districts are funded on average at a slightly lower percentage of
cost, ranging from a low of 95% in districts with enrollment between 500 and 999 to a high
of 97% in districts with enrollment below 500.
•
Breakdown by Economic Development Region – Average funding as a percent of cost ranges
from a low of 81% in the Headwaters region (North Central) to a high of 111% in the South
Central region. Districts in the central part of the state, including economic development
regions 6E, 7E and 7W, also show relatively low aggregate funding in relation to cost,
ranging from 85 – 89%.
vii
•
Breakdown by Density Category – Districts with 200 or more students per square mile are
funded at the highest average percent of cost (102.6%), while districts with 20 – 199 students
per square mile are funded at the lowest average percent of cost (92.4%). More sparsely
populated districts are funded on average at 95 – 96% of costs.
•
Breakdown by Percent of Pupils Transported to Nonpublic Schools – Districts with very high
and very low concentrations of nonpublic school pupils receive less aggregate funding as a
percent of actual costs than districts with average concentrations of nonpublic school pupils.
•
Breakdown by Enrollment Change (FY 1996 – FY 2000) Group – Districts with rapidly
growing enrollment show a significantly lower average funding percentage (91%) than other
groups. The relatively low rate of funding appears to be related to the density issue described
above – many districts with rapidly growing enrollment are in suburban fringe, with
population density falling in the 20 – 100 pupils per square mile range. For other groups,
there appears to be little relationship between enrollment gain or loss and percent of costs
funded.
•
Breakdown by Topography (Road Slope) – There is not a significant relationship between
percent of costs funded by the current formula and road slope. Districts with more than 20%
of road miles with greater than a 5 degree slope receive average funding of 99% of costs, or
slightly over the state average of 97%.
In addition to analyzing patterns in the allocation of revenue versus average cost for various
breakdowns of school districts, percentiles were calculated for the ratio of revenue to actual cost
for individual districts (See Table 9). There are significant variations among districts in the
percent of transportation costs funded by the state. Ten percent of students are in districts where
the revenue attributable to transportation is less than 77% of costs, and 10 percent of students are
in districts where the revenue is more than 141% of costs. Forty percent of students are in
districts where the revenue is between 93% and 108% of costs.
Allocation of Transportation Funding for Disabled Students Among Districts
Two equity issues relating to funding for transportation of students with disabilities were
identified.
First, because the current system provides funding for transportation of students with disabilities
on an actual cost basis, while other transportation is funded without regard to actual cost, there is
an incentive to over-allocate costs to the disabled category, and under-allocate cost to other
categories. Anecdotal evidence and limited audit findings suggest that this is a growing problem
in Minnesota. While cost allocation procedures specify the appropriate methods to charge costs
and provide a standard for audit of district operations, it is more difficult to challenge costs as
defined in contracts if costs appear unusually high for disabled transportation and unusually low
for regular transportation.
viii
Second, the base revenue for the special education funding formula includes 100 percent of operating
costs for special transportation, but provides no funding for capital costs (e.g., bus depreciation). Since
the cost of contracts with private operators includes the contractor’s capital costs as an operating
expense for school districts, there is an incentive for districts to contract for disabled student
transportation, even if this is not the most cost-effective alternative.
Nonpublic and Charter School Costs vs. Fund ing
According to our survey data and anecdotal reports, the per-pupil cost of transporting students to charter
and nonpublic schools can be significantly higher than the per-pupil cost of transporting students to
regular district schools. This is especia lly the case in large urban districts where students are drawn
from a large geographic area. Together, Minneapolis and St Paul reported that their per pupil cost for
nonpublic transportation was 1.69 times the district average, and their cost for charter school
transportation was 3.37 times their district average. Other groups of districts reported only small average
differences in per pupil costs between charter and nonpublic transportation and regular transportation.
The current system funds transportation to nonpublic and charter schools at the same rate as
transportation to regular public schools.
Transportation Funding Options
Issues to be address in designing a funding formula include:
•
•
•
•
The method used to determine the allocation of revenue among school districts,
The breakdown of total funding between state aids, local property taxes and other revenue
sources (e.g., fees),
The setting in which the formula will be placed (e.g., part of the general education formula or
a separate categorical), and
Any restrictions to be placed on the use of revenue (e.g., set-asides).
This study focuses primarily on developing and analyzing alternative methods for allocating
revenue among school districts. This is the most difficult issue of the four and requires the most
research and analysis. Decisions on which method to use for allocating revenue are largely
independent of decisions about how much will come from aids versus levies, whether to include
the funding in the general education program or create a separate categorical, and whether to
place restrictions on revenue use.
Seven options were examined for allocating regular transportation revenue among districts, using
FY 2000 data. For purposes of this analysis, regular transportation was defined to include all
transportation categories eligible for funding in the pre-1997 categorical formula, excluding
special transportation services for disabled students and the excess cost of desegregation
transportation, which are funded separately. Three options would continue to fund transportation
on a per-pupil unit basis, and three would shift to a per-pupil transported basis. A seventh
option, which included topographic factors in the formula, was attempted on both a per pupil unit
basis and a per-pupil transported basis, but was not found to significantly improve predictive
accuracy and was not fully developed.
ix
Next, the options developed using FY 2000 data were substituted for the current transportation
sparsity formula, using estimated data for FY 2003. District by district calculations are done,
and the statewide fiscal impact was determined.
Finally, a few observations were made concerning the breakdown of revenue between state aids
and local property taxes, the setting in which the formula would be placed, and potential use of
restrictions on revenue use.
The options developed in this study are just a few of the many different approaches that could be
considered. Transportation funding approaches used by other states in 1998-99 as summarized
by the American Education Finance Association (AEFA) and the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) are shown in Appendix G.
Options for Allocating Regular Transportation Funding Based on FY 2000 Data
The current transportation funding method allocates reve nue on a per pupil unit basis; the
amount of revenue per pupil unit varies based on the number of square miles per pupil unit. The
formula is based on regression analysis done in 1995, which evaluated the relationship between
transportation cost per pupil unit and square miles per pupil unit. Since 1995, the formula has
been linked to the general education formula, which automatically adjusts transportation sparsity
funding for inflation at the same rate as basic general education revenue is adjusted.
The options developed in Section 6, Part A of this study are summarized in the chart below.
Update for FY 2000 data
Exclude High Density
Districts from Regression
Model
Allowance per Pupil Unit
Allowance per Pupil
Transported
Include Nonpublic-Regular in
Regular Formula
Use Topographic Factors
Use Mileage
Use Average of Formula Cost
and Actual Cost
Option 1
X
Option 2
X
Option 3
X
Option 4
X
X
X
Option 5
X
Option 6
X
Option 7
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
All of the options considered in this study would update the regression analysis done in 1995
using FY 2000 data. Options 1, 2, and 7 would retain the current per-pupil unit funding
approach. Option 1 would retain the current formula, and simply update the coefficients for
calculating transportation sparsity revenue using regression analysis conducted using FY 2000
data. Option 2 would be similar to Option 1, but would substitute formula coefficients
developed using a regression model which excludes high density districts, (which do not receive
transportation sparsity revenue), in an effort to improve the fit between average costs by density
group and formula funding by density group. Option 7 would fund school districts based on
50% of the Option 1 formula and 50% of the district’s actual cost.
x
Option 3 examined the potential use of topographic data in the transportation funding formula.
This approach was used briefly in the transportation funding formula during the early 1980s, but
was discontinued because it added considerable complexity to the formula with only marginal
and inconsistent impact on the results. Since the early 1980s, MN Planning has substantially
improved the quality of its land management data base. As part of the study, district-by-district
data for the following variables were obtained from MN Planning and considered for inclusion in
a transportation funding formula:
•
School District Shape Index – The circumference of each district in miles, divided by its
square mile area. A district with an unusual shape may have greater challenges in providing
pupil transportation than a district with similar population density but a compact shape.
•
Road Slope Index – The percent of all road miles in the district with a slope greater than 5
degrees. Hilly terrain may disrupt transportation patterns, requiring additional travel time,
additional mileage, and wear and tear on vehicles.
•
Unpopulated Areas Index –Unpopulated area (includes lakes, rivers, islands, publicly owned
land (e.g., parks), or other areas identified as unpopulated by the U.S. Census Bureau) as a
percent of total district square mile area. The presence of unpopulated areas in a district may
disrupt transportation patterns by requiring transportation around the unpopulated area or to
the nearest bridge across a river, instead of in a straight line. On the other hand, an
unpopulated area may reduce transportation costs compared with other districts of similar
density if the district does not have to drive around it.
•
Interstate Highway Index – Interstate highway miles as a percent of total road miles in the
district. The presence of interstate highways in a district may disrupt transportation patterns
by requiring transportation to the nearest bridge over the highway, instead of in the most
direct line.
•
Road Density Index – Total road miles per square mile in the district. For districts with
similar population density, overall road density (road miles per square mile) may serve as an
indicator of the areas that need to be covered by a school bus in picking up riders.
To evaluate the impact of these variable on transportation costs, a series of regression models
was constructed using (a) all of these variables together, (b) selected individual variables, and
(c) selected subsets, both in predicting cost per pupil unit and cost per pupil transported.
Generally, these models added only slightly to prediction accuracy, as measured by the R²
statistic. And, some of the variables had signs opposite of the postulated impact. While
topographic factors certainly affect transportation costs in certain specific situations, it was
concluded that, despite the improved information available from MN Planning, we are unable to
find significant statewide impacts of a magnitude that would justify adding another layer of
complexity to the model used to compute transportation sparsity revenue.
Options 4, 5, and 6 would shift from the current per-pupil unit approach to a per-pupil
transported approach. Under these options, the transportation sparsity allowance would become
a rate per pupil transported, instead of a rate per pupil unit. Option 4 would continue to use
sparsity and density indexes similar to current law, but with the indexes based on square miles
per pupil transported, instead of square miles per pupil unit. Option 5 would be similar but, like
xi
Option 2, would substitute formula coefficients developed using a regression model which
excludes high density districts, (which do not receive transportation sparsity revenue), in an
effort to improve the fit between average costs by density group and formula funding by density
group. Option 6 would be similar to Option 4, but would add eligible miles per pupil transported
as a factor in the formula, along with the density and sparsity indexes.
Regression statistics and scatterplots for each option are shown in Appendix D. Appendix E
includes spreadsheets showing district-by-district changes in funding based on FY 2000 data,
compared with current law for FY 2000. Two sets of regression models were run for each
option, one weighting the districts based on the number of pupil units and a second without
weightings for district size. The regression coefficients from the two runs were averaged and the
constant term was rounded up to generate state total formula revenue within $1 million of state
total actual cost for FY 2000.
To analyze the potential impact of each option on the equity of regular transportation funding,
the funding that would have been generated for each district in FY 2000 based on each option
was compared with FY 2000 expenditure data. Breakdowns were calculated by school district
strata, population density categories, economic development regions, enrollment change
groupings, road mile slope groupings, and groups broken down by nonpublic school students
transported as a percent of total students transported. The findings are summarized below.
•
Breakdown by Strata – State total revenue under each option would have been approximately
100 percent of actual cost, compared with 97% under current law. Under current law,
aggregate funding as a percent of aggregate costs is slightly higher for metro districts than for
nonmetro districts. Option 1 would provide a larger increase to rural districts than to metro
districts, eve ning out the funding distribution and slightly reversing the current advantage for
metro districts. Option 2 would increase aggregate funding for nonmetro districts with
enrollment of 2,000 or more, compared with current law and Option 1, while slightly
reducing the level of funding for other districts.
Strata Name
Minneapolis and St. Paul
Metro Suburban
Outstate – Enrollment
2000 or more
1000 – 1999
500 – 999
Less than 500
State Total
Revenue/Transportation Costs
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Option 2 Option 4
Option 5
96.2%
89.8%
89.7%
98.6%
101.0%
104.3%
Ratio
Current
98.7%
98.7%
Ratio
Option 1
99.2%
99.7%
95.6%
98.6%
100.9%
97.3%
96.3%
100.3%
99.5%
95.1%
100.0%
97.3%
97.1%
Ratio
Option 6
88.9%
104.6%
Ratio
Option 7
99.6%
99.7%
97.6%
95.9%
99.3%
105.4%
102.7%
102.4%
100.4%
99.0%
100.5%
97.6%
100.4%
100.0%
103.3%
102.7%
103.1%
100.5%
102.6%
101.7%
99.7%
99.4%
99.8%
100.0%
99.9%
99.8%
xii
Options 4, 5, and 6, which shift funding from a per pup il unit basis to a per pupil transported
basis, would reduce aggregate funding for Minneapolis and St. Paul to less than 90% of
aggregate costs, and would slightly reduce funding for nonmetro districts with enrollments of
2,000 or above. Metro suburbs and nonmetro districts with enrollments between 1,000 and 1,999
would receive significant increases under these options. These funding shifts reflect the higher
percentage of enrollment transported in suburban and mid-sized nonmetro districts, compared
with Minneapolis and St. Paul and the large nonmetro districts.
Option 7 would generate the most uniform distribution of revenue in relation to cost, as would be
expected when actual cost is factored into the revenue calculations.
•
Breakdown by Economic Development Region – Under current law, aggregate funding as a
percent of aggregate cost ranges from a low of 80.9% in the Headwaters region to a high of
110.5% in the South Central region. Option 1 would increase revenue as a percent of cost in
all regions, with the largest increases going to the most sparsely populated regions. The
regional distribution of funding under Option 2 would be similar to the distribution under
Option 1, with the metro area receiving slightly less, and certain other regions (e.g., Central,
South Eastern) receiving slightly more.
Name of Economic
Development Region
Northwest
Headwaters
Arrowhead
West Central
North Central
Mid-Minnesota
Upper Minnesota Valley
East Central
Central
Southwest
South Central
South Eastern
Metropolitan
State Total
Ratio
Current
95.9%
80.9%
100.9%
99.0%
89.2%
87.3%
102.0%
88.8%
85.5%
104.9%
110.5%
102.6%
98.5%
97.1%
Ratio
Option 1
101.7%
85.4%
105.9%
103.3%
93.1%
90.5%
107.5%
92.1%
87.7%
109.9%
114.7%
106.1%
99.4%
99.7%
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Option 2 Option 4
Option 5
101.3%
106.0%
103.3%
84.8%
99.2%
96.6%
106.8%
106.2%
104.7%
102.8%
103.3%
101.0%
92.4%
98.0%
95.5%
90.7%
100.0%
98.6%
106.2%
103.3%
100.4%
92.6%
102.5%
101.1%
90.4%
94.2%
95.3%
108.6%
106.5%
103.6%
114.6%
104.7%
102.8%
107.8%
96.0%
95.4%
97.9%
98.5%
101.0%
99.4%
99.8%
100.0%
Ratio
Option 6
101.5%
98.1%
100.4%
101.8%
97.6%
100.3%
103.8%
101.0%
95.4%
103.8%
102.6%
95.1%
101.0%
99.9%
Ratio
Option 7
100.9%
92.7%
102.9%
101.6%
96.5%
95.3%
103.7%
96.1%
93.9%
104.9%
107.3%
103.0%
99.7%
99.8%
Options 4, 5, and 6 would create a more uniform distribution of revenue as a percent of costs
among regions than current law or Options 1 and 2. Some regions would receive substantial
increases (e.g., Headwaters, East Central, Central), while others would receive substantial
decreases (e.g., South Eastern, South Central). Option 6, which includes mileage in the formula,
would produce the most even distribution among regions.
Option 7, which factors in actual cost, would produce a more uniform distribution of revenue
among regions than current law or options 1 and 2, but a somewhat less uniform distribution than
options 4 – 6.
•
Breakdown by Density Category – Under current law, districts with 200 or more students per
square mile receive aggregate funding which slightly exceeds aggregate cost (102.6%), while
districts with lower population density receive aggregate funding that falls below their
xiii
aggregate cost. Districts with 20 to 199 students per square mile have the lowest funding
ratio, 92.4%. While use of updated data in the current model would help match up the
aggregate costs and revenues for districts in the lower population density ranges, districts
with 20 – 199 pupil units per square mile would continue to have a significantly smaller
portion of their aggregate costs funded than districts in other density groups. Option 2 targets
additional funding to districts in the 20 to 199 students per square mile density range,
producing the most uniform revenue/cost ratios among density groups of any option.
Population Density
Category
200 or more Students per
Square Mile
20 to 199 Students per
Square Mile
5 to 19 Students per
Square Mile
Less than 5 Students per
Square Mile
State Total
Ratio
Current
Ratio
Option 1
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Option 2 Option 4
Option 5
Ratio
Option 6
Ratio
Option 7
102.6%
103.2%
100.0%
99.8%
102.0%
102.1%
101.2%
92.4%
94.4%
98.4%
93.1%
95.9%
96.2%
96.6%
96.3%
99.8%
99.5%
104.3%
102.7%
99.8%
100.7%
94.9%
100.4%
99.4%
101.9%
98.9%
100.9%
100.4%
97.1%
99.7%
99.4%
99.8%
100.0%
99.9%
99.8%
Option 4 would create larger disparities in revenue/cost ratios among density groups than options
1 or 2, but with different winners and losers. Districts with 5 – 19 students per square mile
would receive aggregate funding equal to 104.3% of costs, while districts with 2- 199 students
per square mile would receive aggregate funding equal to 93.1% of costs. Options 5 and 6
would reduce the disparities below the level found under Option 4, but variances among density
groups would still be larger than under Option 2.
Option 7 would reduce disparities among density groups below the level in Option 1, but the
gaps would remain substantially higher than under Option 2.
•
growing enrollment receive the lowest ratio of aggregate revenue to aggregate cost of any
enrollment growth/decline group under current law and every funding option considered.
Option 7 provides this group with its highest ratio (96.0%). On the other hand, districts with
enrollment declines of 2% or more between 1996 and 2000 would receive funding in excess
of their cost under every option considered.
% Change Resident ADM
From 1996 to 2000
> 12.00%
5.00 – 11.99%
2.00 – 4.99%
-1.99 to 1.99%
-4.99 to 2.00%
-5.00 to 11.99%
-12.00% or more
State Total
Ratio
Current
91.0%
98.3%
93.9%
96.5%
104.4%
97.2%
97.4%
97.1%
Ratio
Option 1
92.0%
99.7%
96.1%
99.4%
107.5%
102.1%
103.0%
99.7%
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Option 2 Option 4
Option 5
92.2%
90.0%
91.5%
98.9%
100.3%
102.7%
95.8%
93.3%
95.2%
99.1%
102.6%
101.7%
107.8%
106.8%
106.4%
101.4%
103.8%
101.2%
102.4%
102.3%
99.7%
99.4%
99.8%
100.0%
xiv
Ratio
Option 6
89.1%
104.6%
96.3%
102.0%
104.7%
100.9%
101.3%
99.9%
Ratio
Option 7
96.0%
99.9%
98.1%
99.7%
103.7%
101.0%
101.5%
99.8%
•
Breakdown by Percent of Pupils Transported to Nonpublic Schools – Under current law and
Options 1 and 2, districts with very high (15% or more) and very low (0 – 4.99%)
concentrations of nonpublic school pupils receive less aggregate funding as a percent of
actual costs than districts with average concentrations of nonpublic school pupils. Option 2
produces a slightly more even distribution of revenue/cost ratios among nonpublic
concentration groups than current law or Option 1.
Nonpublic Students
Transported as a % of
Total Students
Transported
15% or more
10.00 – 14.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
0 – 4.99%
State Total
Ratio
Current
94.4%
105.1%
100.1%
92.7%
97.4%
Ratio
Option 1
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Option 2 Option 4
Option 5
95.8%
106.7%
101.9%
96.8%
99.9%
96.3%
106.0%
101.1%
96.8%
99.6%
88.1%
106.6%
101.5%
101.3%
99.8%
88.9%
108.6%
102.5%
99.7%
100.0%
Ratio
Option 6
Ratio
Option 7
90.8%
106.9%
102.7%
98.9%
99.9%
97.2%
103.2%
101.1%
98.4%
99.8%
Options 4, 5, and 6, which would shift from a per pupil unit to a per pupil transported funding
base, would substantially reduce funding for districts with high concentrations of nonpublic
school students, and would increase funding for districts with the lowest concentrations. This
may reflect a correlation between higher concentrations of nonpublic schools in urban and large
nonmetro districts, and a lower percentage of pupils transported in these districts.
Option 7, by factoring in actual costs, would produce the smallest variance in revenue/cost ratios
among nonpublic concentration groups of any option considered.
•
Breakdown by Topography (Road Slope) –Under current law, there is not a significant
relationship to road slope and percent of transportation costs funded. Options 1 and 2 would
increase funding for all road slope groups, keeping the same general pattern as under current
law. Options 4 – 6 would significant ly reduce funding for districts with high concentrations
of steeply sloped roads. Option 7, by factoring in actual costs, would produce the most even
allocation among road slope groups of revenues as a percent of cost of any of the options
considered.
% of Miles >
5 Degree Slope
.00 - .99%
1.00 – 4.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
10.00 – 19.99%
20% or more
State Total
Ratio
Current
98.0%
91.4%
103.9%
101.5%
99.5%
97.1%
Ratio
Option 1
101.6%
93.9%
106.1%
103.7%
103.4%
99.7%
Ratio
Ratio
Ratio
Option 2 Option 4
Option 5
100.5%
102.6%
103.1%
93.5%
95.2%
95.1%
105.2%
107.0%
107.5%
105.8%
97.0%
98.6%
103.9%
97.5%
96.2%
99.4%
99.8%
100.0%
Ratio
Option 6
104.0%
95.6%
105.4%
99.2%
93.7%
99.9%
Ratio
Option 7
100.8%
96.9%
103.0%
101.9%
101.7%
99.8%
Impact of Replacing the Current Transportation Sparsity Formula in FY 2003
The preceding section developed six options that could be used to replace the current
transportation sparsity formula. While the analysis was completed using FY 2000 data, FY 2003
is the earliest year that a change to one of these options could be implemented. Between FY
2000 and FY 2003, transportation costs are projected to increase significantly, and the general
xv
education formula has been adjusted for inflation and to include the $415 roll- in. To provide
appropriate funding in FY 2003, the options developed using FY 2000 data were adjusted for
these changes, and to fit the context of the transportation sparsity formula. A brief description of
the adjustments for each option is provided below. Details of these adjustments are described in
Section 6, Part B.
OPTION 1: Updated Data
Option 1 would retain the same structure as the current transportation sparsity formula, but the
constants in the formula would be changed to reflect newer data.
Under current law, the gross transportation sparsity revenue per pupil unit equals:
[(Formula allowance * .1469) * (sparsity index**.26) * (density index**.13)].
Under Option 1, the gross transportation sparsity revenue per pupil unit would equal:
The coefficients for the sparsity and density indexes were taken directly from the model
developed for FY 2000, while the constant term was increased by 14.76 percent to match the
projected increase in transportation expenditures between FY 2000 and FY 2003, and expressed
as a percent of the FY 2003 formula allowance. As under current law, gross transportation
sparsity revenue would equal the district’s allowance per adjusted marginal cost pupil unit
(AMCPU) times the current year AMCPU.
Net transportation sparsity revenue would equal the greater of zero or the gross transportation
sparsity revenue minus 4.55 percent times the formula allowance times the district’s adjusted
marginal cost pupil units. (Note: the current subtraction factor of 4.85% would be reduced to
4.55% to adjust for the new regression results and the projected growth in transportation costs
between FY 2000 and FY 2003, compared with the formula allowance increase between FY
2000 and FY 2003, including the $415 transfer).
Total transportation sparsity revenue would increase from $56.6 million under current law to
$58.5 million, an increase of $1.9 million. The increase is much smaller tha n the increase under
Option 1 computed using FY 2000 data because transportation sparsity funding was increased at
a higher rate than the growth in transportation costs between FY 2000 and FY 2003 as a result of
the $415 transfer in FY 2003.
All districts would receive an increase under Option 1. The increase would range from only a
few cents in high density districts that qualify for essentially no transportation sparsity revenue,
up to $51 per pupil unit in South Koochiching County, which has the lowest population density
of any district in the state.
OPTION 2: Updated Data with High Density Districts Excluded From Regression Analysis
Like Option 1, Option 2 would retain the same structure as the current transportation sparsity
formula, but the formula would be changed to reflect regression coefficients determined when
high-density districts were excluded from the regression analysis.
xvi
Under Option 2, the gross transportation sparsity revenue per pupil unit would equal:
As under Option 1, gross transportation sparsity revenue would equal the district’s allowance per
AMCPU times the current year AMCPU, and net transportation sparsity revenue would equal the
greater of zero or the gross transportation sparsity revenue minus 4.55 percent times the formula
allowance times the district’s adjusted marginal cost pupil units.
OPTION 4: Per Pupil Transported Model
Option 4 would modify the structure of the transportation sparsity formula from an allowance per
pupil unit to an allowance per pupil transported, the sparsity and density indexes would be
computed using pupils transported instead of pupil units.
The gross transportation sparsity revenue per pupil transported would equal:
Under options 4, 5, and 6, gross transportation sparsity revenue would equal the district’s
allowance per pupil transported times the current year public and nonpublic pup ils transported in
the regular, excess and desegregation categories. Funding for nonpublic-regular transportation
would be rolled into transportation sparsity revenue, and nonpublic pupil transportation aid
would include funding only for nonpublic-nonregular transportation. Net transportation sparsity
revenue would equal the greater of zero or the gross transportation sparsity revenue minus 4.55
percent times the formula allowance times the district’s adjusted marginal cost pupil units.
OPTION 5: Per Pupil Transported Model With High Density Districts Excluded From
Regression Analysis
Option 5 would have the same structure as Option 4, but with different coefficients for the
sparsity and density indexes due to the exclusion of high density districts from the regression
analysis.
OPTION 6: Per Pupil Transported Model With Eligible Miles Per Pupil Transported Included
in Regression Formula
Option 6 would have the same structure as Options 4 and 5, but with a mileage factor added into
the regression formula and different coefficients for the sparsity and density indexes due to the
changes in the regression model.
[(Formula allowance * .0251) * (sparsity index**.12) * (density index**.07) *
(miles per pupil transported**.33) ].
xvii
As under Options 4 and 5, gross transportation sparsity revenue would equal the district’s
allowance per pupil transported times the current year public and nonpublic pupils transported in
the regular, excess and desegregation categories. Net transportation sparsity revenue would
equal the greater of zero or the gross transportation sparsity revenue minus 4.55 percent times the
formula allowance times the district’s adjusted marginal cost pupil units.
OPTION 7: 50% of Option 1 Plus 50% of Actual Cost
Under Option 7, a district’s initial transportation sparsity revenue would equal 50% of the
district’s initial transportation sparsity revenue under Option 1, plus the product of 50% of the
district’s actual cost in the base year, times the ratio of the formula allowance in the current year
to the formula allowance in the base year, times the ratio of the district’s pupil units in the
current year to the district’s pupil units in the base year.
The net transportation sparsity revenue would equal the greater of zero or the gross
transportation sparsity revenue minus 4.55 percent times the formula allowance times the
district’s adjusted marginal cost pupil units.
Fiscal Impact of FY 2003 Options
Appendix F shows the district-by-district impact of replacing the current transportation sparsity
formula with each of the six options in FY 2003. Two tables are provided; one showing the
change in total revenue, and the second showing the change in revenue per pupil unit. The table
below summarizes the cost of each option over current law.
Cost over Current Law
Selected Transportation Funding Options, FY 2003
$ in Millions – Amounts shown on 100% annual entitlement basis
Cost without Hold Harmless
Hold Harmless Cost
Total Cost
Option 1
$1.9
0.0
$1.9
Option 2
$3.8
0.3
$4.1
Option 4
$7.8
9.7
$17.5
Option 5
$8.0
10.1
$18.1
Option 6
$8.7
11.5
$20.2
Option 7
$6.7
8.4
$15.1
The cost of providing a hold harmless under the various options varies with the degree of change
from current law. Because all districts would receive an increase under Option 1, there would be
no need for a hold harmless. Option 2 would make only minor changes from the current
approach; a hold harmless would cost only $0.3 million. The remaining options would all have
significant hold harmless costs, ranging from $8.4 million for Option 7 to $11.5 million for
Option 6, because of the major reallocation of funding that would result from changing to a per
pupil transported approach or using actual costs in the funding formula.
Categorical versus General Education Funding
In the current pupil transportation funding structure, most transportation funding (excluding
funding for nonpublic pupil transportation, disabled student transportation, and excess costs of
desegregation transportation) is included in the general education revenue program. Funding
attributable to pupil transportation includes transportation sparsity revenue and 4.85% of basic
xviii
revenue. These funds are not reserved for pupil transportation purposes; they can be used for
any general fund purpose. This structure is intended to maximize the flexibility that school
districts have in expending general fund resources. As school districts seek to resolve budget
challenges, pupil transportation must compete with other uses of general fund resources,
including classroom instruction, for resources. In recent years, some school districts have chosen
to reduce transportation services and costs in a variety of ways, (e.g., longer walking distances,
eliminating half-day kindergarten / noon kindergarten transportatio n, keeping school buses
longer), in order to preserve other priorities in the general fund (e.g., class sizes).
Six options were developed for allocating regular transportation revenue among school districts.
These options could be used either in the cur rent transportation funding structure or in a
categorical structure. Detailed calculations were done to show how each of these six options
could be used to redefine the calculation of transportation sparsity revenue for FY 2003 and later,
assuming that the current transportation funding structure would be maintained.
An alternative to this approach would be to use one of the six options as the basis for a
categorical pupil transportation formula. Under the categorical funding alternative, the
transportation sparsity component of general education revenue would be eliminated, and the
basic formula allowance would be reduced by 4.55% ($209 in FY 2003). The reduction in the
formula allowance would trigger a reduction in compensatory revenue and sparsity revenue,
unless an adjustment was made to fund these components based on the formula allowance plus
$209. A related issue would be whether the special education and integration revenue attributable
to transportation would be separated out and added to the categorical transportation aid.
Another alternative, in between the current structure and the separate categorical, would be to
keep regular transportation funding in the general education program, but to establish a separate
“transportation” component of general education funding that would combine the current
transportation sparsity component and the 4.55% of the basic formula. This approach would
more clearly identify the portion of general education revenue attributable to transportation,
without creating a separate categorical. As with the separate categorical, the reduction in the
formula allowance would trigger a reduction in compensatory revenue and sparsity revenue,
unless an adjustment was made to fund these components based on the formula allowance plus
$209.
A related issue is whether any restrictions should be placed on the use of revenue attributable to
transportation. Options here include:
•
•
•
•
Keeping transportation revenues and expenditures in the unreserved general fund;
Returning to a separate transportation fund in UFARS
Establishing a reserve account for transportation within the general fund, or
Keeping most transportation revenues and expenditures in the unreserved general fund,
but establishing a separate bus purchase account in the general fund, and requiring school
districts to make annual bus depreciation transfers to the bus purchase account.
The requirement of annual bus depreciation transfers could be done with or without a waiver
process. Under a waiver process, school districts meeting certain criteria, such as being in SOD
or maintaining a specified bus replacement schedule (e.g., 8 – 10 years), could apply to the
commissioner for authority to waive the transfer requirement.
xix
State and Local Shares of Transportation Funding
The analysis in this report generally assumed that pupil transportation would continue to be
funded primarily with state aid, supplemented with fees for certain transportation services, and
referendum levies / aids for districts with referendums that opt to use part of their referendum
revenue for this purpose.
Alternatively, a portion of transportation funding could come from property tax levies, as under
the pre-1997 funding system. This could include a uniform tax rate for basic transportation
services, and/or separate levies for specific types of services (e.g., bus purchase, excess
transportation, late activity bus). Since basic transportation is mandated for students residing
two or more miles from school, returning to a basic transportation levy would run counter to the
state takeover of basic education costs enacted in 2001.
Special Transportation Funding Options
Addressing Incentive for Improper Cost Allocation
The current practice of funding some transportation categories on an actual cost basis while other
transportation categories are funded without regard to actual cost creates an incentive to over-allocate
costs to categories where cost is a factor, and under-allocate cost to other categories. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that this is a growing problem with disabled transportation costs in Minnesota. Since
100% of disabled costs are included in the base special education funding formula, and other costs are
not used except for the relatively small nonpublic transportation aid, there is an incentive to allocate as
much as possible to the disabled category. To address this issue in the long term, it may be necessary to
(1) fund disabled transportation using formula variables other than actual cost, (2) return to a funding
system which factors in actual cost for other categories into funding levels, or (3) adopt a cost approval
process for special education transportation costs.
Addressing Inconsistency in Funding for Capital Costs
One hundred percent of operating costs for disabled student transportation are included in the base
revenue for the special education funding formula. The full cost of contracts for disabled student
transportation is funded, including the portion of the contract attributable to capital costs of vehicles
used by the contractor to provide this transportation. For district-owned operations, however,
depreciation on vehicles is excluded. Together with the cost allocation issue noted above, this creates an
incentive for districts to contract for disabled student transportation, even if this is not the most costeffective alternative. To make the funding system more neutral, the state should either include bus
depreciation on district-owned vehicles used for disabled student transportation as an eligible cost, or
exclude the portion of contract costs attributable to the cost of vehicles. The latter approach is used
elsewhere in the special education funding formula for contracted special education services: 68% of
teacher salaries are include in the base revenue, but only 52% of contracted costs are included, to help
recognize that the contract costs include a broader expenditure base (e.g., fringe benefits).
xx
Nonpublic And Charter School Costs vs. Funding
Together, Minneapolis and St Paul reported that their per pupil cost for nonpublic regular and excess
transportation was 1.69 times the district average for public regular and excess transportation (excluding
charter schools), and their cost for charter school transportation was 3.37 times their district average
public regular and excess transportation (excluding charter schools). Other groups of districts reported
only small average differences in per pupil costs between charter and nonpublic transportation and
regular/excess transportation to public schools, excluding charter schools. The current system funds
transportation to nonpublic and charter schools at the same rate as transportation to regular public
schools.
Options for addressing the nonpublic / charter school funding gap include:
•
Weighting nonpub lic pupils transported by Minneapolis and St. Paul at a level approaching the
reported ratio of nonpublic to public cost per pupil transported in the two districts (e.g., 1.5).
This would recognize the added costs of nonpublic pupil transportation in large districts that
need to transport nonpublic students to many different nonpublic schools within a large
geographic area. Since these are self- reported cost ratios from a survey instrument, further
analysis would be appropriate to verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the data.
•
Establishing a grant program to enable school districts to recover a portion of excess costs for
transporting students to charter schools.
•
Requiring charter schools to provide their own transportation, or allowing school districts to
charge back excess costs to charter schools, and establishing a grant program to enable charter
schools to recover a portion of excess costs for transporting students.
Public Transportation Options
The use of public transportation for transporting students to and from school has been mostly
limited to those programs that draw students from a very large geographical area. Public transit
has also been utilized primarily by secondary school aged students. Programs such as magnet
schools, charter schools, open enrollment, and nonpublic outside of the home district are prime
candidates for the use of public transportation.
When public transportation is used, several methods of funding have been tried. In some cases,
schools purchase tokens or bus passes for students. In some situations, the transit authority may
make passes available that are good only during non-peak hours. This method is used to ensure
that students who utilize the transportation service do not conflict with transportation of the
working public at peak transit periods. Public transit authorities generally provide student
transportation at favorable rates.
There are several factors that limit the use of public transportation for students. First, schools
and parents are hesitant to put younger students on transit buses because other passengers are not
screened before riding. In many cases, students will have longer walks to and from bus stops if
riding transit buses. This can occur on both ends of the ride. Time schedules for transit buses
xxi
are not planned to get student passengers to school at favorable times. On a public transit
system, many students will be required to transfer one or more times to get to the point nearest
their destination. Public transit drivers have lower standards of qualifications than school bus
drivers.
In general, public transportation is used to a high degree for those programs and/or situations
where the needs of the users match up with its unique characteristics.
Recommendations
1. Beginning in FY 2004, the coefficients in the transportation sparsity formula should be
updated based on analysis conducted using FY 2001 data.
2. In later years, the coefficients in the transportation sparsity formula should be reviewed based
on analysis of newer data at least once very four years, and updated as necessary.
3. Transportation funding should continue to be allocated as part of general education revenue
using a per pupil unit model, and not changed to a per pupil transported model. The per pupil
unit approach maximizes school district flexibility to include choices on the level of
transportation service in making overall general fund budget decisions. Recent experience
shows that school districts faced with budget cuts give careful consideration to reductio ns in
transportation service as an alternative to cuts in classroom instruction budgets. A per pupil
transported approach would reduce district flexibility to consider these options, because
funding would be reduced in proportion to any reduction in the number of students
transported.
4. Transportation funding should continue to be based on factors beyond local control, such as
population density. Use of actual cost or mileage would reward districts that have made local
decisions that result in higher costs or additional miles being driven. Funding based on
factors beyond local control enhances equity and maximizes local flexibility to include
choices on the level of transportation service in making overall general fund budget
decisions. Options based on actual costs or miles driven would reduce district flexibility to
consider options that would reduce the level of transportation service, because funding would
be reduced in proportion to any reduction in the number of students transported or miles
driven.
5. The transportation formula should not be adjusted to include topographic factors such as the
district shape index, road slope, or unpopulated areas (e.g., lakes, rivers, parks). While these
factors may affect transportation costs in some districts, adding these factors would not
significantly improve overall formula accuracy, but would add complexity to an already
complex formula.
6. The coefficients in the transportation sparsity formula should be adjusted to provide a more
uniform allocation of revenue in relation to costs among population density groups as
outlined in Option 2. Because revenue redistributions would be minimal, no hold-harmless
should be used.
xxii
7. Consideration should be given to requiring school districts owning vehicles to reserve a
portion of general education revenue for bus depreciation. The average age of school buses
has increased significantly since transportation funding was rolled into the general education
formula, as new vehicle purchases have been reduced. To retain local flexibility, school
districts should be allowed a waiver from the set-aside requirement if they demonstrate to the
commissioner that they have established a bus maintenance and replacement schedule that
will ensure continued safety.
8. The special education transportation formula should be adjusted to provide greater funding
equity between district-owned and contracted operations. This could be accomplished by
including bus depreciation for district-owned vehicles used primarily for special
transportation in authorized costs, or reducing the percentage of cost funded for contract
operations to exclude the amount generally attributable to bus depreciation. Since the state
total special education funding is capped, this change would be cost- neutral to the state.
9. Consideration should be given to establishing a small grant program to enable school districts
to recover a portion of excess costs for transporting students to nonpublic and charter
schools. Additional data would be needed to establish the cost of this transportation in
relation to the cost of regular transportation.
10. No changes are recommended in current laws relating to use of public transportation for
transporting pupils to and from school.
xxiii
SECTION 1:
OVERVIEW
The 2001 Legislature, during the First Special Session, passed a law requiring the Department of
Children, Families & Learning to study specific transportation costs and prepare a report on the
findings for the 2002 Legislature.
More specifically, in Minnesota Session Laws 2001, First Special Session, Chapter 6, Article 1, is
found the following:
Sec. 51. [DIRECTION TO THE COMMISSIONER; TRANSPORTATION.]
(a) The commissioner of children, families, and learning must collect from each school
district data needed to examine pupil transportation costs for the following ridership
categories: regular, hazardous, disabled, nonpublic, charter schools, desegregation, noon
kindergarten, learning year summer and summer school, between schools, late activity,
enrollment options, student activity trips, safety requirements, and bus replacement.
(b) The commissioner, by February 15, 2002, must prepare a report on per pupil
transportation costs to the legislative committees responsible for kindergarten through grade
12 education finance. The report must:
(1) identify funding inequities;
(2) make recommendations for providing equitable transportation funding;
(3) consider changes in student demographics, attendance patterns, declining
enrollment, district topography, labor and fuel costs; and
(4) examine whether public transportation options can be used more effectively to
provide transportation services.
The commissioner must consult with transportation professionals throughout the state in
developing and preparing the report.
In preparing to comply with the law, Children, Families & Learning staff met several times to
determine what information would be required. They then determined what information was already
available within the department and what information would need to be gathered from outside sources.
A survey instrument was designed to gather certain information from districts. A public meeting was
scheduled on September 28, 2001 to gather information from school districts and school bus
contractors relative to the survey instrument. A list of participants for the September 28, 2001 meeting
appears in Appendix A. Those in attendance at the meeting were encouraged to submit additional
written comments to the department. The survey was modified to reflect certain recommendations
made at the public meeting and through written comments submitted to the department. The modified
survey was distributed electronically to school district transportation directors and school bus
contractors for additional comments before being distributed to all school districts and charter schools.
There was a 67% return on the survey. A copy of the survey and written comments received with
completed surveys can be found in Appendix B.
In order to gather information regarding the requirements concerning public transportation, the department
scheduled a meeting with representatives from school districts that were known or believed to be utilizing
public transportation. All charter schools were also invited to attend the meeting on public transportation.
The meeting was held on December 13, 2001. A summary of the meeting, including a list of participants, can
be found in Appendix A.
1
Report
The department also contracted with Minnesota Planning to obtain certain topographic information not already
available at the department. Minnesota Planning has a vast amount of information at its disposal. The
primary concern was to select the data items that would give the maximum amount of information suitable for
the transportation study. The items selected for the study included, but are not limited to: total miles of roads
by classes of roads; total miles of roads within four selected slope ranges; areas of lakes, streams and state
lands; areas of zero population; and circumference of the school districts. MN Planning completed its
analysis and provided data to the department in late January 2002.
On January 24, 2002, the department scheduled another public meeting to give interested persons an
opportunity to review the progress that had taken place and to make further suggestions before the study is
completed. School districts, charter schools, school bus contractors, public transportation officials, certain
legislators and legislative staff were invited to attend this meeting. Fifty-one (51) individuals were in
attendance for the meeting. A list of participants at the meeting can be found in Appendix A.
In early February 2002, department staff built a data base including information from ongoing transportation
and pupil accounting reports, the transportation survey, and the topographic data from MN Planning. Data
analysis was completed, breaking down FY 2000 transportation costs, mileage and various transportation
service indicators by school district strata. In addition, several topographic indexes were developed and
broken down into percentiles.
Next, changes in pupil transportation funding formulas since 1996 were reviewed, and trends in state total
pupil transportation costs and revenue attributable to transportation between FY 1996 and FY 2003 were
analyzed. To statistically assess the equity of transportation funding, the relationships between costs and
funding were broken down by various factors, to see if the ratio of revenue to cost varies significantly among
groups. The breakdowns were done by school district strata, economic development region, population
density category, percent of students transported to nonpublic schools category, topography category (as
measured by road slope), and enrollment growth/decline group. In addition, percentiles of transportation
revenue in relation to costs were calculated. Incentives to over allocate costs to certain transportation
categories, inconsistent funding for capital costs of disabled transportation between district-owned and
contracted operations, and under funding of charter school and nonpublic pupil transportation costs were also
examined as potential equity issues.
Finally, several transportation funding options were developed and assessed. The primary focus of this part of
the study was to develop options for allocating regular transportation funding among districts, using FY 2000
base data. Seven options were considered. These options range from simply updating the current formula to
reflect newer data to changing the basis for transportation funding from a rate per pupil unit to a rate per pupil
transported, and including topographic data, mileage, and actual costs in the formula calculations. Six of the
seven options were further developed to show how each option could be incorporated into general education
funding calculations for FY 2003. In addition, the issues involved with categorical versus general funding,
use of set-asides, and transportation levies were briefly reviewed. A brief summary of transportation funding
approaches used by other states (from a recent study sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics
and the American Education Finance Association, http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/state_finance/StateFinancing.asp)
is also included in Appendix G.
2
Report
SECTION 2:
1999-2000 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
Each year the Transportation Office of the Department of Children Families & Learning collects data
from school districts. These data include the number of students transported or eligible for
transportation, cost of providing transportation, annual miles driven by the districts and contractors to
transport students, and bus ownership data. This information is used to calculate funding for the
transportation of students with disabilities, nonpublic school students and for students transported to
desegregation or integration schools or programs.
Data on nonpublic students transported, bus ownership and annual mileage are collected on the Pupil
Transportation Annual Report. The cost of providing transportation services is collected through the
Uniform Financial Reporting and Accounting Standards (UFARS) data submissions. Public school
student transportation data are collected through the Minnesota Automated Reporting Student System
(MARSS).
Following is a brief summary of the data on each table:
Pupil Transportation Data – The table includes the different categories or types of transportation
services, the number of districts reporting data in the category, number of students transported for
some categories, and the cost of providing the transportation service.
Public and Nonpublic Students – The table includes a breakdown between public and nonpublic school
students for the to and from school transportation categories.
Mileage by Category – The table includes annual mileage by the different categories or types of
transportation services.
Mileage by Category and Type – The table includes a further breakdown of mileage by ownership and
further breakdowns for district ownership by vehicle type.
Bus Ownership and District-Owned Bus Fleet Values – The table on the top part of the page includes a
breakdown of bus ownership by public, contractor and nonpublic entities. Types A through D are
various sizes of yellow school buses. Type III school buses include cars, station wagons and vans with
maximum manufacturers rated seating capacity of 10 persons including the driver.
The Fleet Value table reflects data for district-owned fleets. The Regular Bus Inventory includes buses
owned by districts for eight years or less. The Type III Inventory includes buses owned by districts for
five years or less. Buses owned by school bus contractors and nonpublic schools are not included in
the fleet value.
Summary of District School Bus Purchases – The table includes the number of school bus purchases
by school districts. The purchases are further broken down by vehicle type, body make, chassis make,
passenger capacity, fuel type and whether the buses are new or used. Buses purchased by school bus
contractors and nonpublic schools are not included.
3
Report
76
9
199
76
-
1999-2000
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION DATA
Pupils Eligible/
Category
Transported A
Regular
616,750 B
Excess
134,046 B
Disabled
26,705
Disabled Summer Term
N/A
Desegregation
60,693
Noon Kindergarten
N/A E
Learning Year Summer
N/A
Between Schools – Public
N/A
Between Schools & Late Activity –
N/A
Nonpublic
Between Schools – Disabled
N/A
Board and Lodging/ To B & L
N/A
Hazards Walkers
N/A
Postsecondary Agreements
N/A
Late Activity – Public
N/A
Summer School
N/A
Excess Summer Term
N/A
183
367
90
20
235
372
Open Enrollment Outside Dist
Student Act Trips/Field Trips
Ineliglble Students
Enrollment Options/Low Income
Safety Activities
TOTAL
No. of
Districts
372
330
333
17
109
22
168
74
N/A
N/A
4,889
37
843,120
School District
Cost
$193,733,117.65 C
Incl in Regular
78,705,012.47 D
Incl in Disabled
27,846,904.21
10,286,185.76
583,300.58
2,771,974.82
814,002.02
Incl in Disabled
Incl in Disabled
1,441,557.26 F
194,317.10
3,875,117.34
702,313.11 G
Incl in Summer
School
3,072,140.87
36,211,514.87 H
1,162,736.76
25,095.76 I
1,099,634.88 J
$362,524,925.46
FOOTNOTES
A
Beginning with the 1998-1999 school year, the department started collecting the number of
public school students transported to-and- from school on the Minnesota Automated Reporting
Student System (MARSS).
B
Represents students who are eligible for transportation (based on the distance a student lives from
school).
C
Includes expenditures for regular term transportation for the regular and excess category students.
D
Includes expenditures for regular, summer school, between school buildings, to and from board
and lodging facilities transportation, and board and lodging for students with disabilities.
E
Students attending half-day kindergarten classes and transported at noon are included in the
regular and excess categories student counts.
4
Report
F
The cost in this category is for the salaries and fringe benefits paid to individuals who help
students cross at hazardous intersections.
G
Includes expenditures for summer term transportation for regular and excess category students.
H
Only costs reported in Finance Dimension 733 are included in this amount. Some districts code
student activity trip costs and field trip costs to the class/activity using the bus. These districts do
not identify these costs with a transportation finance code. In addition, this amount includes
$14,038,036.07 in capital expenditures.
I
This program is funded through a special appropriation.
J
Districts spent an additional $45,661.37 on pupil transportation safety activities. These
expenditures were included in other Finance Dimensions (e.g., regular, no nauthorized).
-
Twenty- five charter schools provided their own transportation services in the 1999-2000 school
year. They are 4002-07, 4007-07, 4008-07, 4014-07, 4019-07, 4020-07, 4023-07, 4025-07,
4030-07, 4031-07, 4033-07, 4034-07, 4035-07, 4039-07, 4041-07, 4042-07, 4045-07, 4046-07,
4047-07, 4049-07, 4050-07, 4051-07, 4052-07, and 4056-07. Success Academy, 4023-07,
submitted year-end MARSS and UFARS data but failed to submit the pupil transportation annual
report.
N/A These data are not collected from school districts.
1999-2000
PUBLIC AND NONPUBLIC STUDENTS ELIGLBLE/TRANSPORTED
TO AND FROM SCHOOL
Category
Public
Nonpublic
Total
Early Childhood Disabled
4,373
56
4,429
Regular
Elementary
287,341
43,055
330,396
Secondary
261,053
20,872
281,925
TOTAL REGULAR
552,767
63,983
616,750
Excess
Disabled
Desegregation
Ineligible/Nonresident
GRAND TOTAL
127,100
23,518
60,693
4,383
768,461
5
6,946
3,187
0
506
74,622
134,046
26,705
60,693
4,889
843,083
Report
1999-2000
MILEAGE BY CATETORY
Transportation Categories
Regular and Excess
Disabled (Reg & Sum Terms – To & From, BSB, to B & L)
Desegregation
Noon Kindergarten
Learning Year Summer
Between Schools – Public
Between Schools & Lake Activity – Nonpublic
Postsecondary Agreements
Late Activity
Summer School – Regular and Excess
Open Enrollment/Outside District
Student Activity Trips/Field Trips
Ineligible
TOTAL ANNUAL MILEAGE
Category
Reg & Exc
Disabled
Deseg
Noon Kind
Learn Yr
BSB Pub
BSB LA Npl
PS Agree
Late Act
Sum Sch
OE Out
Stu Act/F
Ineligible
TOTAL
1999-2000 MILEAGE BY CATEGORY AND TYPE
Dst Bus
Dst Van
Dst Car
Contract
34,921,405
670,037
98,879
52,382,561
6,774,982
5,310,845
827,534
22,870,562
107,393
15,070
0
2,871,584
1,343,488
160,322
106
3,599,320
42,343
3,118
0
186,595
507,243
130,751
6,190
616,192
120,040
34,002
40
129,587
68,861
0
0
46,059
1,206,509
183,924
20,027
994,518
185,879
43,014
3,446
151,404
1,221,050
132,493
20,576
1,148,716
6,430,860
4,904,182
1,531,668
7,470,580
121,412
19,554
12,691
35,029
53,051,465
11,607,312
2,521,157
92,502,707
6
88,072,882
35,783,923
2,994,047
5,103,236
232,056
1,260,376
283,669
114,920
2,404,978
383,743
2,522,835
20,337,290
188,686
159,682,641
Total
88,072,882
35,783,923
2,994,047
5,103,236
232,056
1,260,376
283,669
114,920
2,404,978
383,743
2,522,835
20,337,290
188,686
159,682,641
Report
1999-2000
BUS OWNERSHIP
Bus Ownership
District-Owned
Contractor-Owned
Type A
128 Type A
438
Type B
121 Type B
505
Type C
3,179 Type C
4,412
Type D
829 Type D
855
Type III
1,172 Type III
1,768 A
TOTAL
5,429 TOTAL
7,978 B
TOTAL BUSES 13,573
Nonpublic-Owned
Type A
8
Type B
16
Type C
116
Type D
1
Type III
25
TOTAL
166
A
This number includes cars, station wagons, and vans owned by parents.
B
School bus operators may contract with more than one district and school districts may contract
with other school districts. This results in some school buses being reported more than once.
District-Owned Bus Fleet Values as of June 30, 2000: C
Regular Bus Inventory (Types A, B, C, and D School Buses)
No. of Districts
No. of Buses
217
2,693
Type III Bus Inventory (Cars, Station Wagons, and Vans)
No. of Districts
No. of Buses
200
508
Value
$128,560,783.52 D
Value
$10,563,201.50
C
The regular bus inventory includes buses owned by school district for eight years or less and the
Type III inventory includes vehicles owned by school districts for five years or less.
D
The Bloomington School District purchased a bus fleet during the 1999-2000 school year. The
net value of the fleet was $4,777,177.61.
7
Report
SUMMARY OF DISTRICT SCHOOL BUS PURCHASES
Represents buses delivered between
July 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000
407 A School Buses Purchased in 1999-00
1
3
20
4
181
6
89
10
82
11
A
New Type A School Buses Purchased
Used Type A School Buses Purchased
New Type B School Buses Purchased
Used Type B School Buses Purchased
New Type C School Buses Purchased
Used Type C School Buses Purchased
New Type D School Buses Purchased
Used Type D School Buses Purchased
New Type III School Buses Purchased
Used Type III School Buses Purchased
The Bloomington School District purchased a bus fleet during the 1999-00 school year. Included
in the fleet were 18 new Type B, 18 new Type C, 4 used Type C, 40 new Typ e D, and 8 used
Type D.
Average Net Cost of a New Type A School Bus
Average Net Cost of a New Type B School Bus
Average Net Cost of a New Type C School Bus
Average Net Cost of a New Type D School Bus
Average Net Cost of a New Type III School Bus
$40,724.22
$37,218.52
$53,731.22
$62,642.57
$21,991.81
Average Net Cost of All School Buses Purchased
(This includes new and used of all types.)
$44,247.86
Breakdown by Body Make of Type A, B, C, and D Buses Purchased (New Buses Only)
44 – Amtran
123 – Bluebird
10 – Carpenter
19 – MidBus
8
94 – Thomas
1 – Unknown
Report
Breakdown by Passenger Capacity of Type A, B, C, and D Buses Purchased (New Buses Only)
1 – 17 Passenger
19 – 19 Passenger
2 – 20 Passenger
7 – 23 Passenger
1 – 33 Passenger
6 – 35 Passenger
3 – 37 Passenger
1 – 39 Passenger
3 – 47 Passenger
3 – 48 Passenger
6 – 59 Passenger
6 – 60 Passenger
1 – 61 Passenger
1 – 62 Passenger
3 – 64 Passenger
27 – 65 Passenger
1 – 66 Passenger
67 – 71 Passenger
5 – 72 Passenger
7 – 76 Passenger
41 – 77 Passenger
1 – 78 Passenger
47 – 83 Passenger
15 – 84 Passenger
1 – 90 Passenger
16 – Unknown
Breakdown by Chassis Make of Type A, B, C, and D Buses Purchased (New Buses Only)
33 – Bluebird
33 – Chevrolet
4 – Freightliner
38 – GMC
125 – International
57 – Thomas
1 – Unknown
Breakdown by Chassis Make of Type III Buses Purchased (New Buses Only)
1 – Buick
32 – Chevrolet
1 – Chrysler
17 – Dodge
21 – Ford
8 – GMC
2 – Plymouth
Breakdown by Fuel Type of Type A, B, C, and D Buses Purchased (New Buses Only)
8 – Gasoline
281 – Diesel
9
2 – LPG
Report
SECTION 3:
DATA ANALYSIS
Detailed school district tables can be found in Appendix C. Information in these tables includes the districts’ total transportation costs, costs by
category and topographical characteristics. The following tables analyze transportation costs, costs per pupil and other transportation related items
by strata. Data are for the FY 2000 school year. Definition of data items used in these tables can be found in Appendix B.
Table 1 shows the breakdown by strata of transportation costs, pupils transported, transportation miles and population density. Data reported by
school districts on UFARS, MARSS and the Pupil Transportation Annual Report was used for this analysis. Table 1 shows the statewide average
cost per student for regular/excess transportation is $257.96. This table also shows that with the exception of the urban districts, the smaller the
district the higher the cost per student. School districts with an enrollment less than 500 had an average cost of $378.44 per student compared to
$198.66 for the metro suburban school districts.
Desegregation costs per student transported are the highest in the metro suburban school districts with $1,241.72. The urban and outstate school
districts with enrollments of 2000 or more had much lower costs with $454.53 and $289.82 respectively.
Ninety-one percent of the states total public school students are eligible to be transported. The metro suburban school districts reported the highest
percentage of eligible students with 93.0% followed by outstate school districts with enrollments between 1000 and 1999 (92.7%) and urban districts
(91.5%).
Table 1 shows a wide variation in population density throughout the state. The highest concentration of students transported per square mile is in the
urban school districts with 891.90 students compared to the lowest concentration of 1.35 students transported per square mile for outstate districts
with enrollment less than 500.
Statewide, the regular/excess cost per mile is $2.34. Urban districts report the highest cost per mile with $3.79 and outstate school districts with
enrollment less than 500 report the lowest with $1.53. Cost per mile for desegregation is higher than for regular/excess with a state average of $3.66
per mile. The metro suburban school districts have a slightly higher cost per mile ($3.84) than the urban school districts ($3.67).
Note: The total number of students reported as transported or eligible for transportation and costs on the following tables do not agree with the
number of students reported and costs on pages 4 and 5 of this document. This is due to two factors. Charter schools that provide their own
transportation services were not included in the following tables. Most charter schools purchase bus passes to allow the students to ride city transit
lines. This information is not comparable with how other districts provide transportation services. Secondly, department audits of school districts’
transportation data resulted in the database being updated. The updated database was used to create the tables on the following pages. However, the
tables on pages 4 and 5 were not updated to reflect the audited numbers.
10
Report
Table 1:
Strata Name
Minneapolis & St. Paul
Metro Suburban
Outstate-Enrollment 2000
or more
Outstate-Enrollment
between 1000 – 1999
Outstate-Enrollment
between 500 – 999
Outstate-Enrollment less
than 500
State Total
FY 2000 TRANSPOR TATION COSTS AND MILEAGE BY STRATA
7,730,880.48
66,104,177.12
55,839,386.08
Reg & Excess
Cost Per
Eligible/
Transported
Student
$224.06
198.66
298.28
118,148
35,889,698.29
68,737.72
52,485
24,065.10
28,232.37
839,077.91
968,709.24
FY 00 ADJ
ADM
FY 00
AMCPU
Total Reg &
Excess Eligible/
Transported
Students
95,405.29
336,075.31
199,498.91
107,918.71
386,291.80
231,842.82
34,504
332,755
187,204
125,161.28
145,685.82
58,872.02
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
Outstate-Enrollment 2000 or more
Outstate-Enrollment between 1000-1999
Outstate-Enrollment 500 – 999
Outstate-Enrollment less than 500
State Total
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
Outstate-Enrollment between 1000-1999
Outstate-Enrollment 500 – 999
State Total
Desegregation
Students
59,454
469
770
0
0
0
60,693
Total Reg &
Excess
Mileage
2,039,264
25,830,502
21,506,013
17,342,358
10,496,969
5,142,134
82,357,240
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
Disabled
Students
Disabled Cost
$ 71.64
171.12
240.85
8,209
10,093
5,111
$13,755,341.51
40,472,550.42
14,367,422.25
303.77
246.35
2,223
6,305,997.24
18,973,941.49
361.51
276.03
830
2,894,366.80
20,788
7,867,044.30
378.44
278.65
238
901,266.65
745,884
$192,405,127.76
$257.96
$198.62
26,704
$78,696,944.87
Percent of Public
Students
Eligible for
Transportation
Pupils
Transported
Per Square
Mile
Desegregation
Cost
$27,023,869.30
582,366.57
223,163.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
$27,829,399.36
Total Reg &
Excess Miles Per
Eligible Student
Transported
59.10
77.63
114.88
146.79
200.00
247.36
110.42
$
Reg & Excess
Cost Per Pupil
Unit
Desegregation
Cost Per
Desegregation
Students
Transported
$ 454.53
1,241.72
289.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
$458.53
Total Reg &
Excess Cost Per
Mile
$3.79
2.56
2.60
2.07
1.81
1.53
$2.34
11
Desegregation
Cost Per Pupil
Unit
$250.41
1.51
0.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
$ 28.73
Desegregation
Mileage
7,355,819
151,658
103,630
0
0
0
7,611,107
91.5%
93.0%
88.2%
92.7%
87.1%
84.8%
91.0%
Desegregation
Miles Per Deseg.
Student
Transported
123.72
323.36
134.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
125.40
Pupil Units
Per Square
Mile
891.90
122.12
10.14
4.83
2.44
1.35
9.89
942.11
137.41
12.17
5.85
3.15
1.81
11.49
Desegregation
Cost Per Mile
Total Square
Miles
$3.67
3.84
2.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
$3.66
114.55
2,811.29
19,046.78
24,922.29
21,827.99
15,559.36
84,282.26
Report
Tables 2 through 5 reflect data that was reported on the Supplemental Survey. Approximately two thirds of the state’s school districts and charter
schools completed and returned this survey. Table 2 compares regular/excess transportation costs for public, charter and nonpublic students by
strata. This table shows the cost to transport excess students is about 80% of what it costs to transport regular students. The urban school districts
have the lowest ratio with .71. Outstate school districts with enrollment less than 500 have the highest ratio with .98.
Comparison of regular/excess costs to charter school costs shows that for the state as a whole it costs almost twice as much to transport charter school
students. For urban school districts it costs 3 times as much and for the metro suburban school district it costs about 1 1/4 as much.
Statewide, the cost to transport nonpublic students is the same as for regular/excess public students. However, urban school districts reported a much
higher cost with a ratio of 1.69. The lowest ratio occurred in outstate districts with an enrollment between 500 and 999 with 0.83.
Table 2:
ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY BY STRATA
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
Outstate-Enrollment between 1000 – 1999
State Total
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
State Total
Regular Costs
Per Eligible
Regular Student
Transported
Excess Costs
Per Eligible Excess
Student
Ratio of Excess
Costs to Regular
Costs Per
Eligible Student
$181.57
174.84
243.41
248.86
321.12
362.99
$208.13
0.71
0.88
0.80
0.82
0.87
0.98
0.79
$256.23
199.60
302.65
304.72
368.60
370.85
$264.05
Charter Costs
Per Eligible
Charter Student
Ratio of Charter
Costs to Public
Costs Per Eligible
Student
$535.70
246.79
188.73
260.34
NA
NA
$494.18
3.37
1.28
0.64
1.88
NA
NA
1.96
12
Nonpublic Costs
Per Eligible
Nonpublic
Student
$269.02
206.14
298.17
288.51
301.78
395.92
$254.47
Regular &
Excess Public
Costs Excluding
Charter Cost Per
Eligible Student
$159.03
193.48
292.88
297.39
365.64
368.94
$252.31
Total Number
of Districts in
Strata
2
45
48
86
83
104
368
Total Number
of Districts in
Strata
Responding
2
30
38
59
62
53
244
Ratio of
Nonpublic Costs
to Public Costs
Per Eligible
Student
1.69
1.07
1.02
0.97
0.83
1.07
1.01
Report
Table 3 shows bus driver compensation by strata. The statewide average hourly salary for bus drivers was $14.32. Outstate school districts in the
three smallest enrollment strata reported a higher hourly wage than the large r school districts. The same trend is true for average hourly benefits.
The statewide average for hourly benefits was $2.07.
Almost 70% of the states full-time bus drivers received benefits. All of the full- time bus drivers in the urban school districts received benefits
followed by 82% in the metro suburban school districts. Outstate school districts with enrollment of 2000 or more reported the lowest percentage
with 43%. Only 38 percent of the state’s part-time bus drivers received benefits. The urban school districts reported no part-time bus drivers
receiving benefits. The metro suburban and outstate school districts with enrollments less than 500 reported the highest percentage with over 50
percent of their part-time drivers receiving benefits.
Table 3:
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
Outstate-Enrollment
2000 or more
Outstate-Enrollment
between 1000 – 1999
Outstate-Enrollment
between 500 – 999
Outstate-Enrollment less
than 500
State Total
ANALYSIS OF BUS DRIVER COMPENSATION FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY BY STRATA
$12.67
13.37
13.78
$0.91
1.78
1.86
Number of
Full-time
Bus Drivers
With
Benefits
152
543
204
14.99
2.08
444
179
71%
238
306
14.35
1.81
271
166
62%
150
14.52
2.67
149
70
68%
$14.32
$2.07
1,763
800
69%
Average
Hourly
Salary of Bus
Drivers
Average
Hourly
Benefits of
Bus Drivers
Number of
Full-Time
Bus Drivers
Without
Benefits
0
116
269
% of FullTime Bus
Drivers
With
Benefits
100%
82%
43%
Number of
Part-Time
Bus Drivers
With
Benefits
0
984
320
Number of
Part-Time
Bus Drivers
Without
Benefits
541
850
993
% of PartTime Bus
Drivers
With
Benefits
0%
54%
24%
13
Total
Number
of
Districts
in Strata
2
45
48
Total
Number of
Districts in
Strata
Responding
2
30
38
44%
86
60
193
44%
83
61
97
73
57%
104
55
1,789
2,956
38%
368
246
Report
Table 4 shows fuel consumption costs by strata. The statewide average cost per gallon was $1.15. The lowest average cost per gallon of $1.11 was
in the urban and metro suburban school districts. The outstate school districts with enrollment less than 500 reported the highest average cost per
gallon with $1.23. Overall, the smaller the district the higher the average cost per gallon. The same is true for fuel costs per student. The urban
school districts reported the lowest cost per student with $19.97. The highest cost per student of $59.29 was reported by the outstate school districts
with enrollment less than 500. The statewide average was $26.48.
Table 4:
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
Outstate-Enrollment between
1000 – 1999
Outstate-Enrollment between 500
– 999
State Total
ANALYSIS OF FUEL COSTS FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY BY STRATA
95,405.29
244,824.37
163,281.91
82,974.66
107,918.71
281,409.92
189,799.99
96,775.64
$ 1,905,242.00
5,037,572.66
4,099,785.14
2,912,794.71
$1.11
1.11
1.14
1.18
$17.65
17.90
21.60
30.10
$19.97
20.58
25.11
35.10
Total
Number of
Districts in
Strata
2
45
48
86
44,515.94
51,994.49
2,229,400.38
1.21
42.88
50.08
83
61
16,068.00
647,070.17
18,840.85
746,739.60
952,669.32
$17,137,464.20
1.23
$1.15
50.56
$22.95
59.29
$26.48
104
368
55
246
FY 00 ADJ
ADM
FY 00
AMCPU
Total Fuel Costs
14
Average
Cost Per
Gallon
Average Cost
Per Pupil Unit
Average Cost
Per Adj ADM
Total Number
of Districts in
Strata
Responding
2
30
38
60
Report
Table 5 looks at transportation trends between 1995-96 and 1999-2000. For this period, there was little change in the average number of runs on
regular bus routes. In 1995-96, the statewide average was 2.50 compared to 2.55 in 1999-2000. For 1999-2000, the urban school districts reported
the most runs with 7.50 followed by the metro suburban school districts with 4.37. Outstate school districts with enrollment between 500-999 and
less than 500 had an average of 2 runs.
Statewide, the average length of time of regular bus routes increased from 85.57 minutes to 88.14 minutes. This is an increase of 2.57 minutes. All
strata groups, except for the urban districts reported an increase in the average length of time. For 1999-2000, the urban districts reported the longest
average length of time with 233.50 minutes. The shortest average length of time was reported by the outstate school districts with enrollment less
than 500 with 74.09 minutes.
Table 5 also shows that the average ride time increased for all grade levels, although not significantly. The statewide average ride time reported in
1999-2000 for elementary students was 46.17 minutes; for middle school students 47.43 minutes; and for secondary students 47.06 minutes. The
shortest average ride time for all grade levels was reported by the urban districts followed by the metro suburban districts. Outstate school districts
with enrollment between 500 and 999 reported the longest average ride time for all grade levels.
Statewide, the average number of early dismissal days increased .40 days to 1.90 days. All strata groups except for the urban districts reported a
small increase.
The statewide average age of buses increased from 5.36 years to almost 6 years. All strata groups reported an increase. The urban districts reported
the largest increase with the average age increasing by 1 year. The metro suburban school districts reported the smallest increase with an increase of
.4 years
There was little or no change from 1995-96 to 1999-2000 in the average distance to pick up points for all strata groups. For 1999-2000, the statewide
average distance required of students to walk to their pick up point was .21 miles.
From 1995-96 to 1999-2000, there was almost no change in the percent of school districts that transport their resident students to the school of choice
within their district. All districts in the urban, suburban and larger outstate school districts reported providing transportation during this period. For
1999-2000, a higher percentage of the smaller districts provided transportation than in 1995-96. The statewide average for 1999-2000 was 99.6%
The percent of districts traveling outside district boundaries to transport enrollment options students also showed little change from 1995-96 to 19992000. There was no reported change for the urban, suburban and the larger outstate school districts. For 1999-2000, a higher percentage of the
smaller outstate school districts reported traveling outside their boundaries to transport enrollment options students. The statewide average for 199900 was 99.6%.
15
Report
Table 5:
ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION TRENDS BETWEEN FY 1996 – FY 2000
FROM SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY BY STRATA
Average Length of Time of Regular Routes (in
Minutes)
7.75
4.14
2.47
7.75
4.37
2.66
0.00
0.23
0.19
233.50
127.06
82.03
233.50
129.88
84.29
0.00
2.82
2.26
2
45
48
Total Number
of Districts in
Strata
Responding
2
30
38
2.49
2.48
-0.01
76.83
79.76
2.93
86
60
2.00
2.00
0.00
83.77
86.28
2.51
83
61
2.04
2.02
-0.02
71.62
74.09
2.47
104
55
2.50
2.55
0.05
85.57
88.14
2.57
368
246
Average No. of Runs on Regular Routes
Strata Name
1995-96
Metro Suburban
Outstate-Enrollment 2000 or
more
1000 – 1999
500 – 999
Outstate-Enrollment less than
500
State Total
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
more
1000 – 1999
500 – 999
500
State Total
1999-00
Difference
Average Elementary School Ride Time
(in Minutes)
1995-96
1999-00
Difference
22.50
27.00
4.50
24.52
25.57
1.05
38.89
38.79
-0.11
1995-96
1999-00
Total Number
of Districts in
Strata
Difference
Average Middle School Ride Time
(in Minutes)
1995-96
1999-00
Difference
22.50
27.00
4.50
26.70
29.53
2.83
40.11
40.45
0.34
Average Secondary School Ride Time
(in Minutes)
1995-96
1999-00
Difference
22.50
27.00
4.50
28.38
30.13
1.75
40.13
40.47
0.34
48.39
50.69
2.31
48.93
51.49
2.56
48.39
50.78
2.39
56.65
58.56
1.91
57.32
59.15
1.83
56.42
58.10
1.68
42.34
44.66
2.32
42.75
45.11
2.36
43.08
45.38
2.30
44.53
46.17
1.64
45.46
47.43
1.97
45.29
47.06
1.77
16
Report
Table 5 (continued)
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
more
1000 – 1999
500 – 999
500
State Total
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
more
1000 – 1999
500 – 999
500
State Total
Average Number of Early Dismissal Days
Average Age of Fleet
Average Distance to Pick Up Points
(in Miles)
1995-96
1999-00
Difference
0.32
0.32
0.00
0.22
0.23
0.01
0.21
0.22
0.01
1995-96
1.00
0.63
1.22
1999-00
1.00
1.13
1.34
Difference
0.00
0.50
0.12
1995-96
5.00
5.63
5.54
1999-00
6.00
6.02
6.24
Difference
1.00
0.39
0.70
1.12
1.68
0.56
5.23
6.06
0.83
0.20
0.21
0.01
1.94
2.44
0.50
5.32
5.87
0.55
0.19
0.20
0.02
1.73
2.41
0.68
5.28
5.89
0.61
0.21
0.21
0.00
1.40
1.90
0.50
5.36
5.99
0.63
0.21
0.21
0.00
Percent of Districts Transporting to
School of Choice
1995-96
1999-00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Percent of Districts Transporting Outside
District Lines for Option Students
1995-96
1999-00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
96.80
98.00
96.77
98.39
94.60
100.00
94.64
100.00
98.00
99.6
97.98
99.60
17
Report
The following table shows that over the past ten years, school districts have purchased fewer school buses. The Bloomington School District
purchased an entire bus fleet during the 1999-00 school year. Before that time, the district contracted for its bus service. Excluding Bloomington’s
bus purchases so that there is comparable data among the years, only 306 buses were purchased during the 1999-00 school year. From the 1993-94
school year (the first year miles traveled on district-owned buses is available) to the 1999-00 school year, the total miles traveled on district-owned
buses increased by 4,070,860 miles.
Table 6:
Total Buses Purchased
New Types A, B, C, D (Yellow) Buses
Purchased
Used Types A, B, C, D (Yellow) Buses
Purchased
New Type III Buses Purchased
Used Type III Buses Purchased
SCHOOL BUS PURCHASE INFORMATION
1990-91
591
493
1991-92
497
384
1992-93
471
360
1993-94
487
376
1994-95
511
360
1995-96
478
374
1996-97
442
340
1997-98
369
259
1998-99
423
293
1999-00*
407
291
9
13
5
16
20
7
6
6
20
23
81
8
91
9
95
11
90
5
126
5
82
15
80
16
92
12
93
17
82
11
* The Bloomington School District purchased an entire school bus fleet (101 buses) in 1999-00 (included above).
Types A, B, C, and D are different sizes of yellow school buses. Type A is the smallest and Type D is the largest. Type III school buses include
cars, station wagons, and vans (seating 10 persons or less).
18
Report
Table 7 shows topographical characteristics of school districts by percentile and lowest and highest value. The median for percent of total miles with
greater than a five degree slope is 2.50%. The lowest value is .00% and the highest is 50.44%.
The median for the total number of road miles per square miles of a district is 1.95. The lowest value is .37 and the highest is 21.57. There are very
few districts that have a significant percentage of interstate miles to total road miles within their district. The median for this category is 0.00% as is
the lowest value. The highest value is 13.17%.
The ratio of circumference in miles to a district’s area looks at the irregularities in the shape of a district that might impact the efficiency of
transporting students within a school district. The median of the ratio of the circumference in miles of a school district to its area is .58. The lowest
value is .11 and the highest value is 3.11.
The percentage of total square miles in a district with population ranged from a low of 9.82% to a high of 97.84%. The median is 81.09%
Table 7:
TOPOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS BY PERCENTILES
% Miles > 5 Degree Slope
Lowest Value
Percentiles:
10th
20th
30th
40th
50th
60th
70th
80th
90th
Highest Value
0.00%
0.13%
0.44%
0.92%
1.53%
2.50%
3.66%
4.65%
7.48%
11.52%
50.44%
Total No. of Road Miles
Per Square Mile
% Interstate Miles
to Total Road Miles
0.37
1.26
1.63
1.82
1.91
1.95
2.03
2.13
2.36
4.06
21.57
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.51%
5.86%
13.17%
19
Ratio of Circumference in
Miles to Area of
a School District
0.11
0.30
0.39
0.46
0.52
0.58
0.65
0.70
0.81
1.01
3.11
% of Total Square Miles
with Population
9.82%
47.07%
60.17%
70.83%
77.80%
81.09%
85.59%
88.07%
90.50%
93.19%
97.84%
Report
SECTION 4:
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OVERVIEW
A. Summary of Funding Formulas: FY 1996 - FY 2003
FY 1996 – FY 1996 was the last year of separate categorical funding for pupil transportation,
before the roll- in of transportation funding to the general education formula, enacted by the 1995
Legislature, took effect in FY 1997. Transportation funding categories for FY 1996 included the
following:
•
Regular Transportation Revenue – A district’s regular transportation revenue was equal to the
district’s regular transportation allowance times the number of pupils transported in the regular,
desegregation, and handicapped categories during the current school year. The regular
transportation allowance was determined in several steps as follows:
- Predicted base cost per pupil transported was determined for each district based on a
statutory formula derived from regression analysis, in which cost per pupil transported was
predicted based on pupils transported per square mile and a contract transportation factor.
- The adjusted predicted base cost, determined for each district using a “base year softening
formula,” was equal to the average of the district’s actual base cost (cost per pupil
transported) and the district’s predicted base cost, but not less than 80% or more than 105%
of the actual base cost.
- The transportation allowance was equal to the adjusted predicted base cost times a
statutory inflation factor. For FY 1996, the inflation factor was set at 1.00 (no inflation).
•
Nonregular Transportation Revenue – A district’s nonregular transportation revenue was equal
to the lesser of the district’s actual current year cost for nonregular transportation or the
district’s actual cost in the base year (second prior year) for nonregular transportation, times the
ratio of the ADM in the current year to the ADM in the base year, times a statutory inflation
factor, minus the amount of regular transportation revenue generated by students in the
desegregation and handicapped categories. For FY 1996, the inflation factor was set at 1.00
(no inflation).
•
Excess Nonregular Transportation Revenue – A district’s excess nonregular transportation
revenue was equal to 80% of the difference between the districts actual cost in the current year
and the nonregular transportation revenue.
•
The regular, nonregular and excess nonregular transportation revenues were funded with a
combination of state transportation aid, a basic transportation levy, a nonregular transportation
levy, and a contracted transportation levy.
•
Bus Depreciation Reserve and Levy – School districts owning school buses were required to
annually reserve an amount equal to 12.5% of the original cost of type 1 and type 2 buses until
fully amortized, plus 20% of the cost of type 3 vehicles until fully amortized. School districts
were allowed to levy for the difference between the cost of vehicles and the balance in the bus
depreciation account.
•
Transportation safety aid, reserved for safety purposes, was equal to the greater of $500 or
$1.50 times the district’s pupil units.
20
Report
•
Excess transportation levy was based on the lesser of the regular transportation allowance or
the actual cost per weighted pupil transported in the excess category (secondary 1 to 2 mile and
extraordinary hazards) times the number of weighted students transported in the excess
category during the current year, plus the cost of related services (e.g., adult crossing guards).
•
Late activity bus levy was equal to the lesser of the actual cost or 2% of the district’s regular
and nonregular transportation revenue.
•
Transportation Fund – Transportation revenues and expenditures were recorded in a separate
transportation fund in UFARS.
•
Leased Facility – When the transportation patterns of a district changed as a result of leasing a
school building in another district, the district could levy for any increase in transportation cost
above the cost that would have occurred without the leasing of the school.
•
Post-Secondary Agreement – School districts were allowed to levy for the transportation of
secondary pupils enrolled in courses provided under an agreement between a school board and
a post-secondary institution.
•
Enrollment Options Transportation – Provides state aid to school districts which reimburse
eligible students for transportation expenses incurred while enrolled in the Post-Secondary
Enrollment Options, School District Enrollments Options or Results-Oriented Charter Schools
programs.
•
Interdistrict Desegregation Transportation Aid – Reimbursement for transportation to and from
interdistrict desegregation programs and for transporting students open enrolled into another
district if the enrollment of the student in the nonresident district contributes to desegregation.
FY 1997 and FY 1998 – Between FY 1996 and FY 1999, Minnesota’s approach to pupil
transportation was changed from maintaining a separate system of categorical aids and levies to
incorporating pupil transportation funding into the overall funding for general education, special
education and integration / desegregation programs. This change was intended to increase local
flexibility in the use of resources and strengthen incentives for cost efficient operations. The
change took place in two phases. Beginning in FY 1997, funding for public non-disabled students
was included within the general education revenue and the separate Pupil Transportation Fund was
eliminated.
While not reserved for transportation purposes, the portion of general education revenue
attributable to transportation includes:
•
4.85% of Basic General Education Revenue – Originally $170 per pupil unit in FY 1997, the
first year of the roll- in, this amount had increased to $181 per pupil unit for FY 2000.
•
Transportation Sparsity Revenue – Allowance per pupil unit is determined for each district
based on a statutory formula derived from regression analysis, in which cost per pupil unit was
predicted based on pupil units per square mile. The statutory formula coefficients are based on
regression analysis completed using FY 1994 data, but the allowance for each district is
updated annually based on changes in the formula allowance and the number of pupil units –
each district’s allowance per pupil unit increases as the formula allowance increases and as the
21
Report
district’s enrollment declines, thereby lowering pupil units per square mile. Transportation
sparsity revenue is the difference between the formula-predicted cost and the amount included
in basic revenue. For most metro districts, the transportation sparsity allowance is near zero;
the allowance increases as population density decreases.
•
Transportation Transition Revenue – Districts that received more transportation funding per
pupil unit under the categorical transportation formula in FY 1996 than under the “roll- in,”
receive transportation transition revenue to cover the difference between the district’s FY 1996
categorical revenue per pupil unit and the current year revenue per pupil unit under the roll- in.
For FY 1997 only, districts receiving more than a 10% increase under the roll- in received a
negative transportation transition adjustment to phase in the revenue increase. Beginning in FY
2003, transition revenue is eliminated as a separate revenue category, and is converted to
referendum and /or basic revenue as part of the $415 referendum transfer.
For FY 1997 and FY 1998 only, funding for disabled, nonpublic and integration students was
calculated with the Targeted Needs formula.
A district's targeted needs transportation revenue for disabled children equaled the sum of :
(1) the district's actual cost in the second preceding year for the transportation of children with
disabilities times the ratio of the district's average daily membership for the current school
year to the district's average daily membership for the second preceding year, plus
(2) 80% of the difference between the district's actual cost in the current year for special
programs transportation and the amount computed in paragraph 1.
The integration portion of targeted needs revenue equaled $158 per weighted average daily
membership (WADM) for Minneapolis, $73 per WADM for St. Paul and $4 per WADM for
Duluth. These allowances were established to reflect the estimated nonregular funding these
districts would have received for desegregation transportation for F.Y 1997 under the current law
at the time.
Targeted needs transportation revenue for nonpublic students equaled the sum of regular, excess
and nonregular funding for the transportation of nonpublic students:
(1) Regular and excess revenue was an amount equal to the product of:
The district's actual cost per public and nonpublic pupil transported in the regular and
excess categories for the second preceding year, times
The number of nonpublic pupils receiving regular and excess transportation in the current
year, times
The ratio of the formula allowance for the current year to the formula allowance for the
second preceding year.
(2) Nonpublic nonregular revenue equaled the district's actual cost in the second preceding year
for during-day transportation between schools and late transportation home from school for
students involved in after school activities times the ratio of the formula allowance for the
current year to the formula allowance for the second preceding year.
22
Report
The Targeted Needs transportation levy equaled 28% of the sum of a district's special
programs and integration revenue time the lesser of 1 or the ratio of the district's ANTC per
WADM to $ 3,540. State aid equaled the difference between the revenue and the levy.
The Targeted Needs formula was discontinued after FY 1998.
For taxes payable in 1998 only, districts with a June 30, 1996 deficit in their bus purchase account
were allowed to make a one-time levy to eliminate the deficit.
FY 1999 and Later – Funding for general transportation purposes continues to be included in the
general education revenue as described above, while funding for disabled student transportation is
included in special education aid and funding for desegregation transportation is included in
integration revenue. Nonpublic pupil transportation aid provides funding for nonpublic pupil
transportation.
•
Special Education Revenue – 100 percent of actual second prior year cost for disabled student
transportation, (UFARS Finance code 723), is included in base revenue for regular special
education formula. Adjusted base revenue equals the base revenue times the ratio of the
district’s ADM in the current year to the district’s ADM in the base (second prior) year. A
district’s special education aid equals the ratio of the district’s adjusted base revenue to the
state total adjusted base revenue, times the statutory state total special education revenue.
•
Special Education Excess Cost Revenue – 75% of the difference between the district’s
unreimbursed special education cost for the current fiscal year (including transportation) and
4.36% of the general education revenue of the district. Beginning in FY 2002, the state total
for this revenue is also set in law.
•
Integration Revenue – For FY 1997, a separate categorical for integration transportation was
provided to Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth. The amounts were $158 per pupil unit for
Minneapolis, $73 per pupil unit for St. Paul, and $4 per pupil unit for Duluth. These amounts
were based on the integration transportation funding previously provided through the
transportation formula. Beginning in FY 1999, integration transportation revenue was rolled
into the overall integration revenue formula. For FY 2000, the combined allowances were
$536 for Minneapolis, $446 for St. Paul, and $207 for Duluth. More recently, other districts
required to file desegregation plans have qualified for revenue. The allowance for Minneapolis
was reduced to $446 per pupil unit, beginning in FY 2003.
•
Nonpublic Pupil Transportation Aid – Regular funding equals the district’s cost per public and
nonpublic pupil transported in the regular and excess categories in the second prior year times
the number of nonpublic pupils transported in the current year times the ratio of the formula
allowance for the current year to the formula allowance for the second prior year. Nonregular
funding equals the district’s cost for nonpublic nonregular transportation (e.g., between schools
during the day) in the second prior year times the ratio of the formula allowance for the current
year to the formula allowance for the second prior year.
Separate categorical funding continues to be provided for enrollment options transportation and
interdistrict desegregation transportation.
23
Report
B. State Total Transportation Funding and Costs by Category: FY 1996 – FY 2003
Table 8 provides a breakdown of revenue attributable to pupil transportation and “authorized”
transportation costs for FY 1996 – FY 2003. Data for FY 1996 – FY 2000 are actuals; data for FY
2001 – FY 2003 are estimates. “Authorized” transportation costs are the costs of transportation
services authorized for categorical funding in FY 1996. This exc ludes the costs of transportation
services not eligible for categorical funding in FY 1996, such as activity trips, field trips,
transportation of ineligible students, open enrollment transportation outside of the district, and nonlearning year summer school transportation. Because school bus depreciation is calculated using
original purchase prices instead of replacement costs, an adjustment factor has been added to the
bus depreciation line to reflect the gap between bus depreciation and the cost of bus replacements
(previously funded with bus purchase levy).
24
Report
Table 8: PUPIL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND COST BY CATEGORY
FY 1996
Revenue Attributable to Transportation:
Regular Transportation Revenue, excluding
contract levy portion
Nonregular Transportation Revenue
Contract Transportation Levy
Excess Transportation Levy
Late Activity Transportation Levy
Bus Purchase Levy
Post-Secondary Transportation Levy
Leased School in other district levy
Transportation Safety aid
Enrollment options transportation
Interdistrict desegregation transportation aid
164,263,723
76,033,223
8,063,925
26,261,987
3,189,271
7,614,440
131,531
0
1,391,039
59,454
16,115
General education revenue attributable to
transportation:
4.85% of Basic Revenue (excluding impact of
$415 tfr in FY 03)
Transportation Sparsity Revenue
Transportation Transition Revenue
Transp Transition converted to referendum or
basic revenue
FY 1997
FY 1998
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
1,361,197
51,408
164,676
1,438,756
34,955
250,032
1,449,939
35,605
651,761
25,096
866,075
26,481
1,300,236
7,000
2,932,000
80,000
3,864,000
160,504,731
44,472,687
7,900,864
165,582,048
45,268,983
13,478,331
164,660,855
44,398,867
15,043,027
175,747,265
46,755,567
10,211,939
186,707,714
49,255,938
6,339,115
191,148,040
50,380,765
4,901,415
189,418,480
56,481,848
64,044,915
12,080,030
16,099,810
67,261,950
12,569,723
16,390,277
Nonpublic pupil transportation aid
Integration -- portion attributable to
transportation
Special education revenue-portion attributable
to transportation
FY 2000
4,941,898
Targeted Needs Transportation revenue:
Disabled portion
Desegregation portion
Nonpublic portion
Total revenue attributable to transportation
FY 1999
287,024,708
306,680,318
6.8%
322,275,055
5.1%
25
17,311,659
19,722,967
19,515,602
20,704,214
24,295,219
13,024,112
13,063,781
13,261,769
13,028,983
11,369,806
65,633,307
70,890,478
74,630,214
81,017,160
87,414,728
322,209,132
0.0%
337,283,168
4.7%
351,037,069
4.1%
364,119,577
3.7%
377,865,979
3.8%
Report
Table 8 (continued)
"Authorized" Transportation Costs:
Regular & Excess (Finance 720)
Disabled (Fin 723)
Desegregation (Fin 715)
Noon K (Fin 716)
Hazardous Walkers (Fin 719)
Between Schools -Public (Fin 725)
Between Schools -Nonpublic (Fin 726)
Postsecondary agreements (Fin 712)
Late Activity (Fin 717)
Learning year summer (Fin 711)
subtotal
School bus depreciation based on original
purchase price
Inflation adjustment on bus depreciation @
33%
Grand Total Cost
Total Cost minus Total Revenue
Revenue Attributable to Transportation as
Percent of Cost
FY 1996
FY 1997
FY 1998
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
FY 2003
167,760,351
59,712,204
21,789,932
9,756,818
1,800,342
2,751,253
884,229
169,965
4,173,408
354,003
269,152,505
174,616,383
63,311,992
24,113,076
10,488,316
1,318,672
2,624,765
856,582
197,196
3,991,185
537,897
282,056,064
180,734,498
66,663,194
24,647,903
9,517,644
1,486,062
2,786,649
874,776
168,628
3,944,402
294,705
291,118,461
184,850,734
71,631,585
26,291,806
10,675,687
1,520,924
3,038,375
818,450
199,595
3,038,375
424,496
302,490,027
193,733,118
78,705,012
27,846,904
10,286,186
1,441,557
2,771,975
814,002
194,317
3,875,117
583,301
320,251,489
203,581,936
86,818,713
31,014,984
9,644,444
1,515,100
2,687,463
778,328
124,338
4,104,418
608,979
340,878,703
210,832,517
92,866,584
31,945,434
9,933,777
1,560,553
2,768,087
801,678
128,068
4,227,551
627,248
355,691,497
217,924,661
99,367,245
32,903,797
10,231,791
1,607,370
2,851,129
825,728
131,910
4,354,377
646,066
370,844,073
17,534,095
18,067,003
18,588,184
18,450,410
18,048,697
18,182,738
18,182,738
18,182,738
5,786,251
292,472,851
5,962,111
306,085,178
4.7%
(595,140)
6,134,101
315,840,746
3.2%
(6,434,309)
6,088,635
327,029,072
3.5%
4,819,940
5,956,070
344,256,256
5.3%
6,973,088
6,000,304
365,061,745
6.0%
14,024,676
6,000,304
379,874,538
4.1%
15,754,961
6,000,304
395,027,115
4.0%
17,161,136
100.2%
102.0%
98.5%
98.0%
96.2%
95.9%
95.7%
5,448,143
98.1%
26
Report
For FY 1996, the last year of categorical funding, state total transportation revenue was $287
million, or 98.1% of total authorized transportation costs. During FY 1997 and FY 1998, the first
two years of the “roll- in,” the general fund revenue attributable to transportation increased more
rapidly than transportation costs, as districts with relatively low transportation costs and low
categorical funding (compared to other districts having similar population density) received
significant increases, while districts with relatively high transportation costs and high categorical
funding were he ld harmless with transition revenue. State total revenue attributable to
transportation was 100.2% of costs in FY 1997, and 102.0% of costs in FY 1998.
Between FY 1998 and FY 1999, the general fund revenue attributable to transportation remained
flat, while transportation costs increased 3.5%, thereby reducing the revenue as a percent of costs
to 98.5%. This was attributable to two factors. First, training & experience revenue was rolled out
of the basic formula, thereby reducing the base for calculating 4.85% of basic revenue and
transportation sparsity revenue. Second, the roll- in of disabled student transportation into the
special education formula reduced the funding for excess costs of this transportation because (1)
the special education excess cost formula uses a lower reimbursement percentage, (2) state total
special education funding is capped, and (3) the transportation excess cost formula had no
deduction for general education revenue, while the special education excess cost formula does have
a deduction. Because of the deduction, districts with low overall excess special education costs no
longer qualify for excess cost aid on their excess transportation costs.
From FY 1999 – FY 2003, the general fund revenue attributable to transportation is projected to
grow more slowly than transportation costs, increasing the gap between formula revenue
attributable to transportation and costs to $17.2 million by FY 2003. Districts may choose to fill
this gap by reducing transportation services, increasing fees, or cross-subsidizing transportation
costs with other general fund revenues. The impact of the $415 transfer on basic revenue is
excluded from the calculations for FY 2003 because, for districts with existing referendum
revenue, the $415 trans fer did not generate any new money, but simply transferred referendum
revenue (which was committed to other purposes) to the basic formula. If 4.85% of the full basic
revenue, including the $415 transfer, is included in the analysis, the gap between transportation
funding and costs would be eliminated, and total revenue attributable to transportation would
exceed projected costs for FY 2003 by $1.6 million. However, this would assign 4.85% of the
referendum revenue transferred to the basic formula to transportation, thereby creating a funding
gap for other general fund programs.
While this study makes an effort to compare the general fund revenue attributable to transportation
with authorized transportation costs, certain caveats should be noted. School districts are not
required to reserve or expend the general fund revenue attributable to transportation for pupil
transportation purposes. Fees charged for transportation services previously funded through aid
and levy are not reflected. While this study attempts to track the funding added to the general
education, special education and integration formulas to replace categorical transportation aids and
levies, the tracking becomes more tenuous with the passage of time. For example, the roll- in and
roll-out of various funding components from the general education formula makes comparisons
difficult. The roll-out of T&E revenue, the roll- in of graduation standards revenue and district
cooperation revenue, and the increases in the portion of basic revenue reserved for class size
reduction since FY 1997 are not adjusted for in this analysis.
27
Report
SECTION 5:
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING – EQUITY ISSUES
A. Transportation Costs vs. Funding by District Category: FY 2000
(Excluding Disabled, Desegregation)
To analyze the equity of funding for regular transportation through the general education program,
FY 2000 authorized transportation costs, (excluding the cost of transporting students with
disabilities and ½ of the cost of integration/desegregation transportatio n, which are funded
separately), were compared with FY 2000 revenues provided through the transportation sparsity
formula and 4.85% of the basic revenue. Breakdowns were calculated by school district strata,
population density categories, economic development regions, enrollment change groupings, road
mile slope groupings, and groups broken down by nonpublic school students transported as a
percent of total students transported.
•
Breakdown by Strata – State total revenue under the current funding system equals 97% of
cost for FY 2000. Revenue as a percent of cost is nearly uniform among school district
strata. Minneapolis / St. Paul and metro suburbs have nearly 99% of their costs funded on
average, while non metro districts are funded on average at a slightly lower percentage of
cost, ranging from a low of 95% in districts with enrollment between 500 and 999 to a high
of 97% in districts with enrollment below 500.
•
Breakdown by Economic Development Region – Average funding as a percent of cost
ranges from a low of 81% in the Headwaters region (North Central) to a high of 111% in
the South Central region. Districts in the central part of the state, including economic
development regions 6E, 7E and 7W, also show relatively low funding in relation to cost,
ranging from 85 – 89%.
•
Breakdown by Density Category – Districts with 200 or more students per square mile are
funded at the highest average percent of cost (102.6%), while districts with 20 – 199
students per square mile are funded at the lowest average percent of cost (92.4%). More
sparsely populated districts are funded on average at 95 – 96% of costs. A review of
scatterplots showing the relationship between population density and cost per pupil
suggests that districts with more than 200 students per square mile have significantly lower
average cost per pupil than districts with 20 to 100 students per square mile, but the current
density formula picks up only a fraction of this differential. There are very few districts
with between 100 and 200 students per square mile.
•
Breakdown by Percent of Pupils Transported to Nonpublic Schools – Districts with very
high and very low concentrations of nonpublic school pupils receive less aggregate funding
as a percent of actual costs than districts with average concentrations of nonpublic school
pupils. Districts with fewer than 5% of pupils transported to nonpublic school receive the
lowest aggregate transportation revenue as a percent of costs (92.7%), while districts with
10 to 15% of pupils transported to no npublic schools receive the highest aggregate revenue
as a percent of costs (105.1%).
28
Report
•
Breakdown by Topography (Road Slope) – There is not a significant relationship between
percent of costs funded by the current formula and road slope. Districts with more than
20% of road miles with greater than a 5 degree slope receive average funding of 99% of
costs, or slightly over the state average of 97%.
•
growing enrollment show a significantly lower average funding percentage (91%) than
other groups. For other groups, there appears to be little relationship between enrollment
gain or loss and percent of costs funded. It appears that the current sparsity formula, which
automatically generates a higher rate per student as population density declines due to
declining enrollment, is adequately adjusting for declining enrollment. The relatively low
rate of funding appears to be related to the density issue described above – many districts
with rapidly growing enrollment are in suburban fringe, with population density falling in
the 20 – 100 pupils per square mile range.
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
Outstate – Enrollment 2000 or more
Outstate – Enrollment 1000 – 1999
Outstate – Enrollment between 500 – 999
Outstate – Enrollment less than 500
State Total
Economic
Development
Region
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06E
06W
07E
07W
08
09
10
11
Name of Economic
Development Region
Northwest
Headwaters
Arrowhead
West Central
North Central
Mid-Minnesota
East Central
Central
Southwest
South Central
South Eastern
Metropolitan
State Total
Population Density Category
200 or More Students Per Square Mile
20 to 199 Students Per Square Mile
Less than 5 Students Per Square Mile
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
21,087,991.85
73,781,166.94
59,749,060.38
42,826,256.33
23,229,332.63
10,337,195.13
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
7,236,258.81
7,014,051.17
18,070,202.70
11,949,270.76
10,854,370.96
7,474,496.46
3,699,225.68
9,543,165.50
19,378,297.90
7,474,828.16
10,474,080.20
21,415,111.97
96,427,642.97
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
74,487,578.54
58,835,728.14
49,423,767.16
48,263,929.42
231,011,003.25
29
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
20,804,628.05
72,849,878.01
57,148,486.72
41,255,126.50
22,086,104.97
10,053,170.18
224,197,394.43
Ratio Current
Revenue/Transportation
Costs
98.7%
98.7%
95.7%
96.3%
95.1%
97.3%
97.1%
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
Ratio Current
Revenue/Transporta
tion Costs
6,938,033.40
5,670,853.63
18,233,736.26
11,833,959.89
9,683,560.78
6,527,377.67
3,774,094.66
8,476,165.83
16,574,044.47
7,839,431.27
11,575,074.82
22,047,628.94
95,023,432.81
224,197,394.43
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
76,420,945.00
54,381,921.83
47,594,691.89
45,799,835.71
224,197,394.43
95.9%
80.9%
100.9%
99.0%
89.2%
87.3%
102.0%
88.8%
85.5%
104.9%
110.5%
103.0%
98.5%
97.1%
Ratio Current
Costs
102.6%
92.4%
96.3%
94.9%
97.1%
Report
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Including
Nonpublic)
44,640,792.47
36,027,171.10
88,838,505.19
79,850,131.31
249,356,600.07
Nonpublic Students Transported
as a % of Total Students Transported
15% or More
10.00 – 14.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
0 – 4.99%
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
% of Miles > 5 Degree Slope
.00 - .99%
1.00 – 4.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
10.00 – 19.99%
20% or More
State Total
44,503,994.14
98,679,444.18
56,451,173.63
25,851,110.36
5,525,280.93
231,011,003.25
% Change Resident ADM from 1996-2000
> 12.00%
5.00 – 11.99%
2.00 – 4.99%
-1.99 to 1.99%
-4.99 to –2.00%
-5.00 to –11.99%
-12.00% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
40,053,234.96
51,162,915.73
21,516,407.25
37,237,157.41
34,392,274.71
37,473,599.11
9,175,414.08
231,011,003.25
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
Ratio Current
Costs
42,119,027.11
37,868,066.96
88,948,584.24
74,049,813.66
242,985,491.96
94.4%
105.1%
100.1%
92.7%
97.4%
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
43,631,089.44
90,197,403.45
58,626,062.37
26,246,354.56
5,496,484.61
224,197,394.43
Ratio Current
Costs
98.0%
91.4%
103.9%
101.5%
99.5%
97.1%
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
36,467,545.79
50,311,334.87
20,206,876.28
35,921,272.59
35,913,970.62
36,439,525.71
8,936,868.58
224,197,394.43
Ratio Current
Costs
91.1%
98.3%
93.9%
96.5%
104.4%
97.2%
97.4%
97.1%
B. Ratio of Cost to Funding – Percentiles (District by District in Appendix C)
Table 9 shows percentiles of transportation revenues as a percent of costs. There are significant
variations among districts in the percent of transportation costs funded by the state. Forty percent
of students are in districts where the revenue is between 93% and 108% of costs.
Table 9: TRANSPORTATION REVENUE AS A PERCENT
OF FY 2000 TRANSPORTATION COSTS BY PERCENTILES
Percentile
Low
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
High
Ratio Current
55.25%
76.53%
82.35%
87.95%
93.31%
97.64%
102.94%
108.40%
117.72%
141.76%
861.05%
30
Ratio Option 1
58.79%
76.53%
82.79%
91.06%
93.79%
97.64%
98.54%
111.40%
118.65%
141.76%
910.58%
Report
C. Incentive to Over-Allocate Cost to Disabled Category
The current system provides funding for disabled transportation on an actual cost basis, while other
transportation is funded without regard to actual cost. Since 100% of disabled costs are included in
the base revenue for the special education funding formula, and other costs are not used except for
the relatively small nonpublic transportation aid, there is an incentive to over-allocate costs to the
disabled category, and under-allocate cost to other categories. Anecdotal evidence and limited
audit findings suggest that this is a growing problem in Minnesota. While cost allocation
procedures specify the appropriate methods to charge costs and provide a standard for audit of
district operations, it is more difficult to challenge contracts if costs appear unusually high for
disabled transportation and unusually low for regular transportation.
D. Inconsistent Funding for Capital Costs of Disabled Transportation That are Included in
Contract/Lease vs. Use of District Vehicles
100% of operating costs for disabled student transportation are included in the base revenue for the special
education funding formula. The full cost of contracts for disabled student transportation is funded,
including the portion of the contract attributable to vehicles used by the contractor to provide this
transportation. For district-owned operations, however, depreciation on vehicles is excluded. Together
with the cost allocation issue noted above, this creates an incentive for districts to contract for disabled
student transportation, even if this is not the most cost-effective alternative.
E. Nonpublic and Charter School Costs vs. Funding
According to our survey data and anecdotal reports, the per pupil cost of transporting students to charter
and nonpublic schools can be significantly higher than the per pupil cost of transporting students to regular
district schools. This is especially the case in large urban districts where students are drawn from a large
geographic area. Together, Minneapolis and St. Paul reported that their per pupil cost for nonpublic
transportation was 1.69 times the district average, and their cost for charter school transportation was 3.37
times their district average. Other groups of districts reported only small average differences in per pupil
costs between charter and nonpublic transportation and regular transportation. The current system funds
transportation to nonpublic and charter schools at the same rate as transportation to regular public schools.
31
Report
SECTION 6:
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING OPTIONS
Issues to be addressed in designing a funding formula include:
•
•
•
•
The method used to determine the allocation of revenue among school districts,
The breakdown of total funding between state aids, local property taxes and other revenue
sources (e.g., fees),
The setting in which the formula will be placed (e.g., part of the general education formula or a
separate categorical), and
Any restrictions to be placed on the use of revenue (e.g., set-asides).
This study focuses primarily on developing and analyzing alternative methods for allocating revenue
among school districts. This is the most difficult issue of the four and requires the most research and
analysis. Decisions on which method to use for allocating revenue are largely independent of
decisions about how much will come from aids versus levies, whether to include the funding in the
general education program or create a separate categorical, and whether to place restrictions on
revenue use.
The first part of this section examines seven options for allocating regular transportation revenue
among districts, using FY 2000 data. For purposes of this analysis, regular transportation includes all
transportation categories eligible for funding in the pre-1997 categorical formula, excluding special
transportation services for disabled students and the excess cost of desegregation transportation, which
are funded separately. Three options would continue to fund transportation on a per pupil unit basis,
and three would shift to a per pupil transported basis. A seventh option, which included topographic
factors in the formula, was attempted on both a per pupil unit basis and a per pupil transported basis,
but was not found to significantly improve predictive accuracy and was not fully developed.
The next part of this section demonstrates how six of these seven options could be used to redefine the
calculation of transportation sparsity revenue, based on estimated data for FY 2003. District by district
calculations are done, and the statewide fiscal impact is determined.
Finally, a few observations are made concerning the breakdown of revenue between state aids and
local property taxes, the setting in which the formula would be placed, and potential restrictions on
revenue use.
A. Options for Allocating Regular Transportation Funding Based on FY 2000 Data
The current transportation funding method allocates reve nue on a per pupil unit basis; the amount
of revenue per pupil unit varies based on the number of square miles per pupil unit. The formula is
based on regression analysis done in 1995 which evaluated the relationship between transportation
cost per pupil unit and square miles per pupil unit. Since 1995, the formula has been linked to the
general education formula, which automatically adjusts transportation sparsity funding for inflation
at the same rate as basic general education revenue is adjusted.
All of the options considered in this section would update the regression analysis done in 1995
using FY 2000 data. Options 1, 2, and 7 would retain the current per pupil unit funding approach.
Option 1 would retain the current formula, and simply update the coefficients used to determine
transportation sparsity revenue using regression analysis conducted using FY 2000 data. Option 2
32
Report
would be similar to Option 1, but would substitute formula coefficients developed using a
regression model which excludes high density districts, (which do not receive transportation
sparsity revenue), in an effort to improve the fit between average costs by density group and
formula funding by density group. Option 7 would fund school districts based on 50% of the
Option 1 formula and 50% of the district’s actual cost.
Options 4, 5, and 6 would shift from the current per pupil unit approach to a per pupil transported
approach. Under these options, the transportation sparsity allowance would become a rate per
pupil transported, instead of a rate per pupil unit. Option 4 would continue to use sparsity and
density indexes similar to current law, but with the indexes based on square miles per pupil
transported, instead of square miles per pupil unit. Option 5 would be similar but, like Option 2,
would substitute formula coefficients developed using a regression model which excludes high
density districts, (which do not receive transportation sparsity revenue), in an effort to improve the
fit between average costs by density group and formula funding by density group. Option 6 would
be similar to Option 4, but would add eligible miles per pupil transported as a factor in the formula,
along with the density and sparsity indexes.
These options are just a few of the innumerable possibilities that could be used.
OPTION 1: Maintain Current Formula Structure – Update Transportation Sparsity
Formula Coefficients Based on Regression Analysis using FY 2000 Data.
The current transportation sparsity formula is based on analysis of the relationship between
population density (Resident Weighted ADM per Square Mile) and transportation cost per resident
WADM completed during the 1995 legislative session using FY 1994 data. Transportation sparsity
revenue per pupil unit is adjusted each year for changes in each district’s WADM and for changes
in the formula allowance. In districts with declining enrollment, the allowance per pupil unit is
increased each year to reflect the lower population density. The allowance per pupil unit is also
increased each year as the formula allowance is inflated.
However, the transportation sparsity formula has not been adjusted since the 1995 session for
changes in the underlying relationship between population density and cost per pupil unit. To
update this analysis, regression analysis was completed using FY 2000 data. For purposes of this
analysis, the cost excludes the cost of nonpublic and disabled student transportation, and one- half
of the cost of desegregation transportation, which are funded separately. Transportation categories
included are regular, excess (including FIN 719), noon kindergarten, learning year summer, late
activity bus, between schools-public, and one- half of desegregation. Bus depreciation is increased
by 33% to adjust for the impact of the bus levy. This reflects the methodology used during the
1995 legislative session.
Regression statistics and scatterplots showing the relationship between cost per pupil unit and
population density are included in Appendix D (See Regression Output: Option 1, and Graphs 1,
2, and 4) . Appendix E includes a spreadsheet showing district-by-district changes in predicted
cost per pupil unit, compared with current law. Two sets of runs were done, one weighting the
districts based on the number of pupil units and a second without weightings for district size. The
regression coefficients from the two runs were averaged and the constant term was rounded up to
generate state total formula revenue within $1 million of state total actual cost. Minnesota
Statutes, Section 126C.10, subdivision 18, would be amended to use .1609 as the constant instead
of .1469, to use 28/100 instead of 26/100 as the coefficient for the sparsity index, and to use 14/100
33
Report
instead of 13/100 as the coefficient for the density index. For FY 2003 and later, consideration
would need to be given to reducing the constant term to offset the impact of the $415 referendum
roll- in into the general education formula.
Compared with the current formula, the new analysis produces a higher constant term and higher
coefficients for the sparsity and density indexes. The base funding for high density districts would
be about the same as in current law, but the slope of the line indicating the increase in cost per
pupil unit as density decreases would be steeper (See Graph 4). Translated into revenue per pupil
unit terms, the updated analysis would provide slightly more revenue to districts with high
population density and significantly more revenue to districts with low population dens ity. Using
the FY 2000 formula allowance and pupil units in the model, the highest density districts would
gain about $1 per pupil unit, while the lowest density district in the state, South Koochiching,
would gain $73 per pupil unit. The increases decrease rapidly as population density increases. The
average increase would be about $6 per pupil unit, or $6,037,000. This suggests that, between FY
1994 and FY 2000, transportation cost per pupil unit increased more rapidly in sparsely populated
districts than in densely populated districts. This may be due in part to a greater impact of cost
drivers such as fuel prices in sparsely populated districts, and in part to more substantial changes
being made in densely populated districts to curtail costs. Generally speaking, high density
districts have had greater opportunities to reduce transportation costs through policy changes such
as increasing walking distances to bus stops, increasing the distance from home to school required
to be transported, and cha nging school start times to permit more runs per bus.
To analyze the potential impact of Option 1 on the equity of regular transportation funding, the
funding that would have been generated for each district in FY 2000 based on Option 1 was
compared with FY 2000 expenditure data. Breakdowns were calculated by school district strata,
•
Breakdown by Strata – State total revenue under the Option 1 would have equaled 99.7% of
actual cost for FY 2000. Revenue as a percent of cost would have remained nearly uniform
among school district strata. Aggregate funding for Minneapolis / St. Paul and metro suburbs
would have covered between 99% and 100% of aggregate costs, while funding for non metro
districts would have ranged from a low of 98.6% of aggregate costs in districts with enrollment
over 2000 to a high of 103.3% of aggregate costs in districts with enrollment below 500.
•
Breakdown by Economic Development Region – All regions would have received increases
compared with current law, with the largest increases going to regions with low population
density and the smallest increases going to the metro area. Average funding as a percent of
cost would have ranged from a low of 85% in the Headwaters region (North Central MN) to a
high of 114% in the South Central region. Districts in the central part of the state, including
economic development regions 6E, 7E and 7W, would continue to show relatively low funding
in relation to cost, ranging from 88 – 92%.
•
Breakdown by Density Category – While use of updated data in the current model would he lp
match up the aggregate costs and revenues for districts in the lower population density ranges,
districts with 20 – 199 pupil units per square mile would continue to have a significantly
smaller portion of their aggregate costs funded than districts in other density groups, while
districts with more than 200 pupil units per square mile would have more than 100% of their
34
Report
aggregate costs funded. Districts with 200 or more students per square mile would have been
funded at the highest average percent of cost (103.2%), while districts with 20 – 199 students
per square mile would have been funded at the lowest average percent of cost (94.4%).
Aggregate funding for more sparsely populated districts would have been very close to 100%
of actual costs.
•
Breakdown by Percent of Pupils Transported to Nonpublic Schools – As under current law,
districts with very high and very low concentrations of nonpublic school pupils receive less
aggregate funding as a percent of actual costs than districts with average concentrations of
nonpublic school pupils. Districts with more than 15% of pupils transported to nonpublic
schools receive the lowest aggregate funding as a percent of cost (95.8%), while districts with
fewer than 5% of students transported to nonpublic schools receive the next lowest aggregate
funding as a percent of cost (96.8%). Districts with between 5 and 15% of students transported
to nonpublic schools receive aggregate funding that slightly exceeds aggregate costs.
•
Breakdown by Topography (Road Slope) – As under current law, there is not a significant
relationship between percent of costs that would have been funded under Option 1 and road
slope. Districts with more than 20% of road miles with a slope greater than 5 degrees or more
receive average funding of 103.4% of costs, or slightly over the state average of 99.7%.
•
Breakdown by Enrollment Change (FY 1996 – FY 2000) Group – All groups would have
received increases, with the largest increases over current law going to districts with declining
enrollment (correlated with low population density). Districts with rapidly growing enrollment
would continue to show a significantly lower average funding percentage (92%) than other
groups. For other groups, there appears to be little relationship between enrollment gain or loss
and percent of costs funded. As under current law, the relatively low rate of funding for
rapidly growing districts appears to be related to the density issue described above – many
districts with rapidly growing enrollment are in suburban fringe, with population density falling
in the 20 – 100 pupils per square mile range.
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
21,087,991.85
73,781,166.94
59,749,060.38
42,826,256.33
23,229,332.63
10,337,195.13
231,011,003.25
35
Option 1
Revenue
20,929,629.57
73,527,960.35
58,889,634.88
42,975,414.70
23,231,842.84
10,679,862.53
230,234,344.88
Ratio Option 1
Costs
99.3%
99.7%
98.6%
100.4%
100.0%
103.3%
99.7%
Report
Economic
Development
Region
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06E
06W
07E
07W
08
09
10
11
Name of Economic
Development Region
Northwest
Headwaters
Arrowhead
West Central
North Central
Mid-Minnesota
East Central
Central
Southwest
South Central
South Eastern
Metropolitan
State Total
State Total
15% or More
10.00 – 14.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
0 – 4.99%
State Total
.00 - .99%
1.00 – 4.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
10.00 – 19.99%
20% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
7,236,258.81
7,014,051.17
18,070,202.70
11,949,270.76
10,854,370.96
7,474,496.46
3,699,225.68
9,543,165.50
19,378,297.90
7,474,828.16
10,474,080.20
21,415,111.97
96,427,642.97
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
74,487,578.54
58,835,728.14
49,423,767.16
48,263,929.42
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Including
Nonpublic)
44,640,792.47
36,027,171.10
88,838,505.19
79,850,131.31
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
44,503,994.14
98,679,444.18
56,451,173.63
25,851,110.36
5,525,280.93
231,011,003.25
36
Ratio Option 1
Costs
Option 1
Revenue
7,360,205.38
5,986,971.13
19,131,148.91
12,340,871.65
10,101,288.92
6,764,818.28
3,974,946.08
8,793,970.33
17,000,719.44
8,212,337.62
12,011,214.26
22,721,111.21
95,834,741.67
230,234,344.88
Option 1
Revenue
76,880,108.91
55,544,929.26
49,341,162.97
48,468,143.74
230,234,344.88
Option 1
Revenue
42,757,895.76
38,426,215.35
90,556,590.67
77,281,740.62
249,022,422.40
Option 1
Revenue
45,203,371.22
92,625,894.86
59,876,454.13
26,813,792.38
5,714,832.29
230,234,344.88
101.7%
85.4%
105.9%
103.3%
93.1%
90.5%
107.5%
92.2%
87.7%
109.9%
114.7%
106.1%
99.4%
99.7%
Ratio Option 1
Costs
103.2%
94.4%
99.8%
100.4%
99.7%
Ratio Option 1
Costs
95.8%
106.7%
101.9%
96.8%
99.9%
Ratio Option 1
Costs
101.6%
93.9%
106.1%
103.7%
103.4%
99.7%
Report
> 12.00%
5.00 – 11.99%
2.00 – 4.99%
-1.99 to 1.99%
-4.99 to –2.00%
-5.00 to –11.99%
-12.00% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
40,053,234.96
51,162,915.73
21,516,407.25
37,237,157.41
34,392,274.71
37,473,599.11
9,175,414.08
231,011,003.25
Option 1
Revenue
36,866,063.86
51,016,884.42
20,682,848.72
37,006,709.43
36,956,890.12
38,254,171.60
9,450,776.73
230,234,344.88
Ratio Option 1
Costs
92.0%
99.7%
96.1%
99.4%
107.5%
102.1%
103.0%
99.7%
OPTION 2: Maintain Current Formula Structure – Update Transportation Sparsity
Formula Coefficients Based on Regression Analysis using FY 2000 Data, But Exclude High
Density Districts from Regression Model and Set Predicted Cost for High Density Districts
Equal to FY 2000 Average Cost for These Districts
Under current law and Option 1, aggregate funding for districts with between 20 and 199 pupil
units per square mile is significantly lower as a percentage of actual cost than for other density
groups. Analysis of scatterplots (see Graphs 1 and 2) and district by district runs sorted by
population density indicate that:
•
There are no districts with between 126 and 210 pupil units per square mile,
•
Average cost per pupil unit in districts with 200 or more pupils per square mile is significantly
lower than average cost per pupil unit in districts with 40 to 126 pupil units per square mile,
and
•
The current regression model adjusts for only a small portion of the average cost difference
between these groups.
Because of the significant change in average transportation costs over a relatively narrow
population density range, the current formula and Option 1, which use smooth curvilinear predicted
cost functions, do not fully adjust for the cost differences between these groups. As a result,
districts in the higher density group would receive funding under Option 1 equal to 103% of
average costs, while districts in the 20 – 199 density range would receive funded equal to 94% of
average costs.
To address this disparity within the general context of the current formula, an alternative funding
model (Option 2) was developed. Under Option 2:
•
The formula predicted cost for districts with 200 or more pupil units per square mile would
equal the average cost per pupil unit for these districts in the base year used to set the formula
coefficients ($177 in FY 2000). This is $5 per pupil unit lower than the $182 allowance for
these districts under current law. These districts do not qualify for transportation sparsity
funding under current law, and would not qualify under Option 2. Therefore, these districts
would not receive less revenue under Option 2 than under current law or Option 1, unless the
formula allowance was reduced to reflect the lower base figure.
37
Report
•
Data for districts with 200 or more pupil units per square mile was excluded from the
regression analysis used to determine the coefficients for transportation sparsity funding. With
these districts excluded, the regression analysis produces a predicted cost line that is slightly
higher and more curved than under Option 1 (see Graph 4). As a result, the predicted cost for
a district with 100 pupil units per square mile would increase by about $16 per pupil unit,
compared with Option 1. The increase in predicted cost under Option 2 would gradually
diminish as density decreases, down to an increase of about $6 per pupil unit for a district with
five pupil units per square mile. As density continues to decrease, the increase in predicted cost
under Option 2 would begin to grow again, with a gain over Option 1 of about $21 per pupil
unit for a district with two pupil units per square mile, $41 per pupil unit for a district with one
pupil unit per square mile, and $101 per pupil unit for South Koochiching, with 0.2 pupil units
per square mile.
Regression statistics and scatterplots showing the relationship between predicted cost per pupil unit
under Option 2 and population density are included in Appendix D (see Regression Output:
Option 2, and Graphs 3 and 4). Appendix E includes a spreadsheet showing district-by-district
changes in predicted cost per pupil unit.
compared with FY 2000 expenditure data. Breakdowns were calculated by school district strata,
•
Breakdown by Strata – State total revenue under Option 2 would have equaled 99.4% of actual
cost for FY 2000. Revenue as a percent of cost would have remained nearly uniform among
school district strata. Aggregate funding would have covered 96% of aggregate costs for
Minneapolis / St. Paul and 98.7% for metro suburbs, while funding for non metro districts
would have ranged from a low of 99.0% of aggregate costs in districts with enrollment between
500 and 999 to a high of 102.8% of aggregate costs in districts with enrollment below 500.
•
Breakdown by Economic Development Region – Option 2 would create only modest changes
in aggregate funding by economic development region, compared with Option 1. Aggregate
funding for the metro region would decline from 99% to 98%, while region 7W (central) would
see an increase from 88% to 90%.
•
Breakdown by Density Category – Option 2 largely eliminates the disparity in percent of
aggregate costs funded by density group. Districts with 20 – 199 pupil units per square mile
would have 98.4% of their aggregate costs covered under this option, while funding for districts
with 200 or more pupil units per square mile would equal 100% of aggregate costs. Aggregate
funding for more sparsely populated districts would be about 99.4% of actual costs.
•
Breakdown by Percent of Pupils Transported to Nonpublic Schools – Districts with very high
and very low concentrations of nonpublic school pupils receive less aggregate funding as a
percent of actual costs than districts with average concentrations of nonpublic school pupils.
Districts with more than 15% of pupils transported to nonpublic schools receive the lowest
aggregate funding as a percent of cost (96.3%), while districts with fewer than 5% of students
transported to nonpublic schools receive the next lowest aggregate funding as a percent of cost
38
Report
(96.8%). Districts with between 5 and 15% of students transported to nonpublic schools
receive aggregate funding that slightly exceeds aggregate costs.
•
Breakdown by Topography (Road Slope) – There is no significant change in funding for
districts with varying degrees of road slope in Option 2 as compared with Option 1.
•
Breakdown by Enrollment Change (FY 1996 – FY 2000) Group – There is no significant
change in funding for districts with growing versus declining enrollment in Option 2 as
compared with Option 1.
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
State Total
Economic
Development
Region
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06E
06W
07E
07W
08
09
10
11
Name of Economic
Development Region
Northwest
Headwaters
Arrowhead
West Central
North Central
Mid-Minnesota
East Central
Central
Southwest
South Central
South Eastern
Metropolitan
State Total
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
21,087,991.85
73,781,166.94
59,749,060.38
42,826,256.33
23,229,332.63
10,337,195.13
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
7,236,258.81
7,014,051.17
18,070,202.70
11,949,270.76
10,854,370.96
7,474,496.46
3,699,225.68
9,543,165.50
19,378,297.90
7,474,828.16
10,474,080.20
21,415,111.97
96,427,642.97
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
74,487,578.54
58,835,728.14
49,423,767.16
48,263,929.42
231,011,003.25
39
Option 2
Revenue
20,281,773.33
72,782,727.98
60,278,077.17
42,597,338.08
22,990,305.02
10,621,182.92
229,551,404.50
Option 2
Revenue
7,327,783.05
5,944,760.87
19,307,231.49
12,280,401.60
10,025,300.32
6,782,511.29
3,928,822.85
8,838,627.31
17,509,426.18
8,117,249.68
12,008,189.76
23,082,075.45
94,399,024.67
229,551,404.51
Option 2
Revenue
74,500,360.23
57,889,294.44
49,176,689.05
47,985,060.78
229,551,404.50
Ratio Option 2
Costs
96.2%
98.7%
100.9%
99.5%
99.0%
102.8%
99.4%
Ratio Option 2
Costs
101.3%
84.8%
106.9%
102.8%
92.4%
90.7%
106.2%
92.6%
90.4%
108.6%
114.7%
107.8%
97.9%
99.4%
Ratio Option 2
Costs
100.0%
98.4%
99.5%
99.4%
99.4%
Report
15% or More
10.00 – 14.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
0 – 4.99%
State Total
.00 - .99%
1.00 – 4.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
10.00 – 19.99%
20% or More
State Total
> 12.00%
5.00 – 11.99%
2.00 – 4.99%
-1.99 to 1.99%
-4.99 to –2.00%
-5.00 to –11.99%
-12.00% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Including
Nonpublic)
44,640,792.47
36,027,171.10
88,838,505.19
79,850,131.31
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
44,503,994.14
98,679,444.18
56,451,173.63
25,851,110.36
5,525,280.93
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
40,053,234.96
51,162,915.73
21,516,407.25
37,237,157.41
34,392,274.71
37,473,599.11
9,175,414.08
231,011,003.25
Option 2
Revenue
43,000,542.74
38,186,557.51
89,850,425.79
77,301,975.99
248,339,502.03
Option 2
Revenue
44,739,601.18
92,305,242.05
59,413,338.18
27,351,601.79
5,741,621.31
229,551,404.51
Option 2
Revenue
36,934,287.87
50,624,835.43
20,613,592.94
36,893,428.07
37,084,704.64
38,008,216.41
9,392,339.14
229,551,404.50
Ratio Option 2
Costs
96.3%
106.0%
101.1%
96.8%
99.6%
Ratio Option 2
Costs
100.5%
93.5%
105.3%
105.8%
103.9%
99.4%
Ratio Option 2
Costs
92.2%
99.0%
95.8%
99.1%
107.8%
101.4%
102.4%
99.4%
OPTION 3: Maintain Current Formula Structure. Update Transportation Sparsity Formula
Coefficients Based on Regression Analysis using FY 2000 Data (as in Option 1). Add
Topographic Data Obtained from MN Planning to the Regression Model.
The current transportation sparsity formula adjusts for average differences in transportation cost
per pupil unit associated with differences among school districts in the number of pupil units per
square mile. While there is a strong correlation between population density and cost per pupil,
topographic factors may affect transportation costs more in some districts than in others. For this
option, regression analysis was conducted using variables derived from topographic data obtained
from MN Planning. The variables considered for inclusion in the formula are:
•
School District Shape Index – The circumference of each district in miles was obtained from
MN Planning. A school district shape index was constructed by dividing the circumference by
the square mile area of the district. A district with an unusual shape may have greater
challenges in providing pupil transportation than a district with similar population density but a
compact shape. One means of examining whether school district shape has a measurable
impact on transportation costs is to include a shape index variable based on the ratio of the
district’s circumference to its square mile area.
40
Report
•
Road Slope – Hilly terrain may disrupt transportation patterns, requiring additional travel time,
additional mileage, and wear and tear on vehicles. Data was obtained from MN Planning
showing percent of road miles in each district in several slope catego ries. For this analysis, a
road slope index was constructed based on the percent of all road miles in the district with a
greater than 5 degree slope.
•
Unpopulated Areas – The presence of unpopulated areas in a district may disrupt transportation
patterns by requiring transportation around the unpopulated area or to the nearest bridge across
a river, instead of in a straight line. On the other hand, an unpopulated area may reduce
transportation costs compared with other districts of similar density if the district does not have
to drive around it. For this analysis, an index of unpopulated area as a percent of total district
square mile area was constructed from data obtained from MN Planning. Unpopulated areas
included in the index were lakes, rivers, islands, publicly owned land (e.g., parks), or other
areas identified as unpopulated by the U.S. Census Bureau.
•
Interstate Highways – The presence of interstate highways in a district may disrupt
transportation patterns by requiring transportation to the nearest bridge over the highway,
instead of in the most direct line. For this analysis, an interstate highway index, based on
interstate highway miles as a percent of total road miles in the district, was constructed from
data obtained from MN Planning.
•
Road Network Density – For districts with similar population density, overall road density
(road miles per square mile) may serve as an indicator of the areas that need to be covered by a
school bus in picking up riders. For this analysis, a road density index, based on total road
miles per square mile in the district, was constructed from data obtained from MN Planning.
To evaluate the impact of these variables on transportation costs, a series of regression models was
constructed using (a) all of these variables together, (b) selected individual variables, and (c)
selected subsets, both in predicting cost per pupil unit and cost per pupil transported. Generally,
these models added only slightly to prediction accuracy, as measured by the R² statistic. For
example, when all of these variables were added to the model for predicting cost per pupil unit, the
R² statistic was increased from .521 under the current law model to .552. And, some of the
variables had signs opposite of the postulated impact. For example, it was anticipated that the
shape variable would be positively related to cost per pupil unit (e.g., higher cost in districts with
high ratio of circumference to area), but it had a negative sign.
When road slope alone was added, the R² statistic was increased from .521 under the current law
model to .528. A small positive coefficient was assigned to the road slope index. If this model
were used for funding purposes, districts with a high percentage of road grades exceeding five
percent would receive slightly more funding, and other districts would receive slightly less.
However, our review of funding versus cost indicated that districts with relatively high
concentrations of road miles exceeding a five percent slope receive average funding under both
Options 1 and 2 ranging from 103% to 106% of cost.
While topographic factors certainly affect transportation costs in certain specific situations, it was
concluded that, despite the improved information available from MN Planning, we are unable to
find significant statewide impacts of a magnitude that would justify adding another layer of
complexity to a model used to compute transportation sparsity revenue.
41
Report
OPTION 4: Base Transportation Sparsity on Cost per Pupil Transported, Instead of Cost
per Pupil Unit, and Fold Regular Portion of Nonpublic Pupil Transportation Aid into
Transportation Sparsity Formula.
Depending on the location of school buildings relative to student residences, districts with the same
overall population density may have widely varying percentages of their student population living
within normal walking distance of school. A district with a high percentage of students living
within one or two miles of school has an advantage over a district with similar population density
but fewer students living this close to the school buildings they attend. To address this issue, one
alternative would be to measure population density in the transportation sparsity formula using
square miles per pupil transported (or per eligible pupil for transportation) instead of square miles
per pupil unit. This was the approach used in the pre-1997 categorical formula. While more
closely related to transportation requirements, use of pupils transported may begin to bring in
factors subject to local control (e.g., school building locations, policies on walking distance to
school, definition of traffic hazards). While transportation funding is currently independent of
these decisions, changing to a per pupil transported basis would limit local flexibility to make cuts
in transportation services in order to balance overall general fund budgets.
The pre-1997 categorical pupil transportation funding formula included funding for transportation
of public and nonpublic school pupils to and from school in the same regular transportation
formula. Beginning in FY 1997, nonpublic to and from school transportation was funded
separately, because the per- pupil unit structure of the new formula did not lend itself to inclusion
of nonpublic school pupils. If transportation funding was returned to a per pupil transported basis,
it would simplify matters to return to a single formula for transportation to and from both public
and nonpublic schools.
To analyze the potential impact of returning to a per pupil transported-based formula, regression
analysis was completed using FY 2000 data. For purposes of this analysis, the cost of transporting
nonpublic pupils to and from school was included in the total cost, while the cost of disabled
student transportatio n, and one- half of the cost of desegregation transportation, which would
continue to be funded separately, remain excluded. Transportation categories included are regular,
excess (including FIN 719), noon kindergarten, learning year summer, late activity bus, between
schools-public, and one-half of desegregation. Bus depreciation is increased by 33% to adjust for
the impact of the bus levy. This reflects the methodology used during the 1995 legislative session.
Compared with options 1 and 2, including the cost of transportation to and from nonpublic schools
adds about $18.3 million to the state total revenues and expenditures.
Regression statistics and scatterplots showing the relationship between cost per pupil unit and
population density are included in Appendix D (See Regression Output: Option 4, and Graphs 5
and 7) . Appendix E includes a spreadsheet showing district-by-district changes in predicted cost
per pupil unit, compared with current law. Two sets of runs were done, one weighting the districts
based on the number of pupil units and a second without weightings for district size. The
regression coefficients from the two runs were averaged and the constant term was rounded up to
generate state total formula revenue within $1 million of state total actual cost.
When cost per pupil transported is used as the dependent variable in the regression analysis instead
of cost per pupil unit, the correlation between predicted and actual cost is increased significantly.
The unweighted analysis under Option 4 produced an R² statistic of .631, compared with .521
42
Report
under Option 1. This suggests that funding under Option 4, on average, would more closely reflect
actual costs. This matched the expected results, since additional information was included on
which students are actually eligible for transportation services.
The current structure of the transportation sparsity formula would be adjusted to determine total
gross revenue as the product of an allowance per pupil transported times the number of pupils
transported, instead of an allowance per pupil unit times the number of pupil units. A flat amount
per pupil unit would continue to be deducted from the gross transportation revenue to determine
the net transportation sparsity revenue. (Note: The gross transportation revenue as determined on
a per pupil transported basis could, alternatively, be rolled completely out of the general education
formula and made a separate categorical. The structure of where the funding is housed is a
separate issue to be discussed later in the report. For this section, it was assumed that the
transportation sparsity approach within the general education formula would continue.)
Minnesota Statutes, Section 126C.10, subdivision 18, would be amended to use .2025 as the
constant instead of .1469, would continue to use 26/100 as the coefficient for the sparsity index,
and would use 14/100 instead of 13/100 as the coefficient for the density index. For FY 2003 and
later, consideration would need to be given to reducing the constant term to offset the impact of the
$415 referendum roll- in into the general education formula (Note: calculations for FY 2003 are
done later in the report).
compared with FY 2000 expenditure data. As noted above, the analysis in this section includes the
cost and revenues for nonpublic-regular transportation, while the analysis above excluded this
category. Breakdowns were calculated by school district strata, population density categories,
economic development regions, enrollment change groupings, road mile slope groupings, and
groups broken down by nonpublic school students transported as a percent of total students
transported.
•
actual cost for FY 2000, compared with 97.4% under current law. While revenue as a percent
of cost is nearly uniform among school district strata under current law, there would be more
variation among strata under Option 4. Specifically, funding for Minneapolis and St. Paul
would decline from 98.1% of actual costs under current law to 89.8% under Option 4, while
revenue for nonmetro districts with 1,000 – 1,999 students would increase from 97.0% under
current law to 105.4%. Aggregate funding for other groups would remain close to 100% of
actual costs.
•
Breakdown by Economic Development Regio n – All regions except the South Central,
Southeastern, and Metro would have received increases under Option 4 compared with current
law, with the largest increase going to Region 2 (Headwaters) –up from 81.2% of actual cost
under current law to 99.3% under Option 4. Other regions with significant increases include
Region 1 (NW), Region 5 (NC), Region 6E (Mid-MN), Region 7E (E. Central) and Region 7W
(Central). Aggregate funding as a percent of regional aggregate cost would be significantly
closer to 100% in most regions than under Option 1, Option 2, or current law, ranging from a
low of 94.1% in Region 7W (Central) to a high of 106.5% in Region 8 (SW).
43
Report
•
Breakdown by Density Category – Aggregate funding for all districts with more than 200
students per square mile would decline slightly from 101.9% to 99.8% of aggregate costs.
Districts with 5 to 19 students per square mile would have been funded at the highest average
percent of cost (104.3%), while districts with 20 – 199 students per square mile would have
been funded at the lowest average percent of cost (93.1%). Aggregate funding for other groups
would range from 99.8% to 101.9% of actual costs.
•
Breakdown by Percent of Pupils Transported to Nonpublic Schools – Option 4 would decrease
aggregate funding for districts with more than 15% of pupils transported to nonpublic schools
from 94.4% under current law to 88.1%. Aggregate funding for districts with lower
concentrations of nonpublic school pupils would increase compared with current law.
•
slope. Aggregate funding for districts with relatively flat roads is higher under Option 4 than
under current law, while aggregate funding for districts with more hilly terrain is lower under
Option 4 than under current law. Districts with more than 20% of road miles with a slope of
greater than 5 degrees receive average funding of 97.5% of costs, or slightly under the state
average of 99.8%.
•
Breakdown by Enrollment Change (FY 1996 – FY 2000) Group – Compared with current law,
aggregate funding for districts with declining enrollments would increase significantly, while
aggregate funding for two of the three groups with growing enrollment would decrease slightly.
Districts with rapidly growing enrollment would continue to show a significantly lower average
funding percentage (90%) than other groups. For other groups, there appears to be little
relationship between enrollment gain or loss and percent of costs funded. As under current
law, the relatively low rate of funding for rapidly growing districts appears to be related to the
density issue described above – many districts with rapidly growing enrollment are in the
suburban fringe, with population density falling in the 20 – 100 pupils per square mile range.
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
24,085,149.26
82,230,025.36
65,204,245.37
42,977,948.83
24,134,713.15
10,724,518.11
249,356,600.07
44
Option 4
Revenue
21,620,332.89
83,055,090.72
63,461,036.40
45,292,787.66
24,247,277.94
11,062,171.06
248,738,696.67
Ratio Option 4
Costs
89.8%
101.0%
97.3%
105.4%
100.5%
103.2%
99.8%
Report
Economic
Development
Region
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06E
06W
07E
07W
08
09
10
11
Name of Economic
Development Region
Northwest
Headwaters
Arrowhead
West Central
North Central
Mid-Minnesota
East Central
Central
Southwest
South Central
South Eastern
Metropolitan
State Total
State Total
15% or More
10.00 – 14.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
0 – 4.99%
State Total
.00 - .99%
1.00 – 4.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
10.00 – 19.99%
20% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
7,374,038.55
7,235,222.78
18,684,846.76
12,465,174.09
11,315,773.65
7,929,825.67
3,763,836.03
9,712,123.99
21,117,788.18
8,065,422.72
11,824,610.35
23,552,762.69
106,315,174.61
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
78,480,634.89
57,592,203.85
55,370,998.56
57,912,762.77
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
44,640,792.47
36,027,171.10
88,838,505.19
79,850,131.31
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
46,627,461.28
106,861,585.09
60,896,900.12
28,759,346.74
6,211,306.84
249,356,600.07
45
Option 4
Revenue
7,818,312.24
7,180,769.32
19,845,251.95
12,876,787.00
11,093,800.15
7,927,521.84
3,887,081.52
9,951,528.33
19,889,689.34
8,588,210.49
12,384,308.52
22,620,012.38
104,675,423.61
248,738,696.67
Option 4
Revenue
78,336,818.44
53,636,866.28
57,758,430.29
59,006,581.66
248,738,696.67
Option 4
Revenue
39,343,396.57
38,411,892.42
90,134,223.48
80,849,184.20
248,738,696.67
Option 4
Revenue
47,831,434.24
101,766,048.77
65,189,827.76
27,894,164.16
6,057,221.75
248,738,696.67
Ratio Option 4
Costs
106.0%
99.3%
106.2%
103.3%
98.0%
100.0%
103.3%
102.5%
94.2%
106.5%
104.7%
96.0%
98.5%
99.8%
Ratio Option 4
Costs
99.8%
93.1%
104.3%
101.9%
99.8%
Ratio Option 4
Costs
88.1%
106.6%
101.5%
101.3%
99.8%
Ratio Option 4
Costs
102.6%
95.2%
107.1%
97.0%
97.5%
99.8%
Report
> 12.00%
5.00 – 11.99%
2.00 – 4.99%
-1.99 to 1.99%
-4.99 to –2.00%
-5.00 to –11.99%
-12.00% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
44,472,582.28
55,556,440.15
23,387,935.43
39,810,612.51
37,340,681.85
39,273,866.91
9,514,480.94
249,356,600.07
Option 4
Revenue
40,023,799.36
55,699,384.33
21,820,712.95
40,843,463.47
39,863,194.92
40,751,622.48
9,736,519.17
248,738,696.67
Ratio Option 4
Costs
90.0%
100.3%
93.3%
102.6%
106.8%
103.8%
102.3%
99.8%
Transportation Sparsity Formula. Exclude High Density Districts from Regression Model
and Set Predicted Cost for High Density Districts Equal to FY 2000 Average Cost for These
Districts
Option 5 is the same as Option 4, except that high-density districts were excluded from the
regression model used to measure the relationship between population density and cost per pupil
transported. The formula predicted cost for high- density districts was set equal to the FY 2000
average cost for these districts. As with Option 2, this model was developed in an effort to address
the relatively low aggregate funding as a percent of cost provided to districts with between 20 and
199 students per square mile. Under Option 4, the aggregate funding for this density group equals
93.1% of actual cost, while aggregate funding for other density groups ranges from 99.8% to
104.3% of actual cost.
To analyze the potential impact of Option 5, regression analysis was completed using FY 2000
data. Regression statistics and scatterplots showing the relationship between cost per pupil unit
and population density are included in Appendix D (see Regression Output: Option 5, and
Graphs 6 and 7). Appendix E includes a spreadsheet showing district-by-district changes in
predicted cost per pupil unit, compared with current law. Two sets of runs were done, one
weighting the districts based on the number of pupil units and a second without weightings for
district size. The regression coefficients from the two runs were averaged and the constant term
was rounded up to generate state total formula revenue within $1 million of state total actual cost.
The current structure of the transportation sparsity formula would be adjusted to determine total
gross revenue as the product of an allowance per pupil transported times the number of pupils
transported, instead of an allowance per pupil unit times the number of pupil units. A flat amount
per pupil unit would continue to be deducted from the gross transportation revenue to determine
the net transportation sparsity revenue.
constant instead of .1469, would use 27/100 instead of 26/100 as the coefficient for the sparsity
index, and would use 11/100 instead of 13/100 as the coefficient for the density index. For FY
2003 and later, consideration would need to be given to reducing the constant term to offset the
impact of the $415 referendum roll- in into the general education formula (Note: calculations for
FY 2003 are done later in the report).
46
Report
compared with FY 2000 expenditure data. As noted above, the analysis for Options 4, 5, and 6
includes the cost and revenues for nonpublic-regular transportation, while the analysis for Options
1 and 2 above excluded this category. Breakdowns were calculated by school district strata,
mile slope groupings, and groups broken down by public school students transported as a percent
of total students transported.
•
variation among strata under Option 5, similar to Option 4. Specifically, funding for
Minneapolis and St. Paul would decline from 98.1% of actual costs under current law to 89.7%
under Option 5, while revenue for metro suburban districts would increase from 99.1% under
current law to 104.3%. Aggregate funding for other groups would remain close to 100% of
actual costs.
•
Breakdown by Economic Development Region – Aggregate funding as a percent of regional
aggregate cost would be significantly more uniform among regions than under Options 1, 2, 4,
or current law, ranging from a low of 95.3% in Region 7W (Central) to a high of 104.7% in
Region 3 (Arrowhead).
•
Breakdown by Density Category – Aggregate funding as a percent of actual costs would be
more uniform across density groups tha n under current law or Option 4. Aggregate funding as a
percent of costs for the group with the lowest percentage, districts with 20 – 199 students per
square mile, would increase from 93.1% under Option 4 to 95.9% under Option 5. Aggregate
funding for other groups would range from 98.9% to 102.7% of actual costs.
•
by slightly less than Option 4, from 94.4% under current law to 88.9%. Aggregate funding for
districts with lower concentrations of nonpublic school pupils would increase compared with
current law.
•
slope. Like Option 4, aggregate funding for districts with relatively flat roads is higher under
Option 5 than under current law, while aggrega te funding for districts with more hilly terrain is
lower under Option 5 than under current law. Districts with more than 20% of road miles with
a slope of 5% or more receive average funding of 96.2% of costs, compared with 100.5% under
current law.
•
Breakdown by Enrollment Change (FY 1996 – FY 2000) Group – Aggregate funding for
districts with declining enrollments would be slightly lower than under Option 4, but
significantly higher than under current law, while aggregate funding for districts with growing
enrollment would be comparable to current law and slightly higher than under Option 4.
Districts with rapidly growing enrollment would continue to show a significantly lower average
funding percentage (92%) than other groups. For other groups, there appears to be little
47
Report
relationship between enrollment gain or loss and percent of costs funded. As under current
law, the relatively low rate of funding for rapidly growing districts appears to be related to the
density issue described above – many districts with rapidly growing enrollment are in the
(Current)
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
State Total
Economic
Development
Region
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06E
06W
07E
07W
08
09
10
11
Name of Economic
Development Region
Northwest
Headwaters
Arrowhead
West Central
North Central
Mid-Minnesota
East Central
Central
Southwest
South Central
South Eastern
Metropolitan
State Total
State Total
Transportation
Cost FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
24,085,149.26
82,230,025.36
65,204,245.37
42,977,948.83
24,134,713.15
10,724,518.11
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
7,374,038.55
7,235,222.78
18,684,846.76
12,465,174.09
11,315,773.65
7,929,825.67
3,763,836.03
9,712,123.99
21,117,788.18
8,065,422.72
11,824,610.35
23,552,762.69
106,315,174.61
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
78,480,634.89
57,592,203.85
55,370,998.56
57,912,762.77
249,356,600.07
48
Current Revenue
FY 2000 (Includes
Nonpublic)
Current
Costs
23,637,425.28
81,471,150.02
62,768,958.23
41,701,536.20
22,958,103.75
10,448,318.48
242,985,491.96
98.1%
99.1%
96.3%
97.0%
95.1%
97.4%
97.4%
Current Revenue
FY 2000 (Includes
Nonpublic)
Current
Costs
7,084,718.46
5,872,680.99
18,872,421.48
12,367,923.65
10,161,987.89
6,959,820.92
3,831,304.51
8,645,491.51
18,325,576.93
8,467,076.41
12,966,704.91
24,321,209.00
105,108,575.30
242,985,491.96
96.1%
81.2%
101.0%
99.2%
89.8%
87.8%
101.8%
89.0%
86.8%
105.0%
109.7%
103.3%
98.9%
97.4%
Current Revenue
FY 2000 (Includes
Nonpublic)
Current
Costs
79,939,174.66
53,135,423.81
54,553,123.42
55,357,770.07
242,985,491.96
101.9%
92.3%
98.5%
95.6%
97.4%
Report
15% or More
10.00 – 14.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
0 – 4.99%
State Total
.00 - .99%
1.00 – 4.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
10.00 – 19.99%
20% or More
State Total
> 12.00%
5.00 – 11.99%
2.00 – 4.99%
-1.99 to 1.99%
-4.99 to –2.00%
-5.00 to –11.99%
-12.00% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
44,640,792.47
36,027,171.10
88,838,505.19
79,850,131.31
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
46,627,461.28
106,861,585.09
60,896,900.12
28,759,346.74
6,211,306.84
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
44,472,582.28
55,556,440.15
23,387,935.43
39,810,612.51
37,340,681.85
39,273,866.91
9,514,480.94
249,356,600.07
Current Revenue
FY 2000 (Includes
Nonpublic)
Current
Costs
42,119,027.11
37,868,066.96
88,948,584.24
74,049,813.66
242,985,491.96
94.4%
105.1%
100.1%
92.7%
97.4%
Current Revenue
FY 2000 (Includes
Nonpublic)
Current
Costs
45,868,019.22
98,501,523.34
63,119,831.06
29,255,390.91
6,240,727.43
242,985,491.96
98.4%
92.2%
103.7%
101.7%
100.5%
97.4%
Current Revenue
FY 2000 (Includes
Nonpublic)
Current
Costs
40,711,025.33
54,833,636.13
22,157,842.27
38,661,149.72
39,067,208.43
38,277,182.60
9,277,447.49
242,985,491.96
91.5%
98.7%
94.7%
97.1%
104.6%
97.5%
97.5%
97.4%
(Option 5)
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
24,085,149.26
82,230,025.36
65,204,245.37
42,977,948.83
24,134,713.15
10,724,518.11
249,356,600.07
49
Option 5
Revenue
21,610,340.00
85,773,581.01
63,609,269.56
44,146,724.59
23,558,666.37
10,779,304.66
249,477,886.19
Ratio Option 5
Costs
89.7%
104.3%
97.6%
102.7%
97.6%
100.5%
100.1%
Report
Economic
Development
Region
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06E
06W
07E
07W
08
09
10
11
Name of Economic
Development Region
Northwest
Headwaters
Arrowhead
West Central
North Central
Mid-Minnesota
East Central
Central
Southwest
South Central
South Eastern
Metropolitan
State Total
State Total
15% or More
10.00 – 14.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
0 – 4.99%
State Total
.00 - .99%
1.00 – 4.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
10.00 – 19.99%
20% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
7,374,038.55
7,235,222.78
18,684,846.76
12,465,174.09
11,315,773.65
7,929,825.67
3,763,836.03
9,712,123.99
21,117,788.18
8,065,422.72
11,824,610.35
23,552,762.69
106,315,174.61
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
78,480,634.89
57,592,203.85
55,370,998.56
57,912,762.77
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
44,640,792.47
36,027,171.10
88,838,505.19
79,850,131.31
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
46,627,461.28
106,861,585.09
60,896,900.12
28,759,346.74
6,211,306.84
249,356,600.07
50
Option 5
Revenue
7,617,839.62
6,987,184.77
19,554,383.00
12,586,303.76
10,809,601.84
7,820,420.64
3,779,118.30
9,815,207.72
20,134,751.62
8,356,534.48
12,156,676.77
22,475,942.67
107,383,921.01
249,477,886.19
Option 5
Revenue
80,068,447.54
55,256,391.46
56,857,484.28
57,295,562.92
249,477,886.20
Option 5
Revenue
39,677,172.56
39,108,889.17
91,084,125.27
79,607,699.20
249,477,886.19
Option 5
Revenue
48,057,328.67
101,629,827.90
65,444,418.13
28,369,248.88
5,977,062.62
249,477,886.19
Ratio Option 5
Costs
103.3%
96.6%
104.7%
101.0%
95.5%
98.6%
100.4%
101.1%
95.3%
103.6%
102.8%
95.4%
101.0%
100.1%
Ratio Option 5
Costs
102.0%
95.9%
102.7%
98.9%
100.1%
Ratio Option 5
Costs
88.9%
108.6%
102.5%
99.7%
100.1%
Ratio Option 5
Costs
103.1%
95.1%
107.5%
98.6%
96.2%
100.1%
Report
> 12.00%
5.00 – 11.99%
2.00 – 4.99%
-1.99 to 1.99%
-4.99 to –2.00%
-5.00 to –11.99%
-12.00% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
44,472,582.28
55,556,440.15
23,387,935.43
39,810,612.51
37,340,681.85
39,273,866.91
9,514,480.94
249,356,600.07
Option 5
Revenue
40,705,048.18
57,043,918.18
22,258,937.28
40,497,719.50
39,736,066.82
39,748,047.67
9,488,148.56
249,477,886.19
Ratio Option 5
Costs
91.5%
102.7%
95.2%
101.7%
106.4%
101.2%
99.7%
100.1%
Transportation Sparsity Formula. Include Eligible Miles per Pupil Transported in the
Regression Model used to Predict Transportation Costs.
Option 6 is the same as Option 4, except that eligible miles per pupil transported is included in the
regression model used to predict transportation costs. Using actual vehicle miles in a formula can
significantly improve the correlation with actual cost, but it is difficult to separate out the mileage
due to factors beyond local control from the factors resulting from local decisions on routing &
scheduling, etc. Some states use “linear density” or miles per pupil transported in their
transportation formulas (see summary of other states’ transportation funding provisions in
Appendix J). When miles are used, there is often a procedure for state approval of school bus
routes. Since mileage reported by Minnesota school districts has not been approved or edited,
additional efforts would be needed to clean up the mileage data if this approach were to be
implemented.
To analyze the potential impact of Option 6, regression analysis was completed using FY 2000
data. Regression statistics and scatterplots showing the relationship between cost per pupil unit
and population density are included in Appendix D (see Regression Output: Option 6, and
Graphs 8 and 9). Appendix E includes a spreadsheet showing district-by-district changes in
predicted cost per pupil unit, compared with current law. Two sets of runs were done, one
weighting the districts based on the number of pupil units and a second without weightings for
district size. The regression coefficients from the two runs were averaged and the constant term
was rounded up to generate state total formula revenue within $1 million of state total actual cost.
When cost per pupil transported is used as the dependent variable in the regression analysis instead
of cost per pupil unit, and mileage is included as an independent variable, the correlation between
predicted and actual cost is increased significantly over current law. The unweighted analysis
under Option 6 produced an R² statistic of .691, compared with .631 under Option 4 and .521
under Option 1. This suggests that funding under Option 6, on average, would more closely reflect
actual costs. This matched the expected results, since additional information was included on
which students are actually eligible for transportation services and how many miles they are
transported.
51
Report
As in Options 4 and 5, the current structure of the transportation sparsity formula would be
adjusted to determine total gross revenue as the product of an allowance per pupil transported times
the number of pupils transported, instead of an allowance per pupil unit times the number of pupil
units. A flat amount per pupil unit would continue to be deducted from the gross transportation
revenue to determine the net transportation sparsity revenue.
constant instead of .1469, would use 12/100 instead of 26/100 as the coefficient for the sparsity
index, would use 7/100 instead of 13/100 as the coefficient for the density index, and would add a
coefficient of 33/100ths for the miles per pupil transported variable. For FY 2003 and later,
consideration would need to be given to reducing the constant term to offset the impact of the $415
referendum roll- in into the general education formula (Note: calculations for FY 2003 are done
later in the report).
compared with FY 2000 expenditure data. As noted above, the analysis for Options 4, 5, and 6
includes the cost and revenues for nonpublic-regular transportation, while the analysis for Options
1 and 2 above excluded this category. Breakdowns were calculated by school district strata,
population density categories, economic development regions, enrollment cha nge groupings, road
•
variation among strata under Option 6, similar to Options 4 and 5. Specifically, funding for
Minneapolis & St. Paul would decline from 98.1% of actual costs under current law to 88.9%
under Option 6, while revenue for metro suburban districts would increase from 99.1% under
current law to 104.6%. Aggregate funding for rural districts with enrollment under 1,000
would also increase significantly, compared with current law.
•
Breakdown by Economic Development Region – Similar to Option 5, aggregate funding as a
percent of regional aggregate cost would be significantly more uniform among regions than
under Options 1, 2, 4, or current law, ranging from a low of 95.4% in Region 7W (Central) to a
high of 103.8% in Region 6W (Upper MN Valley) and Region 8 (SW).
•
Breakdown by Density Category – Similar to Option 5, aggregate funding as a percent of actual
costs would be more uniform across density groups than under current law or Option 4.
Aggregate funding as a percent of actual costs would range from 96.2% for districts with 20 to
199 students per square mile to 102.1% for districts with 200 or more students per square mile.
•
by slightly less than Options 4 and 5, from 94.4% under current law to 90.8%. Aggregate
funding for districts with lower concentrations of nonpublic school pupils would increase
compared with current law.
52
Report
•
Breakdown by Topography (Road Slope) – Like Options 4 and 5, aggregate funding for
districts with relatively flat roads is higher under Option 6 than under current law, while
aggregate funding for districts with more hilly terrain is lower under Option 6 than under
current law. Districts with more than 20% of road miles with a slope greater than 5 degrees
receive average funding of 93.7% of costs, compared with 100.5% under current law.
•
Breakdown by Enrollment Change (FY 1996 – FY 2000) Group – Similar to Option 5,
aggregate funding for districts with declining enrollments would be slightly lower than under
Option 4, but significantly higher than under current law, while aggregate funding for districts
with growing enrollment would be comparable to current law and slightly higher than under
Option 4. Districts with rapidly growing enrollment would continue to show a significantly
lower average funding percentage (89%) than other groups. For other groups, there appears to
be little relationship between enrollment gain or loss and percent of costs funded. As under
current law, the relatively low rate of funding for rapidly growing districts appears to be related
to the density issue described above – many districts with rapidly growing enrollment are in the
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
State Total
Economic
Development
Region
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06E
06W
07E
07W
08
09
10
11
Name of Economic
Development Region
Northwest
Headwaters
Arrowhead
West Central
North Central
Mid-Minnesota
East Central
Central
Southwest
South Central
South Eastern
Metropolitan
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
24,085,149.26
82,230,025.36
65,204,245.37
42,977,948.83
24,134,713.15
10,724,518.11
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
7,374,038.55
7,235,222.78
18,684,846.76
12,465,174.09
11,315,773.65
7,929,825.67
3,763,836.03
9,712,123.99
21,117,788.18
8,065,422.72
11,824,610.35
23,552,762.69
106,315,174.61
249,356,600.07
53
Option 6
Revenue
21,409,460.24
86,021,198.21
62,542,869.37
44,019,879.75
24,223,158.70
11,003,636.50
249,220,202.77
Option 6
Revenue
7,482,284.07
7,098,832.72
18,751,305.82
12,686,597.06
11,042,152.27
7,955,575.82
3,906,597.62
9,809,144.70
20,139,901.25
8,369,827.73
12,137,162.96
22,410,162.28
107,430,658.45
249,220,202.77
Ratio Option 6
Costs
88.9%
104.6%
95.9%
102.4%
100.4%
102.6%
100.0%
Ratio Option 6
Costs
101.5%
98.1%
100.4%
101.8%
97.6%
100.3%
103.8%
101.0%
95.4%
103.8%
102.6%
95.2%
101.1%
100.0%
Report
State Total
15% or More
10.00 – 14.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
0 – 4.99%
State Total
.00 - .99%
1.00 – 4.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
10.00 – 19.99%
20% or More
State Total
> 12.00%
5.00 – 11.99%
2.00 – 4.99%
-1.99 to 1.99%
-4.99 to –2.00%
-5.00 to –11.99%
-12.00% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
78,480,634.89
57,592,203.85
55,370,998.56
57,912,762.77
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
44,640,792.47
36,027,171.10
88,838,505.19
79,850,131.31
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
46,627,461.28
106,861,585.09
60,896,900.12
28,759,346.74
6,211,306.84
249,356,600.07
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Includes
Nonpublic)
44,472,582.28
55,556,440.15
23,387,935.43
39,810,612.51
37,340,681.85
39,273,866.91
9,514,480.94
249,356,600.07
Option 6
Revenue
80,123,540.86
55,428,395.57
55,261,573.56
58,406,692.77
249,220,202.77
Option 6
Revenue
40,550,278.09
38,526,507.10
91,200,471.83
78,942,945.75
249,220,202.77
Option 6
Revenue
48,483,296.62
102,166,917.95
64,209,837.21
28,541,744.55
5,818,406.44
249,220,202.77
Option 6
Revenue
39,640,618.95
58,089,153.76
22,520,227.14
40,599,726.03
39,100,306.35
39,627,473.07
9,642,697.46
249,220,202.77
Ratio Option 6
Costs
102.1%
96.2%
99.8%
100.9%
100.0%
Ratio Option 6
Costs
90.8%
106.9%
102.7%
98.9%
100.0%
Ratio Option 6
Costs
104.0%
95.6%
105.4%
99.2%
93.7%
100.0%
Ratio Option 6
Costs
89.1%
104.6%
96.3%
102.0%
104.7%
100.9%
101.4%
100.0%
OPTION 7: Maintain Current Formula Structure. Update Transportation Sparsity Formula
Coefficients Based on Regression Analysis using FY 2000 Data as in Option 1. Based on 50%
of Funding Under Option 1 and 50% Based on Actual Costs
The most direct way to ensure that costs are covered is to reimburse costs directly. This is done for
the disabled transportation category, where it has been difficult to develop a formula based on other
factors beyond district control. The pre-1997 categorical transportation formula used a
combination of formula-predicted costs and actual costs to determine regular transportation
54
Report
funding. The down side of using actual costs is that it provides little or no incentive for cost
containment. And, if the total amount of funding is limited, districts with relatively high costs due
to inefficient operations, or “Cadillac” service, receive more than their fair share of the pie.
To analyze the potential impact of Option 7, the funding that would have been generated for each
district in FY 2000 was compared with FY 2000 expenditure data. Breakdowns were calculated by
school district strata, population density categories, economic development regions, enrollment
change groupings, road mile slope groupings, and groups broken down by public school students
transported as a percent of total students transported.
•
actual cost for FY 2000. Revenue as a percent of cost would have been nearly uniform among
school district strata, ranging from a low of 99.3% of costs for nonmetro districts with
enrollment over 2,000 to a high of 101.7% for nonmetro districts with enrollment less than
500.
•
Breakdown by Economic Development Region – All regions except those in the mid-central
and north-central areas of the state would have received increases compared with current law.
The largest increases would be in Region 9 (South Central), Region 8 (Southwest), Region 6W
(Upper Minnesota Valley), Region 10 (South Eastern), and Region 3 (Arrowhead).
•
Breakdown by Density Category – Aggregate revenue as a percent of cost would have been
nearly uniform among density categories, ranging from a low of 96.7% in districts with 20 to
199 students per square mile to a high of 101.2% for districts with 200 or more students per
square mile.
•
Breakdown by Percent of Pupils Transported to Nonpublic Schools – As under current law,
districts with very high and very low concentrations of nonpublic school pupils receive less
aggregate funding as a percent of actual costs than districts with average concentrations of
nonpublic school pupils, but including actual costs in the calculations would reduce the
variation among groups. Districts with more than 15% of pupils transported to nonpublic
schools receive the lowest aggregate funding as a percent of cost (97.2%), while districts with
fewer than 5% of students transported to nonpublic schools receive the next lowest aggregate
funding as a percent of cost (98.4%). Districts with between 5 and 15% of students transported
to nonpublic schools receive aggregate funding that slightly exceeds aggregate costs.
•
slope. Districts with more than 20% of road miles with a slope of greater than 5 degrees
receive average funding of 101.7% of costs, or slightly over the state average of 99.8%.
•
Breakdown by Enrollment Change (FY 1996 – FY 2000) Group – Option 7 would narrow the
variation in percent of cost funded among enrollment change categories compared with current
law, but declining districts would continue to receive slightly higher funding in relation to cost
than growing districts. Aggregate funding as a percent of cost for districts with rapidly
growing enrollment would increase from 91.1% under current law to 96.0% under Option 7,
but would continue to be significantly lower than for groups with slower enrollment growth.
55
Report
As under current law, the relatively low rate of funding for rapidly growing districts appears to
be related to the density issue described above – many districts with rapidly growing
enrollment are in suburban fringe, with population density falling in the 20 – 100 pupils per
square mile range.
Strata Name
Metro Suburban
State Total
Economic
Development
Region
Number
01
02
03
04
05
06E
06W
07E
07W
08
09
10
11
Name of Economic
Development Region
Northwest
Headwaters
Arrowhead
West Central
North Central
Mid-Minnesota
East Central
Central
Southwest
South Central
South Eastern
Metropolitan
State Total
State Total
15% or More
10.00 – 14.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
0 – 4.99%
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Excludes
Nonpublic)
21,087,991.85
75,339,651.12
59,749,060.38
41,267,772.15
23,229,332.63
10,337,195.13
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Excludes
Nonpublic)
7,236,258.81
7,014,051.17
18,070,202.70
11,949,270.76
10,854,370.96
7,474,496.46
3,699,225.68
9,543,165.50
19,378,297.90
7,474,828.16
10,474,080.20
21,415,111.97
96,427,642.97
231,011,033.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Excludes
Nonpublic)
70,974,025.78
52,606,002.43
51,485,539.40
55,945,435.64
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Excludes
Nonpublic)
37,297,162.49
32,163,042.92
82,755,338.29
78,795,459.54
231,011,003.25
56
Option 7
Revenue
21,008,810.71
75,122,381.61
59,319,347.63
41,433,017.55
23,230,587.74
10,508,528.83
230,622,674.06
Option 7
Revenue
7,298,232.10
6,500,511.15
18,600,675.80
12,145,071.21
10,477,829.94
7,119,657.37
3,837,085.88
9,168,567.92
18,189,508.67
7,843,582.89
11,242,647.23
22,068,111.59
96,131,192.32
230,622,674.06
Option 7
Revenue
71,839,612.13
50,793,558.38
51,826,576.81
56,162,926.74
230,622,674.06
Option 7
Revenue
36,268,535.51
33,193,510.38
83,662,706.57
77,497,921.61
230,622,674.06
Ratio Option 7
Costs
99.6%
99.7%
99.3%
100.4%
100.0%
101.7%
99.8%
Ratio Option 7
Costs
100.9%
92.7%
102.9%
101.6%
96.5%
95.3%
103.7%
96.1%
93.9%
104.9%
107.3%
103.1%
99.7%
99.8%
Ratio Option 7
Costs
101.2%
96.6%
100.7%
100.4%
99.8%
Ratio Option 7
Costs
97.2%
103.2%
101.1%
98.4%
99.8%
Report
% of Miles > 5 Degrees Slope
.00 - .99%
1.00 – 4.99%
5.00 – 9.99%
10.00 – 19.99%
20% or More
State Total
> 12.00%
5.00 – 11.99%
2.00 – 4.99%
-1.99 to 1.99%
-4.99 to –2.00%
-5.00 to –11.99%
-12.00% or More
State Total
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Excludes
Nonpublic)
44,503,994.14
98,679,444.18
56,451,173.63
25,851,110.36
5,525,280.93
231,011,003.25
Transportation
Costs FY 2000
(Excludes
Nonpublic)
40,053,234.96
51,162,915.73
21,516,407.25
37,237,157.41
34,392,274.71
37,473,599.11
9,175,414.08
231,011,003.25
Option 7
Revenue
Ratio Option 7
Costs
44,853,682.68
95,652,669.52
58,163,813.88
26,332,451.37
5,620,056.61
230,622,674.06
Option 7
Revenue
100.8%
96.9%
103.0%
101.9%
101.7%
99.8%
Ratio Option 7
Costs
38,459,649.41
51,089,900.08
21,099,627.98
37,121,933.42
35,674,582.41
37,863,885.36
9,313,095.41
230,622,674.06
96.0%
99.9%
98.1%
99.7%
103.7%
101.0%
101.5%
99.8%
B. Impact of Replacing the Current Transportation Sparsity Formula for FY 2003
with Selected Options
The preceding section developed six options that could be used to replace the current transportation
sparsity formula. While the analysis was completed using FY 2000 data, FY 2003 is the earliest
year that a change to one of these options could be implemented. Because transportation costs are
projected to increase significantly between FY 2000 and FY 2003, and because the general
education funding has been adjusted for inflation and to include the $415 roll- in, the options
developed using FY 2000 data were adjusted as described below as they were plugged into the FY
2003 transportation sparsity formula.
Appendix F shows the district-by-district impact of replacing the current transportation sparsity
formula with each of the six options in FY 2003. Two tables are provided; one sho wing the change
in total revenue, and the second showing the change in revenue per pupil unit.
OPTION 1: Updated Data
•
The regression formula developed under Option 1 using FY 2000 data is: LN(Cost per pupil
unit) = 6.40 + .28*LN(sparsity index) + .14*LN(density index).
•
Converted from natural logarithm form, the formula is: Cost per pupil unit = $602 times
sparsity index raised to the .28 power times density index raised to the .14 power.
•
Between FY 2000 and FY 2003, transportation costs are projected to increase by 14.76 percent.
Adjusted for inflation, the constant term in this equation would be $691, or .1501 times the FY
2003 formula allowance of $4,601.
57
Report
•
Gross transportation sparsity revenue would equal the district’s allowance per adjusted
marginal cost pupil unit (AMCPU) times the current year AMCPU.
•
marginal cost pupil units. (Note: the current subtraction factor of 4.85% would be reduced to
4.55% to adjust for the new regression results and the projected growth in transportation costs
between FY 2000 and FY 2003, compared with the formula allowance increase between FY
2000 and FY 2003, including the $415 transfer).
•
$58.5 million, an increase of $1.9 million. The increase is much smaller than the increase
under Option 1 computed using FY 2000 data because transportation sparsity funding was
increased at a higher rate than the growth in transportation costs between FY 2000 and FY
2003 as a result of the $415 transfer in FY 2003.
•
All districts would receive an increase under Option 1. The increase would range from only a
few cents in high density districts that qualify for essentially no transportation sparsity revenue,
up to $51 per pupil unit in South Koochiching County, which has the lowest population density
of any district in the state.
OPTION 2: Updated Data with High Density Districts Excluded From Regression Analysis
•
unit) = 6.36 + .30*LN(sparsity index) + .11*LN(density index). In this option, funding for
districts with 200 or more pupil units per square mile was set at zero.
•
•
•
Gross transportation sparsity revenue would equal the district’s allowance per adjusted
marginal cost pupil unit (AMCPU) times the current year AMCPU.
•
marginal cost pupil units.
•
$60.4 million, an increase of $3.8 million.
•
While most districts would receive an increase under Option 2, two groups of districts would
receive a slight decrease. For districts with 200 or more pupil units per square mile,
transportation sparsity funding would be reduced from 21 cents per pupil unit to zero. The
58
Report
current 21 cent figure is due to rounding of the formula coefficients, and this is being
eliminated under Option 2. In addition, because Option 2 changes the shape of the predicted
cost line (see Graph 4), districts with density near the state average may lose up to $4 per pupil
unit.
•
On the other hand, districts with moderately high density (but fewer than 200 students per
square mile) receive increases of up to $17 per pupil unit, and districts with very low density
receive increases of up to $92 (South Koochiching County).
•
A hold harmless provision to ensure that no district would receive less under Option 2 than
under current law would cost $0.3 million.
OPTION 4: Per Pupil Transported Model
•
transported) = 6.63 + .26LN(sparsity index) + .14*LN(density index).
•
•
•
Gross transportation sparsity revenue would equal the district’s allowance per pupil transported
times the current year public and nonpublic pupils transported in the regular, excess and
desegregation categories.
•
•
Under this model, the to-and-from school portion of nonpublic pupil transportation aid
(“nonpublic-regular transportation aid”) would be rolled into the transportation sparsity
formula. Total transportation sparsity revenue would be $87.8 million, an increase of $7.9
million over the sum of the current transportation sparsity aid and the nonpublic-regular
transportation aid, (assuming no hold-harmless).
•
Because Option 4 would significantly change the basis for allocating transportation sparsity
revenue, some districts would gain significant amounts of revenue, while others would lose
significant amounts of revenue (assuming no hold-harmless).
•
59
Report
OPTION 5: Per Pupil Transported Model With High Density Districts Excluded From
Regression Analysis
•
transported) = 6.56 + .27*LN(sparsity index) + .11*LN(density index).
•
•
•
times the current year public and nonpub lic pupils transported in the regular, excess and
•
•
Under this model, nonpublic-regular transportation aid would be rolled into the transportation
sparsity formula. Total transportation sparsity revenue would be $87.9 million, an increase of
$8.0 million over the sum of the current transportation sparsity aid and the nonpublic-regular
•
•
OPTION 6: Per Pupil Transported Model With Eligible Miles Per Pupil Transported
Included in Regression Formula
•
transported) = 4.61 + .12*LN(sparsity index) + .07*LN(density index) +.33*LN(miles per
pupil transported).
•
sparsity index raised to the .12 power times density index raised to the .07 power times miles
per pupil transported raised to .33 power.
•
60
Report
•
times the current year public and nonpublic pupils transported in the regular, excess and
•
•
Under this model, nonpublic-regular transportation aid would be rolled into the transportation
sparsity formula. Total transportation sparsity revenue would be $88.7 million, an increase of
$8.7 million over the sum of the current transportation sparsity aid and the nonpublic-regular
•
•
OPTION 7: 50% of Option 1 Plus 50% of Actual Cost
•
A district’s initial transportation sparsity revenue would equal 50% of the district’s initial
transportation sparsity revenue under Option 1, plus 50% of the district’s actual cost in the base
year, adjusted for the change in the formula allowance between the base year and the current
year and the change in the district’s pupil units between the base year and the current year.
•
The net transportation sparsity revenue would equal the greater of zero or the gross
transportation sparsity revenue minus 4.55 percent times the formula allowance times the
district’s adjusted marginal cost pupil units.
•
Under this model, nonpublic – regular transportation aid would remain separate from
transportation sparsity. Total transportation sparsity revenue would be $63.3 million, an
increase of $6.7 million over current law.
•
•
C. Categorical versus General Education Funding
In the current pupil transportation funding structure, most transportation funding (excluding
funding for nonpublic pupil transportation, disabled student transportation, and excess costs of
desegregation transportation) is included in the general education revenue program. Funding
attributable to pupil transportation includes transportation sparsity revenue and 4.85% of basic
61
Report
revenue. These funds are not reserved for pupil transportation purposes; they can be used for any
general fund purpose. This structure is intended to maximize the flexibility that school districts
have in expending general fund resources. As school districts seek to resolve budget challenges,
pupil transportation must compete with other uses of general fund resources, including classroom
instruction, for resources. In recent years, some school districts have chosen to reduce
transportation services and costs in a variety of ways, (e.g., longer walking distances, eliminating
half day kindergarten / noon kindergarten transportation, keeping school buses longer), in order to
preserve other priorities in the general fund (e.g., class sizes).
The first section of this chapter developed six options for allocating regular transportation revenue
among school districts. These options could be used either in the current transportation funding
structure or in a categorical structure. The second section of this chapter demonstrated how each of
these six options could be used to redefine the calculation of transportation sparsity revenue for FY
2003 and later, assuming that the current transportation funding structure would be maintained.
An alternative to this approach would be to use one of the six options as the basis for a categorical
pupil transportation formula. Under the categorical funding alternative, the transportation sparsity
component of general education revenue would be eliminated, and the basic formula allowance
would be reduced by 4.55% ($209 in FY 2003). The reduction in the formula allowance would
trigger a reduction in compensatory revenue and sparsity revenue, unless an adjustment was made
to fund these components based on the formula allowance plus $209. A related issue would be
whether the special education and integration revenue attributable to transportation would be
separated out and added to the categorical transportation aid.
Another alternative, in between the current structure and the separate categorical, would be to keep
regular transportation funding in the general education program, but to establish a separate
“transportation” component of general education funding that would combine the current
transportation sparsity component and the 4.55% of the basic formula. This approach would more
clearly identify the portion of general education revenue attributable to transportation, without
creating a separate categorical. As with the separate categorical, the reduction in the formula
allowance would trigger a reduction in compensatory revenue and sparsity revenue, unless an
adjustment was made to fund these components based on the formula allowance plus $209.
A related issue is whether any restrictions should be placed on the use of revenue attributable to
transportation. Options here include:
•
•
•
•
Keeping transportation revenues and expenditures in the unreserved general fund;
Returning to a separate transportation fund in UFARS
Establishing a reserve account for transportation within the general fund, or
Keeping most transportation revenues and expenditures in the unreserved general fund, but
establishing a separate bus purchase account in the general fund, and requiring school districts
to make annual bus depreciation trans fers to the bus purchase account.
The requirement of annual bus depreciation transfers could be done with or without a waiver
process. Under a waiver process, school districts meeting certain criteria, such as being in
Statutory Operating Debt (SOD) or maintaining a specified bus replacement schedule (e.g., 8 – 10
years), could apply to the commissioner for authority to waive the transfer requirement.
62
Report
D. State and Local Shares of Transportation Funding
The analysis in this chapter assumed that pup il transportation would continue to be funded
primarily with state general education aid, supplemented with fees for certain transportation
services, and referendum levies / aids for districts with referendums that opt to use part of their
referendum revenue for this purpose.
Alternatively, a portion of transportation funding could come from categorical levies, as under the
pre-1997 funding system. This could include a uniform tax rate for basic transportation services,
and/or separate levies for specific types of services (e.g., bus purchase, excess transportation, late
activity bus). Since basic transportation is mandated for students residing two or more miles from
school, returning to a basic transportation levy would run counter to the state takeover of basic
education costs enacted in 2001.
E. Special Transportation Funding Options
Addressing Incentive for Improper Cost Allocation
As described above in the chapter on transportation funding equity issues, funding some transportation
categories on an actual cost basis while other transportation categories are funded without regard to actual
cost creates an incentive to over-allocate costs to categories where cost is a factor, and under-allocate cost
to other categories. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is a growing problem with disabled
transportation costs in Minnesota. Since 100% of disabled costs are included in the base special education
funding formula, and other costs are not used except for the relatively small nonpublic transportation aid,
there is an incentive to allocate as much as possible to the disabled category. To address this issue in the
long term, it may be necessary to (1) fund disabled transportation using formula variables other than actual
cost, (2) return to a funding system which factors in actual cost for other categories into funding levels, or
(3) adopt a cost approval process for special education transportation costs. Additional study would be
needed to develop these options further.
Addressing Inconsistency in Funding for Capital Costs
As described above in the chapter on transportation funding equity issues, 100% of operating costs for
disabled student transportation are included in the base revenue for the special education funding formula.
The full cost of contracts for disabled student transportation is funded, including the portion of the contract
attributable to vehicles used by the contractor to provide this transportation. For district-owned operations,
however, depreciation on vehicles is excluded. Together with the cost allocation issue noted above, this
creates an incentive for districts to contract for disabled student transportation, even if this is not the most
cost-effective alternative. To make the funding system more neutral, the state should either include bus
depreciation on district-owned vehicles used for disabled student transportation as an eligible cost, or
exclude the portion of contract costs attributable to the cost of vehicles. The latter approach is used
elsewhere in the special education funding formula for contracted special education services: 68% of
teacher salaries are include in the base revenue, but only 52% of contracted costs are included, to help
recognize that the contract costs include a broader expenditure base (e.g., fringe benefits).
63
Report
F. Nonpublic And Charter School Costs vs. Funding
Together, Minneapolis and St. Paul reported that their per pupil cost for nonpublic regular & excess
transportation was 1.69 times the district average for public regular & excess transportation (excluding
charter schools), and their cost for charter school transportation was 3.37 times their district average public
regular and excess transportation (excluding charter schools). Other groups of districts reported only small
average differences in per pupil costs between charter and nonpublic transportation and regular/excess
transportation to public schools, excluding charter schools. The current system funds transportation to
nonpublic and charter schools at the same rate as transportation to regular public schools.
Options for addressing the nonpublic / charter school funding gap include:
•
Weighting nonpublic pupils transported by Minneapolis and St. Paul at a level approaching the
reported ratio of nonpublic to public cost per pupil transported in the two districts (e.g., 1.5). This
would recognize the added costs of nonpublic pupil transportation in large districts that need to
transport nonpublic students to many different nonpublic schools within a large geographic area. Since
these are self-reported cost ratios from a survey instrument, further analysis would be appropriate to
verify the accuracy and reasonableness of the data.
•
Establishing a grant program to enable school districts to recover a portion of excess costs for
transporting students to charter schools.
•
Requiring charter schools to provide their own transportation, or allowing school districts to charge
back excess costs to charter schools, and establishing a grant program to enable charter schools to
recover a portion of excess costs for transporting students.
G. Other Transportation Funding Options
Funding for Special Transportation Services
Funding of some transportation categories on an actual cost basis while other transportation
categories are funded without regard to actual cost creates an incentive to over-allocate costs to
categories where cost is a factor, and under-allocate cost to other categories. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that this is a growing problem with disabled transportation costs in Minnesota. Since
100% of disabled costs are included in the base special education funding formula, and other costs
are not used except for the relatively small nonpublic transportation aid, there is an incentive to
allocate as much as possible to the disabled category. To address this issue in the long term, it may
be necessary to (1) fund disabled transportation using formula variables other than actual cost, (2)
return to a funding system which factors in actual cost for other categories into funding levels, or
(3) adopt a cost approval process for special education transportation costs.
64
Report
SECTION 7:
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS
The use of public transportation for transporting students to and from school has been mostly limited to
those programs that draw students from a very large geographical area. Public transit has also been
utilized primarily by secondary school aged students. Programs such as magnet schools, charter
schools, open enrollment, and nonpublic schools outside of the home district are prime candidates for
the use of public transportation.
When public transportation is used, several methods of funding have been tried. In some cases,
schools purchase tokens or bus passes for students. In some situations, the transit authority may make
passes available that are good only during non-peak hours. This method is used to ensure that students
who utilize the transportation service do not conflict with transportation of the working public at peak
transit periods. Public transit authorities generally provide student transportation at favorable rates.
There are several factors that limit the use of public transportation for students. First, schools and
parents are hesitant to put younger students on transit buses because other passengers are not screened
before riding. In many cases, students will have longer walks to and from bus stops if riding transit
buses. This can occur on both ends of the ride. Time schedules for transit buses are not planned to get
student passengers to school at favorable times. On a public transit system, many students will be
required to transfer one or more times to get to the point nearest their destination. Public transit drivers
have lower standards of qualifications than school bus drivers.
In general, public transportation is used to a high degree for those programs and/or situations where the
needs of the users match up with its unique characteristics.
65
Report
TRANSPORTATION STUDY – PUBLIC MEETING
September 28, 2001
Mike Turrito, Minnetonka
Sheryl Lazarus, University of MN
David Peterson, MAPT/SPPS
Rod Zivkovich, Eden Prairie
Mae Hawkins, St. Francis
Scott Cronquist, AMSD
Mickey Johnson, Minneapolis
Tom Lubovich, ISD 716
Shelly Jonas, M & M Bus
Jon Goetz, Rochester School Bus Service
Rob Sloan, ISD 318
Bill McNab, Benjamin Bus
Shelly Kolling, ISD 656
Bill Regan, Owatonna Bus Company
Cynthia Zook, Diocese of Duluth
Ken Willms, Duluth Schools
Tom Merrill, Faribault
Peter Noll, MN Catholic Conference
Larry Martini, Forest Lake
Norm Chaffee, CFL
Bob Fischer, CFL
Jan Vanderwall, Roseville
Kurt Schumann, MSBOA
Kevin Seifermann, Foley
Keith Paulson, South Washington County
Chuck Holden, Anoka
Mark Parr, ISD 196
Bruce Dischinger, MN Coaches
May Kane, Archdiocese of Mpls./St. Paul
Julie Bernick, Stahlke Bus Service
Joe Czarneski, ISD 698
Mike Moran, Reichert Bus
Todd Swanson, ISD 465
Tom Hey, Southwest Coaches
Helen Giesen, OSB, Diocese of Duluth
Melody Hejda, A.R.C.C.
Greg Hein, Duluth Schools
Mike Wilhelmi, Senate
Gary Botzek, MSBOA
Tom Melcher, CFL
Linda Schroeder, CFL
Summary
A public meeting was held at the Fairview Community Center Great Room in Roseville,
Minnesota, to get input from persons interested in the transportation study. Notices were sent
out to school district superintendents, transportation supervisors, school bus contractors, school
business officials, school administrators and nonpublic school representatives. Forty-one (41)
persons attended.
Department of Children, Families & Learning (CFL) representatives explained the steps that had
been taken to plan for the transportation study. A draft of the survey instrument was distributed
and discussed. Participants made many suggestions for amending the survey instrument. They
also gave input regarding other data that they felt should be included in the study.
Some written comments were also submitted to the department.
After the meeting, department staff reviewed the suggested changes to the surve y instrument and
modified the survey instrument as appropriate. Copies of the newly revised survey instrument
were distributed to key individuals who attended the meeting and those individuals gathered
small groups together to review the revised survey. Additional suggestions were submitted to
the department and final revisions were made before the survey instrument was distributed.
66
Appendix A
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION USE IN
PUPIL TRANSPORTATION MEETING
December 13, 2001
In order to fulfill the study requirement for examining public transportation options, the
Department of Children, Families & Learning (CFL) scheduled a public meeting on December
13, 2001. The meeting was held at the CFL Conference Center.
School districts known to utilize public transportation were sent invitations and asked to bring
representatives of their respective transit authorities. In addition, invitations were sent to all
charter schools. Notification of the meeting was sent to the Minnesota Association for Pupil
Transportation (MAPT) and the Minnesota School Bus Operators Association (MSBOA).
Sixteen (16) persons attended the meeting. Attendees included:
Jim Schmidt - MAPT
David Peterson - St. Paul Schools
Harold Turnquist - St. Paul Schools
Shawn Hamilton - Skills for Tomorrow High School
Dan Holter - Rochester City Lines
Mona Berg - Rochester Schools
Philip Torgerson - Duluth Transit Authority
Carrie Bakken - Avalon School (#4075)
Adam Sands - Agricultural Food Science Academy (# 4074)
Suleiman Amin - Minnesota International School
Julia Douglas - Math and Science Academy
Arlene McCarthy - Metro Transit
Rep. Bob Ness - Dassel
Dr. Tom Melcher - CFL
Dr. Norm Chaffee - CFL
Bob Fischer - CFL
Summary
Philip Torgerson explained how the Duluth Transit Authority (DTA) serves the school district.
DTA has been providing student transportation for about 30 years. Eighteen vehicles do 30
morning trips and 32 vehicles do 50 afternoon trips. This is in addition to regular transit routes.
District 709 has the discipline policy. Special student training is provided by DTA. They
transport 2900 students per day from the 7th through the 12th grades. They provide seasonal
passes, for students living 1.5 to 2.0 miles from school, for severe weather. Photo IDs are
required.
The St. Germain Amendment was discussed in relation to the special legislation passed for DTA.
Basically, the St. Germain Amendment provides that transit authorities which receive federal
funds for capital expenditures or operating expenses cannot provide pup il transportation services
if there is a private school bus contractor capable of providing that service.
67
Appendix A
Dan Holter explained how the Rochester City Lines serve the Rochester students. Most
Rochester students are transported on school buses. Rochester has a 1.25 mile walk distance for
elementary students and a 2.0 mile walk distance for middle and secondary school students.
Arlene McCarthy explained how Metro Transit serves students in the metro area. Districts
purchase tokens, passes, and/or value cards for students at discounted rates. Students ride
regular routes. They also have special youth fares for young adults. These special youth fares
provide 10 rides for $5.00. Certain restrictions apply.
Several school district and charter school representatives spoke. They told how their students
utilize public transit services.
Rep. Ness explained the purpose behind the study and what information the legislature hoped to
acquire from the study.
Transit representatives and others attending the meeting were invited to make suggestions on any
changes in state law that they believe would facilitate more effective use of public transportation
in providing pupil transportation services. No suggestions were offered at the meeting, but
transit representatives and others at the meeting were invited to come forward with suggestions
at a later date.
In summary, it appears that pubic transit provides the greatest benefit for schools and programs
that have limited numbers of participants coming in from a large geographical area. Where
numbers of students are more concentrated, conventional school bus service is more efficient.
68
Appendix A
TRANSPORTATION STUDY – REVIEW MEETING
January 24, 2002
A meeting was held on January 24, 2002 to review and report on the progress made on the pupil
transportation study required by the 2001 Legislature. The meeting was held in the Fairview
Community Center in Roseville from 2:00 to 4:00 pm.
The following persons were in attendance:
Representative Bob Ness
Dick Julander, ISD 197
John Siffert, ISD 877
Heide Miller, ISD 2144
Joe Czarneski, ISD 698
John Thomas, ISD 112
Mark Vogel, ISD 625
Larry Nadeau, ISD 15
Les Fujitelo, ISD 271
Jere Phillips, ISD 719
Jan Vanderwall, ISD 623
Duane Vornbrock, ISD 743
Kurt Schumann, MSBOA/Laidlaw
Jeff Tornquist, ISD 272
Jan Dittbrenner, WATS
Chuck Holden, ISD 11
Bruce Dischinger, Minnesota Coaches
Jan Gora, State Academies
Cindy McKay, ISD 16
Debbie Wiirre, ISD 2142
Laureen Frost, ISD 139
Morris Mattson, ISD 197
David Tripp, ISD 270
Tom Melcher, CFL
Norm Chaffee, CFL
Linda Schroeder, CFL
Danyell Punelli House Research
Kirk Schneidawind, MSBA
Mark Hinds, AMSD
Dan Holter, Rochester City Bus Lines
Connie Hayes, ISD 300
Larry Martini, ISD 831
Michelle Czech, ISD 51
Kevin Seifermann, ISD 51
Brad Lundell, MAPT
Gary Botzek, MSBOA
Rob Sloan, ISD 318
Randy Dukek, ISD 196
Robert Duncan, ISD 177
Gary Dechaine, ISD 281
Ray Kroll, MAPT
Ron Kurth, MSBOA/Kurth Bus Service
Lyle Hicks, MSBOA/Hicks Bus Line
Adrian Hagen, State Academies
Tom Knoll, ISD 203
Bill McNab, MSBOA/Benjamin Bus
Johnny Villarreal, SEIU Local 284
Julie Bernick, MSBOA/Stahlke Bus
Philip Torgerson, Duluth Transit Authority
Carol Hokenson, CFL
Bob Fischer, CFL
Summary
A second public meeting was held at the Fairview Community Center Great Room in Roseville,
Minnesota, to review the first draft of the transportation study report. Notices were again sent out to
school district superintendents, school business officials, transportation directors, school bus contractors,
nonpublic school representatives and persons interested in public transportation. Fifty-one (51)
individuals attended this meeting.
Department staff went through those parts of the report that had been completed. They discussed, in
detail, how they would proceed with the balance of the study. There was much discussion and some
modifications were suggested.
69
Appendix A
District Support Services/Transportation
1500 Highway 36 West
Roseville, MN 55113-4266
1999-00 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION DATA
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA NEEDED FOR A
REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE
ED-02271-01
DUE 12/15/01
GENERAL INFORMATION. The information requested on this report is for a study on pupil transportation costs that is required by
First Special Session Laws 2001, Chapter 6, Article 1, Section 51. Districts must complete this form for the 1999-2000 school year and
return it to the department by December 15, 2001. Additional information and instructions appear on the reverse side of this form.
IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION
District Name
District Number
District Contact Person
Title
Telephone Number
(
)
Fax Number
(
)
1 9 9 9 -0 0 D A T A O N R E G U L A R C A T E G O R Y C O S T , B U S D R I V E R S A L A R I E S , F U E L U S A G E A N D C O S T
FINANCE DIMENSION 720
REGULAR/EXCESS
STUDENTS
COST
PUBLIC (EXCLUDING CHARTER SCHOOLS)
REGULAR
$
NONPUBLIC
CHARTER
PUBLIC (EXCLUDING CHARTER SCHOOLS)
EXCESS
NONPUBLIC
CHARTER
TOTAL
$
AVERAGE HOURLY SALARY OF REGULAR ROUTE BUS DRIVERS
$
AVERAGE HOURLY BENEFITS OF REGULAR ROUTE BUS DRIVERS
NO. OF REGULAR ROUTE FULL-TIME
DRIVERS WHO RECEIVE BENEFITS
NO. OF REGULAR ROUTE FULL-TIME
DRIVERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE BENEFIT S
NO. OF REGULAR ROUTE PART -TIME
DRIVERS WHO RECEIVE BENEFITS
NO. OF REGULAR ROUTE PART -TIME
DRIVERS WHO DO NOT RECEIVE BENEFITS
$
TOTAL GALLONS OF FUEL
USED FOR PUPIL
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
AVERAGE COST PER GALLON
1995-96 SCHOOL YEAR
1999-00 SCHOOL YEAR
A. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF
RUNS FOR EACH REGULAR ROUTE?
A. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF
RUNS FOR EACH REGULAR ROUTE?
B. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF
TIME OF EACH REGULAR ROUTE?
B. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE LENGTH OF TIME
OF EACH REGULAR ROUTE?
C. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE SCHEDULED
RIDE TIME ON REGULAR ROUTE BUSES FOR
C. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE SCHEDULED
RIDE TIME ON REGULAR ROUTE BUSES FOR
70
Appendix B
1995-96 SCHOOL YEAR
1999-00 SCHOOL YEAR
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS? MIDDLE SCHOOL
STUDENTS? HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS?
ELEMENTARY STUDENTS? MIDDLE SCHOOL
STUDENTS? HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS?
D. HOW MANY SCHOOL DAYS PER YEAR
DO YOU HAVE EARLY DISMISSAL TIMES?
D. HOW MANY SCHOOL DAYS PER YEAR DO
YOU HAVE EARLY DISMISSAL TIMES?
E. WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS
DURING THE REGULAR SCHOOL YEAR FOR
WHICH Y OU PROVIDED REGULAR ROUTE
TRANSPORTATION?
E. WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS
DURING THE REGULAR SCHOOL YEAR FOR
WHICH YOU PROVIDED REGULAR ROUTE
TRANSPORTATION?
F. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE AGE OF THE
BUS FLEET THAT IS USED ON A REGULAR
BASIS (DO NOT INCLUDE SPARES)?
F. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE AGE OF THE BUS
FLEET THAT IS USED ON A REGULAR BASIS
(DO NOT INCLUDE SPARES)?
G. DOES YOUR DISTRICT TRANSPORT
RESIDENT STUDENTS TO THE SCHOOL OF
THEIR CHOICE WITHIN YOUR DISTRICT?
G. DOES YOUR DISTRICT TRANSPORT
RESIDENT STUDENTS TO THE SCHOOL OF
THEIR CHOICE WITHIN YOUR DISTRICT?
H. DO YOUR BUSES TRAVEL OUTSIDE
YOUR DISTRICT TO TRANSPORT
ENROLLMENT OPTIONS STUDENTS?
H. DO YOUR BUSES TRAVEL OUTSIDE YOUR
DISTRICT TO TRANSPORT ENROLLMENT
OPTIONS STUDENTS?
I. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE DISTANCE YOU
REQUIRE STUDENTS TO WALK TO PICK-UP
POINTS?
I. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE DISTANCE YOU
REQUIRE STUDENTS TO WALK TO PICK-UP
POINTS?
J. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE DISTANCE
STUDENTS MUST LIVE FROM SCHOOL
BEFORE TRANSPORTATION IS PROVIDED
FOR: ELEMENTARY STUDENTS? MIDDLE
SCHOOL STUDENTS? HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS?
J. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE DISTANCE
STUDENTS MUST LIVE FROM SCHOOL
BEFORE TRANSPORTATION IS PROVIDED
FOR: ELEMENTARY STUDENTS? MIDDLE
SCHOOL STUDENTS? HIGH SCHOOL
STUDENTS?
COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS:
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
VERIFICATION OF REPORT DATA
I hereby certify that the data provided in this report is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
and that records are available to support the data.
________________________________________________________________
Signature - Responsible Authority
71
______________________________
Date
Appendix B
1999-00 SCHOOL YEAR
SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSPORTATION DATA
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM
Finance Dimension 720: Regular Category includes elementary students who live one mile or more from school
and secondary students who live two miles or more from school. Excess Category includes secondary students
who live one mile or more from school but less than two miles and K-12 students who live less than one mile
from school and who are transported because of the extraordinary traffic, drug or crime hazards they would
encounter if they walk. Both the Regular and Excess Categories include public, nonpublic and charter school
students. Numbers reported by the district on the 1999-00 MARSS and Pupil Transportation Annual Report
have already been entered on the form along with the total cost reported by the district for the Regular/Excess
Category transportation services (Finance Dimension 720 on UFARS). If the total cost amount is lower than
what a district reported on UFARS, it is because insurance receipts recorded in Source Dimension 625/Finance
Dimension 720 have been subtracted from the amount.
Districts must allocate the total cost reported on the form among the different classifications of students using
the services. If the public, nonpublic and charter school students ride on the same bus routes to and from
school, then districts should determine the cost for the different classifications on an average cost per pupil
basis. For example, total cost reported/total students = average cost per student. Average cost per student
times public regular category students = total public regular category cost; average cost per student times
nonpublic regular category students = total nonpublic regular category cost, etc.
If separate routes are set up to serve the different classifications of students, districts should determine the
total cost of each route and enter the total of all routes on the table.
Some districts may have a combination of the different classifications of students riding the same routes and
some riding on separate routes. These districts will have to use both methods to determine the cost.
Average Hourly Salary of Bus Drivers: Report the average hourly salary for bus drivers in the district whether
employed by a district or a contractor. Do not include benefits in this amount. Report hourly benefits
separately. For benefits, include health insurance, retirement, social security, etc. If a district is using public
transit services exclusively to transport students, enter "transit" on this line.
Gallons of Fuel and Cost: Report the total gallons of fuel used for all pupil transportation services whether
purchased by a district or contractor. If the district or contractor receives an exemption from paying or a
rebate for paying the federal fuel excise tax, do not include the tax in calculating the average cost per gallon.
If a district is using public transit services exclusively to transport students, enter "transit" on this line.
Comparison Between 1995-96 and 1999-00 School Years : The 1995-96 school year was the last year that
transportation services were funded under a separate categorical funding formula. The information in this
table will provide information on how transportation services have changed after four years under the new
funding formula. Additional information may be provided in the comments/suggestions area (see below).
A.
Report the average number of runs you have on each route. A route is defined as a designated course
regularly traveled by a school bus to pick up students and take them to school, or to deliver students
from school to their homes or designated bus stops. A run is defined as a complete trip on a route.
To illustrate the difference between a run and a route: it is possible to have six daily runs on the same
route, i.e., one high school, one middle school, and one elementary run both morning and afternoon.
B.
Report the average length of time students are transported on each route.
72
Appendix B
C.
Enter the average length of time for different runs by grade levels of students. There should be three
answers to this question.
D.
Enter the number of days in which schools are dismissed early for teacher conferences. Include days
when all schools are dismissed early for conferences. Also, include days when some schools are
dismissed early for conferences while other remain in session until the regular dismissal time (e.g.,
elementary dismissed at noon, secondary at regular time.) Do not include days schools are dismissed
early because of emergencies such as bad weather.
E.
Enter the total number of days regular route transportation services were provided. For example,
some days the elementary schools may be in session while secondary schools are closed. That day
should be counted as a transportation day.
F.
Enter the average age of the district's and/or contractor's bus fleet. Only include buses used on a
regular basis. Do not include buses that are used only occasionally as spares or for parts.
G.
Indicate either "yes" or "no" on whether your district transports resident students to the school of their
choice within your district. Only indicate "yes" when your district actually travels between attendance
areas. Indicate "no" if resident students must travel to the attendance area border to catch the bus
traveling within the attendance area and your buses do not actually travel into the other attendance
area.
H.
Indicate either "yes or "no" on whether your buses travel outside your district to pick-up or drop-off
students who have open enrolled into your district. These students are residents of other school
districts.
I.
Enter the average distance (in miles) that a student must walk to a pick-up point (e.g., .5 mile).
J.
Enter the average distance students must live from school before your district provides regular route
transportation. There should be three answers to this question.
Comments/Suggestions: Beginning with the 1996-97 school year, funding for transporting public school
students was rolled into the General Education formula. Also, all transportation levies were eliminated.
Transportation funding for special education students is now part of the special education formula and there is
a separate funding formula for nonpublic transportation service. Since these funding changes were
implemented:
¦
¦
¦
¦
Has the district changed the way it provides transportation services (e.g., reduced or eliminated late
activity bus service, noon kindergarten)?
Is the district still replacing school buses on the same schedule as before the funding change or have bus
purchases been delayed?
Has the district started charging fees for transportation services?
Have there been any significant cost increases since FY 2000 (the cost data reported on this form)?
A detailed explanation in answer to these questions and other transportation issues facing school districts will
assist the department in preparing the report.
73
Appendix B
DEFINITIONS
Adjusted Average Daily Membership (ADM)
Includes:
1.
•
•
•
Resident students enrolled in the district, including:
Foreign exchange students enrolled under J-1 visas,
Foster children placed in the district and who have no IEP, and
Students enrolled in post secondary institutions under the PSEO (post secondary
enrollment options) program.
2. Resident students enrolled elsewhere and for whom the resident district pays their full
instructional tuition, including:
• Foster children who have an IEP, whose parent resides in this district and for whom the
district pays full instructional tuition. (Exclude students whose parents reside in the
district but do not have an IEP and are placed in a foster home in another district).
• Residents enrolled in a cooperatively hosted ALC that does not have a fiscal host (e.g.,
287, Dakota County ALC, Freshwater Education District, Southern Plains Education
Cooperative, etc.).
• Residents placed in nonpublic or non-Minnesota programs via their IEP or care and
treatment and the district is paying their instructional tuition.
3. Nonresident students enrolled in the district via one of the attendance options programs, i.e.;
open enrollment, graduation incentives, parent- initiated agreements between boards,
continued enrollment of juniors and seniors, etc.
4. Students enrolled in a cooperative for which a district is the fiscal host, e.g., an ALC.
Excluded from these counts are:
•
•
•
Shared time students, i.e., students who are enrolled in a nonpublic or home school but
who are enrolled part-time in public school classes.
Nonresident students who are ineligible to generate general education revenue, e.g.,
foreign students enrolled under an F-1 visa, residents of other states, and nonresidents
whose parents pay their tuition to enroll in a district.
Students enrolled in private contract programs.
AMCPU (Adjusted Marginal Cost Pupil Units)
Is the combination of weighting adjusted average daily membership and dampening pupil losses
during periods of decline. The weighting counts kindergarten pupils as .557 pupil units; grades
1-3 as 1.115 pupil units, grades 4-6 as 1.06 and grades 7-12 as 1.3 pupil units. After the weights
are applied a marginal pupil unit calculation is performed, so that a district’s current year
marginal pupil counts is the greater of its actual weighted pupil count or 77 percent of the current
year’s weighted count plus 23 percent of the prior year’s weighted count.
74
Appendix B
Regular Category
The regular category includes transportation to and from school during the regular school year
for elementary public, nonpublic and charter school students residing one mile or more from
school and secondary public, nonpublic and charter school students residing two miles or more
from school. This category also includes enrollment options students where the distance from
the border to the school is one mile or more for elementary students and two miles or more for
secondary students.
Excess Category
The excess category includes secondary public, nonpublic and charter school students who live
one mile or more from school but less than two miles and all students who live less than one mile
from school and who are transported because of the extraordinary traffic, drug, and crime
hazards.
Disabled Category
The disabled category includes students with disabilities who receive special transportation or
special accommodations while being transported to and from school. Special transportation
includes routes designed to transport students with disabilities because they are unable to ride
regular routes. Special accommodations include using special equipment on regular bus routes
or having aides ride regular bus routes with the students. Without these special accommodations,
these students would not be able to ride regular bus routes.
Desegregation Category
The desegregation category includes students who attend schools outside their normal attendance
areas under approved desegregation or integration plans.
Mileage
Mileage represents annual mileage on district-owned and contractor-owned school buses.
Route
A designated course regularly traveled by a school bus to pick up students and take them to
school or to deliver students from school to their homes or designated bus stops.
Run
A complete trip on a route. (To illustrate the difference between a run and a route: it is possible
to have six daily runs on the same route, i.e., one high school, one middle school, and one
elementary run both morning and afternoon.)
75
Appendix B
SURVEY COMMENTS
This appendix will summarize the school districts’ comments submitted with the transportation
study survey form.
Instructions for the survey form suggested four primary areas for comment. This summary will
first look at the specific responses to the four primary areas and then list the many miscellaneous
comments received.
Has the district changed the way it provides transportation services (e.g., reduced or eliminated
late activity service, noon kindergarten)?
YES – 37
NO – 7
Reduced number of days – 2
Eliminated late activity busing – 16
Reduced late activity busing – 1
Changed walking distances – 3
Changed to all-day every-day kindergarten – 9
Changed school start times – 2
Increased walking distances – 1
Other Comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Anoka-Hennepin will most likely reduce services in the 2002-2003 school year.
Over the last ten years, we have cut from 76 runs to 54 runs daily. We also cut one
activity run. We added three runs daily in 2000-2001 for a private school in the district.
Our district changed to a four-tier system to cut costs.
Some schools were on a semester and others on trimester, now all schools on semester.
We face significant declining enrollment. Yet we don’t believe we can contract the
number of school bus routes without significantly raising average ride time. Even if we
contract a route, the total number of miles driven would remain nearly the same. We will
be running more miles and hauling fewer students.
Since 1995-96 we have eliminated three town routes and the preschool noon route.
In 2001-02 we eliminated one feeder bus route, two feeder van routes, and two regular
bus routes.
We have eliminated buses and drivers due to declining enrollment.
We have added three routes to keep bus riding time under one hour.
Consultant hired in 1998 resulting in combining some routes and deleting some buses.
We closed one elementary building. Increased walking distances for secondary. Buses
are not going out of district for open enrollment students. Deleted hazardous
transportation for elementary except for RR tracks.
No longer take our nonpublic students to their school in a connecting district.
76
Appendix B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Parked 25 buses and scrapped three buses.
Combined some nonpublic transportation.
Eliminated hazardous busing for secondary.
Considering eliminating late activity.
May change noon kindergarten.
Stupid report – 2
This information could have been gotten off the MARSS report.
Is the district still replacing school buses on the same schedule as before the funding change or
have bus purchases been delayed?
YES (no change) – 7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NO (changed/delayed) – 34
Went from two buses per year to one bus per year.
No longer replace buses on regular schedule.
We were replacing two buses one year and one bus the next year up until July 1, 1996.
Now purchase one bus every other year. Give us our bus purchase levy back.
We were on an eight- year depreciation schedule. The last three years have purchased NO
buses.
Our fleet has aged considerably in the past few years. Funding replacement buses must
be a priority!!
Current rotation schedule for 64 buses is 16-20 years.
Now purchase only used school buses.
Bus replacement timeline extended from eight to 10 years.
Nineteen-year replacement cycle. Hope to get it back to 16 years.
Bus repair costs have been higher because of greater mileage and age of buses – four
districts.
Was on two-three year replacement schedule, now try for five years.
Stopped replacing buses for three years. Switched from 8-12 year replacement schedule.
SOD district.
Ellsworth disbanded their bus replacement schedule when the state disbanded
depreciation reimbursement.
Replacement schedule has increased by at least two years.
Without a bus purchase reserve, we are using older buses.
We have purchased three new buses since 1998.
Used to buy two-three buses per year. Have not bought any new buses, cars, or vans
since 1999-2000.
Breakdowns are more common because of more miles per unit. Age of buses average
seven years.
Bus purchase levy should be reinstated. This is a safety issue. We used to purchase two
buses each year, now we have purchased one bus since 1997-98 school year.
We are due for a new bus, but decided not to purchase at this time.
We don’t replace buses as often.
Bus purchasing has been delayed because of lack of stable transportation funding from
state and a failed local referendum.
77
Appendix B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Beginning in 2001 will purchase new buses every two-three years as compared to onetwo years.
Delayed purchasing of new bus by one year.
Bus replacement cycles are being extended.
Went to 12-13 year replacement schedule from seven-eight years.
We have not purchased a bus since 1997.
Delayed bus purchasing.
Use to replace buses on eight-year cycle. We have purchased NO buses in the last three
years. (Note: Very large fleet - #196)
1995-96 school year bus replacement went down. District replaced two buses per year.
Since 1995, the district has replaced only one bus per year.
Has the district started charging fees for transportation services?
YES – 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NO – 2
Over 50% of our families qualify for free and reduced lunches.
Charge work program students $1.00 per day – 2 districts.
Offer free transportation to ineligibles on a space available basis.
May start to charge fees for activity buses or eliminate them.
Beginning 2001-2002, fees are charged for late activity transportation.
Some activities are being billed to other organizations.
Charge fees for all field trips.
Noon ECFE is parent pay.
Have there been any significant cost increases since FY 2000 (the cost data report on this form)?
YES – 11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NO – 2
Funding has not kept up with increased labor, insurance, and fuel costs.
Fuel costs have increased, most notably in the 2000-2001 school year.
Fuel prices have risen 100% in three years.
Fuel, repair parts, service labor costs have increased steadily.
Fuel costs went up dramatically.
Fuel cost is biggest increase.
Above average fuel prices.
Cost of fuel and cost of buses.
Insurance up 20%; drivers’ wages up 24%; equipment up 25%; repairs up 25%; and parts
up 15%.
Costs have risen on average of 5% per year since 1995-96.
Insurance.
Fuel prices have fluctuated and increased significantly at times.
None foreseen.
78
Appendix B
Miscellaneous Comments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We continue to experience declining enrollment, but still need to provide transportation
services within a 310 square mile area. This doesn’t allow the district to control cost of
operation and the sparsity formula doesn’t fully fund the increased costs. My suggestion
is that the transportation sparsity formula be carefully analyzed and that time and area be
recognized as an integral part of the formula.
Our enrollment is declining. We have closed one school but the distance between pickup
points has not been decreased.
Transportation funds should be increased to cover the costs of the services required to do
the job.
This form should reflect district-owned and contracted services.
Sparsity.
Focus should be on sparsity.
District is looking at sharing transportation services to activities with other districts.
Stop the open enrollment.
Suggest moving transportation accounting back to a separate fund instead of
transportation costs as a general fund expense.
Funding for transportation needs to be put back in place. Bring back bus levies and
depreciation schedules.
In 1995-96 expenses exceeded revenue by $70,732. In 1999-00 expenses exceeded
revenue by $149,802.
In 1999-00, we were picking up a lot more in- town students that in 1995-96.
Drivers pick up all students along regular bus routes – 3 districts.
For the 1999-00 audited cost for all transportation costs $244,979.49 was reported.
Transportation sparsity revenue for 1999-00 was set at $125,485 or 51% of total
transportation cost.
Would like to see full funding and depreciation restored.
We pick up open enrollment students coming into the district.
Due to district size, it will be very difficult to reduce routes further without significantly
increasing student time on bus.
Transporting Special Education students to another district is higher cost. Some funding
increases for this type service would help.
Concern with transition revenue. Transportation funding has been flat since 1996.
Additional Comments
•
•
Statewide driver shortage.
State incentive given directly to individuals who hold a valid school bus endorsement and
are actively driving. The proof of active use driving to be reported by the employer on a
quarterly basis. Payment should be forwarded directly to each individual not via the
employer ensuring the driver receives payment. This could be accomplished as a credit
on an individual’s income tax return. Added financial incentive could encourage
qualified individuals to continue to, or begin as, a school bus driver. The goal of the
monetary incentive is to assist in decrease the statewide driver shortage without putting
further financial burden on the school districts or private contractors.
79
Appendix B
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
It is our opinion that the questionnaire will not help the state in identifying costs for
District #876. Our district is largely comprised of numerous lake residences. Significant
extra miles must be made to pickup students of our district due to topographical
characteristics. It is extremely difficult to complete a route in one hour with the regional
road conditions taken into consideration. In addition, as noted above, most ISD #876
students are transported due to the schools being bordered by state highways.
It is our opinion that the questionnaire will not help the state in identifying costs for
District #881. Our district is largely comprised of many lake residences. Many extra
miles must be made to pickup students of our district due to topographical characteristics.
It is extremely difficult to complete a route in one hour with the regional road conditions
taken into consideration.
The survey should have included the number of miles traveled, unique topographical
features such as rivers, hills, valleys, etc. Also, the survey needs to include sparsely
populated rural areas and hazardous areas that need to be transported to ensure a child’s
safety. Mankato has 27 schools in the district, 15 of which have district-wide enrollment
areas. Obviously with so many locations to transport to/from, adds more time, miles and
greater expenses.
This survey is another unfunded mandate by the legislature that creates additional work
for school district personnel. Some information is at the department, but local districts
are having to do the work.
Our district is leasing buses for the next four years. We traded in our fleet as a down
payment on the lease agreement. We will have a problem when the lease is up. We need
to put the transportation levy back in.
My initial response to the survey is that it is a start in the right direction but lacks many
of the crucial issues that result in true comparison. It is virtually impossible to compare
apples to apples without examining in detail exactly what each district is doing and why.
Some of the issues that have faced us included declining enrollment, consolidation, open
enrollment, but in no way are being measured by this survey. If we truly want equity it
will take more than a short survey.
This survey in my opinion will not result in usable data for the CFL or the legislature.
The questions are not applicable to all school district and are subject to interpretation by
whoever is attempting to answer them. I have answered the survey to the best of my
ability after analyzing the questions and interpreting them. The survey does not address:
District sparsity, topography, mileage comparison by student; declining enrollment, and
open enrollment. These are crucial issues for rural school districts, but are not addressed
or measured by this survey.
Prior to the 1996-97 school year, two school buses were purchased each year. When the
transportation fund was rolled into the general fund our school board set a line item for
purchase two buses per year. 1997-98, 1998-99 school years, two buses each year were
purchased. In 1999-00 school year, no buses were purchased. Those funds were rolled
back into the general fund for other uses. In 2000-01 school year, only one bus was
purchased and the remainder of that year’s bus purchase fund was rolled back into the
general fund. This has resulted in older buses being used on regular routes. In the 200001 school year, we eliminated our high school town route. The walking distance was
increased to two miles in the city limits. This eliminated one bus route and transportation
for 80 students.
80
Appendix B
•
•
We are concerned that we are still traveling the same roads, same distance with less
routes (buses) and picking up less students. Our costs keep rising be we have less
students. We have worked hard to cut costs but it is difficult to do when we still put on
the same total miles.
Our problem is that we are still traveling the same as five years ago – just picking up less
students. Costs continue to rise in spite of less students. Our only alternative is to have
longer routes which is not good for children and our parents certainly object to that.
Specific Comments
Lake City Bus Lines, Inc.
With the geographical makeup of our district to include rivers, creeks, bluffs, major railroads,
and major highways, I believe we are operating our transportation system very efficiently. We
monitor our routes constantly and make changes appropriately. I see nowhere in this report do
we address miles per route or miles per student. Under the current format, this report will have
difficulty in reporting our efficiency. When considering reimbursements for transportation,
what’s “fair” for one district, may not be “fair” for another. Transportation needs to go back to a
separate budget so each district can be analyzed separately and reimbursed accordingly.
Minneapolis Special School District #1
School transportation professionals understand that the most basic cost driver is how much it
costs to operate a bus each hour. Sometimes there is a misconception that cost per mile is
relevant. It costs the same for an hour of bus operation in an urban setting at average speeds
around 15 miles per hour as it does in rural settings which average 45 mile per hour. The
driver’s wage for an hour of service is the same, insurance is the same, and overhead is the same.
Even the cost of fuel is very close to the same. (Buses in stop and go traffic have poorer fuel
economy than those on highways.)
Given the fact that the cost per hour under any setting is driven by the same factors, the real
issues in determining the cost per student are:
• How many students per hour per bus can be transported?
• What is the maximum number of hours that a school district is willing and able to tolerate
in its starting and ending times?
You have addressed a couple of issues in the cost per hour, such as school bus driver wages and
benefits. You have not addressed the total amount of time buses are on the road or the number of
riders per bus per hour. I would suggest that if you want real comparisons between types of
districts you might consider these factors.
There are additional factors which you have not addressed:
• Teen parent program
• English Language Learner programs
• Alternative schools
81
Appendix B
Desegregation transportation continues to be more and more of a problem for Minneapolis.
Without providing cross-district bussing we would have schools that approach 100% minority or
100% Caucasian populations. The problem is even more significant now than in 1996, with a
huge influx of Somali and Spanish-speaking immigrants. Yet the legislature reduced funding for
our district in this category by 5.1 million dollars this year.
The cost of a new bus has grown from $48,000 on average in 1995-96 to $62,000 on average in
1999-00, and costs continue to increase at a rate greater that inflation. Minneapolis is replacing
school buses now on a 13-year cycle instead of a 10-year cycle, and the expenses are being
reflected in debt service rather than fund 3.
St. Francis School District #15
Loss of categorical funding and specifically depreciation aid has resulted in a shortfall of revenue
for new bus purchases and an increase in maintenance costs as the average age of the fleet has
increased. Costs of new buses have increased a minimum of 4 to 6% depending on
manufacturer. State aid increases have not kept pace with the cost of the vehicle.
Industry trends and legislative mandates have created the need for additional driver training and
safety equipment on the school buses. The loss of the reserved safety revenue leaves a void for
this important expense.
Fuel costs have increased, most notably during the 2000-01 school year. Again, inadequate
funding to keep pace with these increases.
Consideration should be given to provide additional funding for districts that have a significant
number of students who require transportation because of extraordinary traffic hazards. The St.
Francis School District transports all students because of the lack of safe roadways. Busy
highways, county roads, rivers, and railroad tracks necessitate that we transport students who live
very close to our schools. It is unlikely this situation will change.
Northland Community Schools #118
1. Our district has not changed the way it provides transportation since the funding changes in
1996-97.
2. Our bus replacement schedule has changed since 1996-97. Buses are being replaced slower,
the fleet is older. With the loss of the bus purchase levy, dollars for buses compete with
dollars for textbooks, teachers, etc. Maintenance costs rise with older buses.
3. The district does not charge fees for transportation services. Over 50% of our families
qualify for free and reduced lunch – the current indicator of poverty.
4. Fuel prices have risen 100% in three years.
5. We have submitted our riding times by route and K-6, 7-12. We do not keep records by
middle school. Asking for a riding time average does not accurately show our concerns.
While our average ride is in the 80-90 minute range, many of our students are on the bus over
two hours per day. The fact that as we approach our school sites and students ride only a few
minutes brings down the average riding time significantly. If we had the transportation
dollars, we would certainly add routes to decrease our riding time. Long rides generate
behavior problems.
82
Appendix B
6. Legislators and CFL bureaucrats like to use the phrase “rolled in” when describing the loss of
a categorical funding for transportation. Both refuse to admit the “rolled in” dollars compete
with textbooks, teachers, computers, etc. They hide behind “local control” at that point. Yet,
local control is not trusted for staff development money and other money such as learning
and development which must be reserved. Transportation funds should be clearly designated
and reserved to transportation. Bus purchase needs a separate funding for cost efficient
operation as well as safety.
Burnsville School District #191
District 191 has done a good job of making student transportation a very efficient and tightly run
process. By employing a newer, very powerful transportation management and routing software
application and by shuttling secondary students together to and from school, and by employing
staggered starting and ending school times, there is little more that can be done to make the
current operation more efficient than it is. Present and future costs could be lowered only by
reducing or eliminating services.
For the 1998-99 school year, District 191 required its junior high school and senior high school
students to ride the same bus for both pickup and take home routes. After delivering the senior
high students at 7:30 a.m., junior high school students are taken to their schools for a 7:45 a.m.
delivery. This change was made to further reduce the cost of transportation by loading the buses
more heavily and increasing the length and time of all secondary school routes. There has been
some cost saving attributable to this measure which was and remains very unpopular with
students and parents because of the earlier pick-up times and longer, more crowded bus rides.
There is a strong preference among parents and educators for being at the high school at a
significantly later hour, but bus utilization drives the decision to retain it in order to keep
transportation costs as low as possible.
A failed excess levy referendum in November 2001 will result in a review of the current level of
transportation services. District 191 has not eliminated noon kindergarten or late activity buses.
These services are performed no differently today than in 1995-96. Both services will be
considered for elimination for the 2002-2003 school year.
As of this time, District 191 is not charging parents to transport elementary or secondary students
living less than two miles from school. It will be considered for the 2002-2003 school year, but
it is believed that it would be difficult to plan and administer.
For the 2001-2002 school year, our contract rates have increased 10.8% over the same rates for
the 1999-2000 school year.
Montgomery-Lonsdale School District #394
1. The survey apparently fails to distinguish between cost as matter of efficiency vs. cost as a
matter of service required or service provided.
2. The survey fails to address unique geographical issues affecting efficiency opportunities.
3. The survey fails to address bus use efficiency in terms of capacity and per route load counts.
83
Appendix B
4. We question why the CFL and legislature continue to identify and track the so-called
“Transportation Allocation” and “Foundation Aid” dollars, when they in fact are neither.
The dollar amounts associated with these categories have no correlation whatsoever to either
transportation revenue or transportation cost. They are general fund revenue dollars that are
available to school districts to spend in whatever manner they see fit.
5. We urge that the legislature and the CFL consider reinstatement of the segregated safety fund
at the pre-roll in amount of $1.50 per student. While we recognize the rationale behind the
move away from categorical funding for transportation, we feel that this was one area that
was of an important and direct benefit to student safety and well-being.
Roseville School District #623
The study should report ways to set up a transportation system that does several things:
1. Funding should be flexible for those areas that districts don’t control, but which are
necessary expenditures, i.e., fuel, insurance, driver wages may be issues, and there could
be others which will show up in the future. Flexibility to accommodate these should be
part of the funding system. When it is clear that these are not industry controlled expense
variables, the funding system should be flexible to accommodate their variability so that
educational programs are not harmed.
2. Bus purchases for districts that own buses should be made in a way that does not compete
with other district capital expenditures. We need to get our fleet back in better condition
that the aging fleet we are developing. Primarily a district issue, but important to keep
the age of our bus fleet from increasing as we get farther into funding problems in
educational areas.
3. All districts should be required to review and revise their transportation system at least
every four years, so that efficiencies are maintained or improved. We need to ensure that
we have the best service we can for our students, and that we use only the resources we
need to for transportation. We will need to develop resources to help districts do this.
North Carolina has bus routing software for every district in the state.
4. Every contracted district should have a competitive bid for their transportation service at
least every four years. So that the transportation contract is examined and scrutinized,
and hopefully efficiencies can be gained. This does not mean bring in at least two
bidders to each bid, but it does mean conforming to the law requiring bids from the
general public for contracts greater than $50,000.
5. Autonomous agencies that now make decisions which affect school transportation costs
should be required to consider transportation when they are making programmatic and
scheduling decisions. An example is intermediate districts with special education
programs – districts are required to transport, but with little input on time schedule or
calendar. We have outside agencies dictating that we spend more on transportation than
we would need to if a few simple coordination efforts were followed.
84
Appendix B
6. District calendars should be coordinated between districts so that shared programs are on
the same calendar, and bus services can be coordinated more effectively. Early
dismissals should also be curtailed. School districts are under no incentive presently to
regularize their calendars. This causes more problems as we have more districts sharing
programs. We could improve system efficiency if all districts followed the same
calendar. Early dismissals, while a valid tool for staff development are also a
transportation problem, both with buses and students on the road at unexpected times,
and many sub-drivers driving because of the odd time.
7. School districts should get a report from the state outlining their transportation fund
status annually. All school districts need to have a clear understanding of their
transportation expend iture vs. revenue status for each year.
8. Funding for low density programs should be based more on the profile of the program,
than on regular transportation funding. Examples, ALC, CD treatment, and charter
schools. These types of programs are funded at the same level as regular transportation,
but have the service characteristics of special education programs. If the costs per
student of special education programs was compared to regular, these programs are
probably a deficit to most districts where the y are operated. Although chemical
dependency funding can be put into special education if a 504 plan is initiated, this
doesn’t cover most of the students.
9. School bus safety education and activity funding should be restored.
10. Other states’ funding patterns should be examined to see if there are any which might
have merit for Minnesota. A survey was done several years ago outlining the funding
profiles for most states. It is available for review, and perhaps some of the states with
more specific funding programs should be contacted to ensure that we are looking at the
best of the rest as well.
11. The state should identify the costs associated with all required transportation activities,
and separately, costs for activities not required. Minimum funding sho uld pay for those
required activities, while the unrequired activities might have to be paid by a local levy or
out of other district funding. An example is the contrast in costs of a district with buses
in a heated garage versus a district with buses on an open lot. Another district may set
walking standards higher than another. One district’s costs will be much higher, although
they might be similar in every other characteristic. Is it fair that the higher cost district
received more aid because it chose a high cost strategy for bus storage or for student
transportation?
12. What have the enrollment options programs done to transportation costs. Have we
expanded our cost structure by adding so many options for programs that more students
are riding with parents than would otherwise. Is there a cost here which has overridden
the improvements in education options? By providing many educational options, have
we made our transportation industry less efficient?
85
Appendix B
It is clear that our industry, a relatively small support piece of the education industry, needs to be
ready to be flexible as we work to improve funding for our transportation services. I hope that
we can look a various ways or providing safe, efficient, and effective transportation services for
our children.
White Bear Lake School District #624
My primary concern is that we do not go back to a system that penalizes districts that operate
efficiently. There is a significant difference in cost if a district chooses to operate a 2-3 tier
routing system than if they choose to operate a 4-5 tier routing system. The districts that have
made the tough decision to cut transportation costs by using their buses for an extended period of
time in the morning and afternoon should be allowed to realize the savings they have made by
doing so. I think you will find out through your study process that districts with very similar
demographics have very different costs, and it can mainly be attributed to starting and dismissal
times.
A second concern in this area is that we should not go back to a system where school districts are
looking for ways to increase expenditures in transportation so they can have an increase in future
revenue. There has never been any consistency among districts regarding what they report as a
transportation expenditure. I have seen everything from a percentage of principals salaries
declared because they do the discipline, to a percentage of the overall administrative cost
included because all administrators deal with some aspect of transportation, to nothing but the
cost to run the buses. The districts that figured out how to use charge backs under the old
formula created additional revenue from the state compared to those that didn’t.
If we return to a system that reimburses districts based on past years’ costs, you will have taken
away the incentive for districts to become more efficient. There are currently many districts in
the metro and outstate that know that many thousands of dollars could be saved if school times
were changed, but for other reasons have not decided to make the changes. I also believe that
districts that run efficient systems will be making decisions to become less efficient to achieve
other goals. An example of this is that many school districts have schools that do not dismiss
until 3:45 or later. Most staff do not prefer this, and some believe that students learn better in the
morning hours. The reasons that times are as late as they are is because it can save tens or even
hundreds of thousands of dollars for a district. If this cost were only for a couple years, and then
the state would increase a districts revenue to fund the new level of service, many people would
be in favor of making this type of change. There may or may not be an educational benefit to
doing so, but I don’t think the state should bear the cost of these types of decisions. In my
opinion it would be a significant mistake to go to any type of “base year” funding in
transportation, and if you did I would expect significant increase in expenditure over the next
several years.
Now that I have outlined my primary concerns, I need to state that I believe there are areas that
need help. I do have a concern with the small decreasing enrollment districts that have already
lengthened their bus routes, but have no way to maintain enough students on their buses to cover
the cost of running them. An example of this would be a rural district that is brining in all of its
students in at the same time, they are riding for 1 ½ hour each way, and the only change over the
86
Appendix B
past several years is that the buses use to have 50 kids riding and today they have 30. I think this
is a problem in small rural areas, and hope that something could be done to help them. I have
other concerns regarding reimbursement for drug and treatment centers and other expensive
programs, but I will leave my comments to the general formula funding at this time.
A final note is that I know I use the word “efficient” to describe districts that operate well under
the formula. I believe there are some districts that for geographical or other reasons are
operating very “efficient,” and still operating in the red. I hope that your process will include
some study of these districts to find out if there is a way to address these concerns without
significantly changing the current funding methods.
Fairbault School District #656
• This survey does not take into consideration the quality of the service provided.
• There is no information requested that represents the infrastructure necessary to support
the actual service.
• There is no measurement of the rate of pay and turnover rate, which affects the safe
delivery of this service.
• There is no comparison for the geography or the square miles served, which affects
routing efficiency.
• Any valid conclusions from this information would be impossible.
Roseau School District #682
I believe your survey to gather information for the legislature doesn’t address issues which are
present that affect pupil transportation costs for school districts.
The size (in square miles) of the school district affects pupil transportation costs. The Roseau
School District is one of the largest in terms of geographical size in the State of Minnesota. One
would logically surmise that we put more miles on our transportation fleet than a school district
of lesser size. This translates to more fuel costs, more time behind the wheel for labor costs, and
an accelerated maintenance schedule and bus purchase rotation.
In addition, the Roseau School District is located in extreme Northwest Minnesota with the
northern border of the district being Canada. We have some students who get on the bus at 6:30
in the morning – school starts at 8:30 a.m. The large geographical area coupled with the size of
our student enrollment results in approximately two students per square mile.
Student enrollment also has an affect on transportation funding. Like much of out-state
Minnesota, we face declining enrollment which equates to reduced funding – but the kids still
must be transported.
In the Roseau School District, we meet almost all of the conditions to receive elementary sparsity
revenue with the exception of distance between elementary schools. The statute cites a
minimum distance between buildings at 19 miles, yet in our district the distance is 14 miles,
therefore we do not qualify for this revenue. At a minimum, an appeal process should be in
place considering the geographical size of the district and the number of pupils per square mile.
87
Appendix B
Excerpt from: Chapter Title – Education Funding, Section 126C.10 – (f) “Qualifying elementary
school” means an elementary school that is located 19 miles or more from the nearest
elementary school or from the nearest elementary school within the district and, in either case,
has an elementary average daily membership of an average of 20 or fewer per grade.
Sample of Transportation Related Taxes Paid by Roseau School District
School District Vehicles (Bus)
Excise Tax
Number
Purchased
Total Excise Tax Paid
by School District
School Bus Body Purchases
$1,435.32
2
$2,870.64
School Bus Chassis Purchases
$2,316.08
2
$4,632.16
Annual Fuel Consumption for
School District Transportation
60,000 gallons per year
State Tax
@ 20¢ per gallon
Federal Tax
(Exempt)
$12,000.00
$0.0
$2,870.64
$4,632.16
$12,000.00
$19,502.80
Total Transportation Related Taxes
Paid by School District
Floodwood School District #698
Floodwood is a small, rural school district and at the request of Commissioner Jax, the following
transportation funding suggestions reflect what we feel is needed to compensate our school for
true transportation costs.
1. Designated HAZARDS that should secure funding regardless of the distance the student
lives from the school:
• When students need to cross or walk on a road with a speed limit of over 30 mph.
• When students need to cross or walk on a road without sidewalks and/or crosswalks.
2. OPEN-ENROLLED students should be eligible for transportation funding when they are
attending the geographically closest school to their home residence.
Justification for these suggested changes in that within four blocks of our school there is a major
river bridge without a sidewalk, a mainline railroad with no crosswalks and a highway with a
speed limit of over 30 mph and no stoplight, or stop sign to stop traffic for students to cross. Our
school, like many other schools, is transporting many students to ensure their safety, even though
no funding comes back to the district to do so.
88
Appendix B
Also, open-enrolled students make up 30% of our total school enrollment. We have students
riding the bus to Floodwood for ½ hour compared to the one hour plus bus ride they would have
to their resident district school. This has come about as a result of district boundaries set prior to
the closing of the Floodwood neighboring schools of Warba, Toivola, Meadowlands, Alborn,
and Brookston. Floodwood has become the school of choice because of geographics.
In reviewing our transportation funding information, as submitted to the state, it is apparent that
the informa tion is lacking actual transportation funding facts. The number of students listed as
transported is not accurate in that we transport a number of open-enrolled students as well as
many students for safety reasons. Secondly, since funding does not cover our true transportation
costs, we are not able to cover the following out of transportation funding:
•
•
•
A portion of principal’s salary (the principal handles all bus discipline).
A portion of the superintendent’s salary (the superintendent oversees the transportation
department).
Bus depreciation and new bus purchase.
Sauk Centre School District #743
The information gathered from this report will certainly be a good start in helping the legislature
understand the story of transportation. However, it is important that the “rest of the story” be
looked at as well.
The report does not begin to reflect any of the issues associated with what is happening to fleets
given the lack of “designated” dollars or specific levy authority for such purposes. Likewise the
report does not reflect the disparities that are created with some districts leasing special
education buses thus charging them against special education and generating significant
additional revenue versus districts that own such vehicles. Efficiencies actually are discouraged
with such rules.
Other issues that are not easily quantifiable and therefore seemingly lacking in this survey
include: issues of sparsity, issues of unique topographical characteristics, declining or even
increasing enrollment, open enrollment or other such program options, students per mile, size of
fleet vehicles, and in some districts issues of consolidation.
We are hopeful that some forum/mechanism will be used to look at all the issues, not just those
easily quantifiable in a two-page survey. Thank you for your consideration.
89
Appendix B
Transportation Costs
by School District, FY 2000
Dst.
No.
1
1
2
4
6
11
12
13
14
15
16
22
23
25
31
32
36
38
47
51
62
75
77
81
84
85
88
91
93
94
95
97
99
100
108
110
111
112
113
115
116
118
129
138
139
146
150
152
162
166
173
177
181
182
186
191
192
194
195
196
Dst.
Type
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
District Name
Total
Eligible/
Transp.
Students
AITKIN
MINNEAPOLIS
HILL CITY
MCGREGOR
SOUTH ST. PAUL
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
FRIDLEY
ST. FRANCIS
SPRING LAKE PARK
DETROIT LAKES
FRAZEE
PINE POINT
BEMIDJI
BLACKDUCK
KELLIHER
RED LAKE
SAUK RAPIDS
FOLEY
ORTONVILLE
ST. CLAIR
MANKATO
COMFREY
SLEEPY EYE
SPRINGFIELD
NEW ULM
BARNUM
CARLTON
CLOQUET
CROMWELL
MOOSE LAKE
ESKO
WRENSHALL
NORWOOD
WACONIA
WATERTOWN-MAYER
CHASKA
WALKER-HACKENSAC
CASS LAKE
PILLAGER
REMER-LONGVILLE
MONTEVIDEO
NORTH BRANCH
RUSH CITY
BARNESVILLE
HAWLEY
MOORHEAD
BAGLEY
COOK COUNTY
MOUNTAIN LAKE
WINDOM
BRAINERD
CROSBY-IRONTON
PEQUOT LAKES
BURNSVILLE
FARMINGTON
LAKEVILLE
RANDOLPH
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
Pupil Transportation Finance Report
1,269
58,617
324
570
2,376
42,073
6,603
2,474
2,402
6,427
4,126
3,041
1,258
64
6,133
787
243
1,666
3,520
2,003
329
633
5,901
179
736
433
3,602
671
730
2,053
339
740
1,059
342
1,422
2,489
1,570
7,912
1,043
1,194
718
689
1,403
3,656
855
484
579
4,806
1,137
646
339
1,135
7,099
1,651
1,349
10,531
4,490
7,418
409
28,796
Total
Eligible/
Transp.
Public
Students
FY 00 ADJ
ADM
1,269
47,514
324
570
2,395
39,485
6,413
2,405
2,238
6,229
3,851
2,933
1,258
64
5,748
787
243
1,580
3,123
1,839
386
633
5,024
172
346
438
2,529
669
729
1,951
347
761
1,041
346
1,095
1,990
1,382
6,784
1,045
1,209
718
653
1,404
3,654
860
484
579
4,468
1,137
646
285
1,139
7,057
1,643
1,339
9,674
4,341
8,146
398
27,055
1,361.45
49,549.17
380.69
549.85
3,633.87
40,548.61
6,753.02
2,995.52
2,612.82
5,775.95
4,180.24
2,856.43
1,242.96
49.98
5,353.69
821.99
275.09
1,328.77
3,372.47
1,757.34
600.04
665.55
7,047.43
168.44
668.59
736.00
2,699.13
648.05
750.76
2,621.35
335.76
775.98
1,040.27
404.00
1,147.47
2,017.75
1,333.56
6,992.91
1,044.88
1,121.03
690.22
609.67
1,685.98
3,544.61
946.46
745.32
933.65
5,750.92
1,128.20
726.15
521.83
1,125.35
7,228.03
1,546.01
1,265.00
11,715.58
4,506.16
9,120.44
423.93
28,234.37
FY 00
AMCPU
1,583.45
55,739.93
452.98
639.08
4,220.78
46,508.38
7,666.80
3,453.12
3,025.57
6,611.05
4,804.22
3,339.07
1,447.72
54.66
6,212.12
965.37
325.41
1,498.94
3,905.53
2,059.33
707.77
777.45
8,197.89
194.86
789.64
873.12
3,186.80
760.61
860.12
3,032.55
392.58
898.91
1,202.05
477.87
1,350.11
2,297.62
1,555.61
7,965.93
1,212.27
1,276.57
790.30
714.11
1,975.97
4,074.85
1,085.05
864.99
1,071.15
6,662.69
1,318.98
849.32
609.70
1,319.06
8,401.74
1,800.27
1,447.25
13,411.53
5,072.28
10,363.72
498.33
32,296.99
Total Reg &
Excess
Students
Transp.
1,249
20,416
317
556
2,220
40,691
6,376
2,417
2,324
6,028
4,000
2,951
1,221
64
5,992
780
242
1,655
3,464
1,966
322
618
5,724
176
709
420
3,578
664
725
1,962
334
738
1,048
341
1,366
2,471
1,558
7,745
1,035
1,157
693
685
1,380
3,561
844
470
575
4,581
1,118
645
322
1,128
6,793
1,601
1,337
10,172
4,250
7,204
400
27,710
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$475,498.24
$5,208,176.83
$177,262.18
$317,156.99
$405,819.00
$7,975,756.66
$1,396,199.69
$260,076.16
$424,616.89
$1,834,723.55
$866,180.12
$958,476.45
$534,008.79
$8,265.56
$2,220,901.87
$245,194.82
$111,389.63
$291,620.50
$1,188,112.87
$434,798.67
$85,705.46
$100,974.98
$1,335,573.17
$45,268.88
$282,196.37
$157,591.20
$1,089,495.48
$187,843.75
$223,052.64
$684,490.00
$95,163.61
$200,298.26
$227,327.89
$97,488.89
$195,233.89
$799,282.85
$483,213.41
$1,911,967.87
$341,720.69
$560,928.02
$214,798.98
$320,198.58
$380,736.22
$805,265.63
$198,108.71
$258,167.07
$133,884.08
$1,475,737.15
$340,292.50
$297,106.41
$74,434.44
$183,833.41
$2,121,833.73
$579,832.16
$317,776.70
$2,175,379.61
$1,135,710.54
$2,363,666.46
$112,570.67
$3,412,720.39
Reg &
Reg &
Excess
Excess
Cost
Cost
per Student per Pupil
Transp.
Unit
$380.70
$255.10
$559.19
$570.43
$182.80
$196.01
$218.98
$107.60
$182.71
$304.37
$216.55
$324.80
$437.35
$129.15
$370.64
$314.35
$460.29
$176.21
$342.99
$221.16
$266.17
$163.39
$233.33
$257.21
$398.02
$375.22
$304.50
$282.90
$307.66
$348.87
$284.92
$271.41
$216.92
$285.89
$142.92
$323.47
$310.15
$246.86
$330.16
$484.81
$309.96
$467.44
$275.90
$226.13
$234.73
$549.29
$232.84
$322.14
$304.38
$460.63
$231.16
$162.97
$312.36
$362.17
$237.68
$213.86
$267.23
$328.10
$281.43
$123.16
$300.29
$93.44
$391.32
$496.27
$96.15
$171.49
$182.11
$75.32
$140.34
$277.52
$180.30
$287.05
$368.86
$151.22
$357.51
$253.99
$342.31
$194.55
$304.21
$211.14
$121.09
$129.88
$162.92
$232.31
$357.37
$180.49
$341.88
$246.96
$259.33
$225.71
$242.41
$222.82
$189.12
$204.01
$144.61
$347.87
$310.63
$240.02
$281.88
$439.40
$271.79
$448.39
$192.68
$197.62
$182.58
$298.46
$124.99
$221.49
$258.00
$349.82
$122.08
$139.37
$252.55
$322.08
$219.57
$162.20
$223.91
$228.07
$225.90
$105.67
Disabled
Students
20
6,420
7
14
156
1,382
227
43
78
399
126
90
37
0
141
7
1
11
56
37
7
15
177
3
27
13
24
7
5
91
5
2
11
1
56
18
12
167
8
37
25
4
23
95
11
14
4
225
19
1
17
7
306
50
12
359
240
214
9
1,086
90
Disabled
Cost
$53,467.20
$8,494,137.53
$34,207.17
$44,078.63
$423,577.60
$4,804,550.98
$801,674.27
$484,332.66
$340,579.19
$471,975.05
$630,669.41
$248,869.24
$135,062.63
$0.00
$137,624.17
$13,023.43
$3,813.00
$45,276.53
$264,337.75
$79,177.98
$4,045.35
$84,767.87
$448,507.32
$7,827.24
$48,007.58
$32,198.64
$193,095.40
$48,170.19
$35,767.13
$163,061.87
$21,168.34
$24,053.36
$48,338.55
$26,116.30
$78,951.12
$223,331.61
$65,756.50
$867,032.89
$59,301.71
$203,920.32
$45,729.61
$20,102.24
$59,803.47
$280,851.93
$29,447.74
$27,788.27
$22,929.32
$529,144.26
$18,075.35
$774.08
$21,958.99
$31,487.16
$478,803.66
$125,056.00
$39,955.24
$1,497,522.98
$509,293.91
$1,038,687.94
$34,043.42
$4,019,082.00
Deseg.
Students
Deseg.
Cost
0
$0.00
31,781 $17,674,140.32
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
14
$26,053.20
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Deseg.
Student
Transp.
$0.00
$556.12
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,860.94
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Total Public
School
Students
Eligible
for Transp.
Pupils
Transp. per Pupil Units
Deseg.
as % of
Square
per Square
Cost per
FY 00 Adj
Mile
Mile
Pupil Unit
ADM
$0.00
$317.08
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$7.54
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
93%
96%
85%
104%
66%
97%
95%
80%
86%
108%
92%
103%
101%
128%
107%
96%
88%
119%
93%
105%
64%
95%
71%
102%
52%
60%
94%
103%
97%
74%
103%
98%
100%
86%
95%
99%
104%
97%
100%
108%
104%
107%
83%
103%
91%
65%
62%
78%
101%
89%
55%
101%
98%
106%
106%
83%
96%
89%
94%
96%
1.54
1,003.72
1.25
0.71
388.87
244.21
233.57
399.03
447.30
39.44
220.76
9.37
3.87
12.90
7.44
1.85
0.39
1.64
25.62
7.54
1.75
8.43
43.20
1.45
3.56
2.93
11.40
3.43
6.72
21.21
1.61
4.67
24.97
2.72
12.74
25.03
15.84
94.01
2.29
2.81
4.16
0.82
7.53
20.82
8.02
1.41
3.93
23.64
1.98
0.40
2.43
5.58
13.72
5.05
8.76
288.92
58.27
86.66
6.02
268.12
1.93
954.45
1.75
0.79
690.80
269.96
271.20
556.95
563.42
40.57
257.05
10.29
4.46
11.02
7.53
2.27
0.52
1.48
28.42
7.75
3.76
10.36
60.02
1.58
3.82
5.91
10.09
3.89
7.92
31.32
1.86
5.67
28.34
3.80
12.09
23.11
15.69
94.65
2.66
3.01
4.58
0.85
10.61
23.20
10.18
2.52
7.27
32.77
2.30
0.53
4.38
6.49
16.24
5.51
9.40
367.94
65.82
121.07
7.34
300.72
Square
Miles
822.01
58.40
259.28
806.46
6.11
172.28
28.27
6.20
5.37
162.95
18.69
324.56
324.68
4.96
824.52
425.69
627.30
1,014.22
137.41
265.74
188.07
75.06
136.59
123.08
206.75
147.77
315.88
195.43
108.66
96.81
211.20
158.47
42.41
125.81
111.66
99.43
99.13
84.16
455.80
424.42
172.69
835.58
186.21
175.63
106.61
343.03
147.39
203.33
573.26
1,615.61
139.24
203.25
517.41
326.71
153.94
36.45
77.06
85.60
67.91
107.40
Appendix C
Dst.
Dst.
No. Type
197
1
199
1
200
1
203
1
204
1
206
1
207
1
208
1
213
1
227
1
229
1
238
1
239
1
241
1
242
1
252
1
253
1
255
1
256
1
261
1
264
1
270
1
271
1
272
1
273
1
276
1
277
1
278
1
279
1
280
1
281
1
282
1
283
1
284
1
286
1
294
1
297
1
299
1
300
1
306
1
308
1
309
1
314
1
316
1
317
1
318
1
319
1
323
2
330
1
332
1
333
1
345
1
347
1
356
1
361
1
362
1
363
1
371
1
378
1
381
1
390
1
Total
Total
Eligible/
Eligible/
Transp.
Transp.
Public
District Name
Students
Students
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
6,674
4,784
INVER GROVE
3,894
3,429
HASTINGS
5,579
5,093
HAYFIELD
828
828
KASSON-MANTORVIL
1,766
1,766
ALEXANDRIA
4,509
4,120
BRANDON
280
280
EVANSVILLE
199
199
OSAKIS
561
506
CHATFIELD
681
676
LANESBORO
306
306
MABEL-CANTON
340
340
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
695
695
ALBERT LEA
3,093
2,992
ALDEN
323
323
CANNON FALLS
1,638
1,609
GOODHUE
484
462
PINE ISLAND
921
921
RED WING
3,371
3,178
ASHBY
275
275
HERMAN-NORCROSS
95
137
HOPKINS
9,235
8,392
BLOOMINGTON
12,639
11,089
EDEN PRAIRIE
11,713
10,742
EDINA
6,982
5,953
MINNETONKA
8,809
7,799
WESTONKA
2,847
2,450
ORONO
3,087
2,664
OSSEO
16,804
15,557
RICHFIELD
4,210
3,898
ROBBINSDALE
15,239
13,969
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
1,440
1,219
ST. LOUIS PARK
4,938
4,343
WAYZATA
10,752
9,358
BROOKLYN CENTER
1,073
1,181
HOUSTON
347
347
SPRING GROVE
229
233
CALEDONIA
873
667
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
1,722
1,535
LAPORTE
399
399
NEVIS
540
540
PARK RAPIDS
1,974
1,963
BRAHAM
907
916
GREENWAY
1,437
1,436
DEER RIVER
1,244
1,176
GRAND RAPIDS
4,624
4,415
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
643
643
FRANCONIA
46
43
HERON LAKE-OKABE
352
322
MORA
1,865
1,936
OGILVIE
817
817
NEW LONDON-SPICE
1,964
1,945
WILLMAR
4,757
4,543
LANCASTER
153
153
INTERNATIONAL FA
1,649
1,553
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
271
271
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
480
480
BELLINGHAM
129
131
DAWSON-BOYD
431
431
LAKE SUPERIOR
1,693
1,648
LAKE OF THE WOOD
843
873
FY 00 ADJ
ADM
5,020.11
4,167.31
5,237.85
1,011.95
1,736.19
4,275.88
350.45
263.48
641.63
937.80
381.10
401.24
726.77
3,930.30
442.49
1,542.33
586.98
1,246.34
3,321.82
344.61
166.30
8,570.19
11,208.92
10,318.72
6,951.71
7,782.57
2,356.16
2,599.10
22,097.08
4,335.43
14,431.03
1,490.49
4,376.39
9,238.44
1,729.67
479.55
436.47
1,005.25
1,690.03
374.10
536.91
1,914.30
978.98
1,478.07
1,107.52
4,489.62
690.21
43.63
385.85
1,992.85
761.63
1,824.62
4,465.09
221.84
1,646.75
326.49
426.51
125.87
659.55
2,131.11
811.58
FY 00
AMCPU
5,779.59
4,831.09
6,120.39
1,177.62
1,987.64
5,018.84
411.01
314.70
754.38
1,080.45
448.82
469.07
854.59
4,588.66
520.30
1,794.34
688.76
1,448.53
3,899.07
397.63
195.88
9,897.69
12,985.73
11,856.22
7,961.68
8,917.63
2,738.31
3,036.80
25,385.45
5,011.79
16,530.26
1,723.02
5,022.43
10,601.84
2,001.35
552.82
512.45
1,188.89
1,993.00
441.80
628.50
2,223.66
1,143.41
1,727.64
1,288.07
5,273.38
810.15
48.06
459.98
2,326.16
877.16
2,128.73
5,176.77
258.49
1,911.76
381.40
506.51
145.07
773.97
2,467.57
945.91
Total Reg &
Excess
Students
Transp.
6,393
3,697
5,405
796
1,733
4,379
278
196
557
675
299
339
693
2,942
323
1,612
478
901
3,302
274
95
9,113
12,191
11,605
6,811
8,630
2,791
3,043
16,229
3,997
14,714
1,421
4,766
10,653
1,015
338
226
856
1,687
387
535
1,964
873
1,408
1,241
4,530
613
46
351
1,849
809
1,942
4,606
153
1,640
270
477
129
421
1,653
828
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$907,940.32
$706,376.73
$1,310,654.55
$333,439.19
$429,487.54
$974,109.15
$152,003.75
$58,334.12
$173,545.94
$269,748.08
$140,724.86
$81,124.40
$254,296.98
$934,286.92
$92,221.34
$334,570.58
$232,522.98
$202,764.55
$1,059,785.82
$62,283.84
$30,850.98
$1,996,407.84
$1,659,248.68
$2,230,883.10
$934,897.07
$1,912,901.17
$583,087.22
$924,229.53
$4,499,138.14
$407,965.79
$2,707,412.11
$171,529.95
$995,646.50
$2,019,970.19
$109,315.89
$102,832.24
$119,837.39
$390,473.88
$439,485.62
$116,695.25
$159,268.40
$633,979.96
$344,894.48
$452,002.76
$624,188.81
$1,600,640.23
$332,862.24
$13,146.30
$104,024.05
$447,744.26
$178,870.73
$698,896.79
$1,550,536.40
$65,094.00
$419,834.79
$81,496.42
$222,442.64
$64,418.79
$137,970.95
$676,580.07
$276,537.04
Reg &
Reg &
Excess
Excess
Cost
Cost
Transp.
Unit
$142.02
$157.09
$191.07
$146.21
$242.49
$214.15
$418.89
$283.15
$247.83
$216.08
$222.45
$194.09
$546.78
$369.83
$297.62
$185.36
$311.57
$230.05
$399.63
$249.66
$470.65
$313.54
$239.31
$172.95
$366.95
$297.57
$317.57
$203.61
$285.51
$177.25
$207.55
$186.46
$486.45
$337.60
$225.04
$139.98
$320.95
$271.80
$227.31
$156.64
$324.75
$157.50
$219.07
$201.70
$136.10
$127.77
$192.23
$188.16
$137.26
$117.42
$221.66
$214.51
$208.92
$212.94
$303.72
$304.34
$277.23
$177.23
$102.07
$81.40
$184.00
$163.79
$120.71
$99.55
$208.91
$198.24
$189.62
$190.53
$107.70
$54.62
$304.24
$186.01
$530.25
$233.85
$456.16
$328.44
$260.51
$220.51
$301.54
$264.14
$297.70
$253.41
$322.80
$285.11
$395.07
$301.64
$321.02
$261.63
$502.97
$484.59
$353.34
$303.53
$543.01
$410.86
$285.79
$273.54
$296.36
$226.15
$242.15
$192.48
$221.10
$203.92
$359.89
$328.32
$336.63
$299.52
$425.45
$251.82
$256.00
$219.61
$301.84
$213.68
$466.34
$439.17
$499.37
$444.05
$327.72
$178.26
$409.30
$274.19
$333.98
$292.35
Disabled
Students
279
193
174
32
33
130
2
3
4
6
7
1
2
151
0
26
6
20
69
1
0
74
448
108
163
179
56
44
575
195
442
19
153
99
49
9
3
17
35
12
5
10
34
29
3
94
30
0
1
16
8
22
151
0
9
1
3
0
10
40
15
91
Disabled
Cost
$729,244.48
$692,108.18
$621,378.18
$59,932.00
$71,180.57
$273,360.66
$16,600.00
$996.13
$5,397.35
$16,996.36
$11,070.09
$22,406.90
$12,974.02
$238,854.45
$9,866.10
$58,540.20
$12,340.00
$55,945.76
$163,192.32
$1,250.17
$0.00
$1,152,710.89
$1,806,651.58
$618,337.92
$434,818.04
$826,714.61
$322,768.23
$242,741.84
$3,111,279.90
$965,534.84
$2,712,688.72
$160,964.81
$966,740.76
$689,546.32
$127,774.71
$21,130.01
$16,927.15
$68,071.61
$98,048.45
$15,511.00
$775.00
$54,844.38
$65,654.62
$67,321.79
$10,749.47
$218,889.83
$229,813.41
$0.00
$1,375.75
$31,061.27
$45,891.84
$80,080.27
$234,584.63
$0.00
$24,570.32
$3,126.04
$13,230.06
$0.00
$23,151.29
$104,140.63
$15,423.73
Deseg.
Students
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
18
83
0
19
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Cost
$3,246.32
$11,794.68
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$92,309.00
$0.00
$0.00
$22,322.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$22,414.07
$47,965.32
$0.00
$29,627.19
$0.00
$32,540.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Deseg.
Deseg.
Student
Cost per
Transp.
Pupil Unit
$1,623.16
$0.56
$2,948.67
$2.44
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,923.10
$9.33
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,790.25
$2.80
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,245.23
$4.47
$577.90
$2.90
$0.00
$0.00
$1,559.33
$5.90
$0.00
$0.00
$3,615.58
$16.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Total Public
School
Students
Eligible
for Transp.
Pupils
as % of
Square
per Square
FY 00 Adj
Mile
Mile
ADM
95%
248.20
214.93
82%
180.28
223.66
97%
31.29
34.33
82%
4.16
5.92
102%
18.52
20.84
96%
13.11
14.59
80%
3.00
4.41
76%
1.61
2.55
79%
3.62
4.87
72%
4.17
6.62
80%
2.91
4.26
85%
2.92
4.03
96%
3.90
4.80
76%
13.55
20.10
73%
3.75
6.04
104%
12.34
13.52
79%
3.99
5.68
74%
10.37
16.31
96%
19.13
22.13
80%
2.82
4.07
82%
0.46
0.96
98%
313.26
335.74
99%
330.78
339.85
104%
343.49
347.69
86%
528.94
603.16
100%
278.77
282.20
104%
101.86
97.97
102%
63.48
62.45
70%
258.09
389.89
90%
526.25
626.47
97%
515.53
559.21
82%
555.98
665.26
99%
466.29
474.26
101%
247.17
243.72
68%
398.88
744.00
72%
2.27
3.62
53%
2.55
5.71
66%
3.66
4.99
91%
17.76
20.55
107%
2.45
2.72
101%
4.29
4.99
103%
3.36
3.79
94%
6.55
8.26
97%
7.76
9.32
106%
2.30
2.38
98%
2.36
2.70
93%
2.35
2.96
99%
10.48
10.95
83%
2.28
2.98
97%
7.15
8.92
107%
5.28
5.66
107%
11.77
12.75
102%
21.67
23.58
69%
0.47
0.80
94%
3.50
4.05
83%
0.31
0.44
113%
0.31
0.33
104%
1.19
1.34
65%
1.74
3.13
77%
0.65
0.95
108%
0.74
0.83
Square
Miles
26.89
21.60
178.29
199.07
95.38
344.03
93.26
123.28
154.91
163.16
105.29
116.42
178.09
228.34
86.08
132.76
121.17
88.81
176.22
97.63
204.49
29.48
38.21
34.10
13.20
31.60
27.95
48.63
65.11
8.00
29.56
2.59
10.59
43.50
2.69
152.63
89.71
238.40
96.96
162.61
125.84
586.69
138.51
185.29
541.31
1,956.47
273.65
4.39
154.29
260.87
154.85
166.91
219.56
323.41
471.64
875.89
1,532.31
108.59
247.29
2,591.83
1,143.04
Appendix C
Dst.
Dst.
No. Type
391
1
392
1
394
1
402
1
403
1
404
1
409
1
411
1
413
1
414
1
415
1
417
1
418
1
423
1
424
1
432
1
435
1
441
1
447
1
458
1
463
1
465
1
466
1
473
1
477
1
480
1
482
1
484
1
485
1
486
1
487
1
492
1
495
1
497
1
499
1
500
1
505
1
507
1
508
1
511
1
513
1
514
1
516
1
518
1
531
1
533
1
534
1
535
1
542
1
544
1
545
1
547
1
548
1
549
1
550
1
553
1
561
1
564
1
577
1
578
1
581
1
Total
Total
Eligible/
Eligible/
Transp.
Transp.
Public
District Name
Students
Students
CLEVELAND
349
339
LECENTER
380
380
MONTGOMERY-LONSD 1,018
893
HENDRICKS
185
192
IVANHOE
258
258
LAKE BENTON
172
174
TYLER
358
358
BALATON
138
126
MARSHALL
2,267
1,948
MINNEOTA
495
421
LYND
132
110
TRACY
870
823
RUSSELL
180
175
HUTCHINSON
3,426
3,125
LESTER PRAIRIE
355
313
MAHNOMEN
817
780
WAUBUN
703
703
MARSHALL COUNTY
358
358
GRYGLA
172
172
TRUMAN
371
306
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
916
904
LITCHFIELD
2,059
2,114
DASSEL-COKATO
2,241
2,234
ISLE
601
601
PRINCETON
3,200
3,081
ONAMIA
764
785
LITTLE FALLS
3,400
3,196
PIERZ
1,017
883
ROYALTON
716
716
SWANVILLE
371
371
UPSALA
407
407
AUSTIN
3,396
3,089
GRAND MEADOW
225
225
LYLE
154
153
LEROY
294
294
SOUTHLAND
734
635
FULDA
460
421
NICOLLET
445
340
ST. PETER
1,702
1,576
ADRIAN
474
474
BREWSTER
236
236
ELLSWORTH
138
138
ROUND LAKE
57
57
WORTHINGTON
2,540
2,357
BYRON
1,246
1,246
DOVER-EYOTA
829
827
STEWARTVILLE
1,363
1,363
ROCHESTER
12,798
10,377
BATTLE LAKE
524
522
FERGUS FALLS
2,785
2,357
HENNING
352
351
PARKERS PRAIRIE
547
546
PELICAN RAPIDS
1,115
1,113
PERHAM
1,896
1,776
UNDERWOOD
403
403
NEW YORK MILLS
755
760
GOODRIDGE
186
186
THIEF RIVER FALL
2,024
1,920
WILLOW RIVER
490
490
PINE CITY
1,780
1,728
EDGERTON
422
222
FY 00 ADJ
ADM
445.54
786.15
1,120.13
204.46
270.93
269.32
362.81
194.04
2,288.83
544.44
128.09
776.73
175.28
3,109.40
544.17
808.09
655.47
381.42
201.70
422.36
870.71
2,049.18
2,258.41
536.71
3,018.25
762.35
3,458.49
989.91
735.01
408.54
420.45
4,204.39
366.57
247.65
400.09
688.63
615.19
364.19
1,936.47
672.01
269.29
187.94
96.18
2,444.89
1,411.62
1,046.29
1,787.23
15,747.92
543.21
3,125.43
414.92
638.15
1,329.52
1,810.68
444.67
763.19
214.07
2,172.51
473.05
1,770.87
275.47
FY 00
AMCPU
520.25
915.84
1,311.76
234.98
318.50
319.39
427.58
226.29
2,673.01
635.33
151.75
913.54
206.22
3,625.37
634.44
953.65
753.18
448.96
234.61
499.63
1,017.67
2,395.60
2,622.26
618.23
3,499.39
892.64
4,059.17
1,171.45
858.11
484.49
488.35
4,854.83
430.47
290.42
467.91
795.29
718.03
438.34
2,271.44
766.91
299.69
217.85
129.47
2,839.21
1,617.73
1,207.13
2,053.63
18,162.18
634.36
3,660.97
490.10
754.30
1,557.36
2,115.54
520.61
884.11
251.10
2,547.94
553.61
2,070.55
325.73
Total Reg &
Excess
Students
Transp.
342
357
985
178
245
172
350
136
2,220
489
132
857
176
3,359
354
811
699
356
172
362
895
2,026
2,222
594
3,146
739
3,308
991
703
368
407
3,255
222
142
292
730
450
442
1,612
472
228
137
57
2,476
1,203
827
1,344
12,307
523
2,754
347
542
1,113
1,887
398
752
185
2,012
490
1,761
420
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$90,233.75
$147,057.66
$363,760.81
$50,377.32
$75,765.02
$76,028.76
$132,358.82
$90,757.94
$626,899.13
$83,914.53
$64,671.90
$196,419.95
$56,023.99
$937,491.89
$148,542.36
$392,593.11
$330,210.76
$124,362.97
$144,763.54
$180,268.26
$316,132.83
$751,259.18
$669,493.07
$163,375.45
$1,115,491.86
$301,260.91
$1,050,490.46
$402,648.31
$129,210.28
$107,279.43
$82,633.71
$774,091.94
$57,699.22
$44,603.62
$94,788.74
$335,397.46
$228,289.95
$188,095.28
$527,583.66
$219,397.21
$78,671.32
$45,432.83
$1,348.18
$705,971.17
$178,626.05
$205,178.04
$456,963.41
$3,743,747.35
$186,074.33
$840,631.24
$127,669.72
$274,455.71
$464,021.00
$674,751.33
$112,653.90
$202,232.52
$87,635.23
$523,630.51
$269,902.61
$702,468.55
$194,113.54
Reg &
Reg &
Excess
Excess
Cost
Cost
Transp.
Unit
$263.84
$173.44
$411.93
$160.57
$369.30
$277.31
$283.02
$214.39
$309.24
$237.88
$442.03
$238.04
$378.17
$309.55
$667.34
$401.07
$282.39
$234.53
$171.60
$132.08
$489.94
$426.17
$229.19
$215.01
$318.32
$271.67
$279.10
$258.59
$419.61
$234.13
$484.09
$411.67
$472.40
$438.42
$349.33
$277.00
$841.65
$617.04
$497.98
$360.80
$353.22
$310.64
$370.81
$313.60
$301.30
$255.31
$275.04
$264.26
$354.57
$318.77
$407.66
$337.49
$317.56
$258.79
$406.31
$343.72
$183.80
$150.58
$291.52
$221.43
$203.03
$169.21
$237.82
$159.45
$259.91
$134.04
$314.11
$153.58
$324.62
$202.58
$459.45
$421.73
$507.31
$317.94
$425.55
$429.11
$327.29
$232.27
$464.82
$286.08
$345.05
$262.51
$331.63
$208.55
$23.65
$10.41
$285.13
$248.65
$148.48
$110.42
$248.10
$169.97
$340.00
$222.51
$304.20
$206.13
$355.78
$293.33
$305.24
$229.62
$367.92
$260.50
$506.38
$363.85
$416.91
$297.95
$357.58
$318.95
$283.05
$216.39
$268.93
$228.74
$473.70
$349.01
$260.25
$205.51
$550.82
$487.53
$398.90
$339.27
$462.18
$595.93
Disabled
Students
7
23
33
7
13
0
8
2
47
6
0
13
4
67
1
6
4
2
0
9
21
33
19
7
54
25
92
26
13
3
0
141
3
12
2
4
10
3
90
2
8
1
0
64
43
2
19
491
1
31
5
5
2
9
5
3
1
12
0
19
2
92
Disabled
Cost
$23,618.00
$41,440.50
$135,928.22
$770.15
$18.20
$871.90
$26,333.17
$17,950.74
$140,170.22
$19,091.56
$300.00
$45,949.61
$49,104.71
$198,814.22
$29,172.40
$13,492.36
$24,325.90
$1,527.85
$0.00
$62,497.00
$33,874.55
$120,500.40
$63,925.90
$28,169.57
$388,184.18
$68,273.09
$240,543.76
$59,808.65
$30,147.64
$25,910.46
$7,442.71
$287,748.61
$16,614.00
$40,908.74
$24,392.99
$67,436.66
$30,906.92
$9,158.96
$98,182.39
$14,108.19
$13,101.77
$17,753.92
$2,005.49
$97,810.87
$117,039.01
$2,106.69
$112,847.23
$2,086,466.36
$25,060.30
$302,326.29
$14,669.28
$33,999.67
$19,279.70
$92,042.63
$15,234.51
$13,981.12
$1,700.00
$37,866.67
$0.00
$114,781.00
$1,793.51
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Deseg.
Deseg.
Student
Cost per
Transp.
Pupil Unit
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Total Public
School
Students
Eligible
for Transp.
Pupils
as % of
Square
per Square
FY 00 Adj
Mile
Mile
ADM
76%
5.22
7.78
48%
4.48
10.80
80%
7.41
9.54
94%
2.09
2.65
95%
1.74
2.15
65%
1.20
2.22
99%
3.13
3.74
65%
1.28
2.09
85%
13.88
16.36
77%
2.82
3.62
86%
1.89
2.17
106%
3.63
3.81
100%
2.22
2.55
101%
20.35
21.53
58%
8.54
15.25
97%
2.37
2.77
107%
1.76
1.88
94%
1.17
1.46
85%
0.21
0.29
72%
2.48
3.34
104%
9.00
10.00
103%
8.54
9.94
99%
12.68
14.84
112%
2.68
2.76
102%
13.59
14.87
103%
2.04
2.38
92%
8.91
10.63
89%
4.29
4.94
97%
6.34
7.60
91%
4.04
5.27
97%
5.92
7.10
73%
23.77
33.98
61%
2.34
4.47
62%
2.38
4.49
73%
2.45
3.90
92%
3.67
3.97
68%
2.14
3.34
93%
3.20
3.15
81%
14.39
19.20
71%
2.70
4.36
88%
3.07
3.90
73%
1.70
2.69
59%
0.90
2.04
96%
9.64
10.78
88%
17.51
22.74
79%
8.32
12.11
76%
10.04
15.12
66%
58.77
83.40
96%
2.70
3.27
75%
8.14
10.69
85%
2.05
2.86
86%
2.73
3.76
84%
3.34
4.66
98%
5.54
6.18
91%
3.29
4.25
100%
4.11
4.82
87%
0.66
0.89
88%
4.28
5.39
104%
2.19
2.47
98%
8.10
9.42
81%
2.98
2.30
Square
Miles
66.85
84.83
137.43
88.61
148.28
143.68
114.43
108.17
163.34
175.62
69.81
239.60
80.98
168.38
41.59
344.80
399.72
306.83
809.49
149.62
101.80
241.11
176.67
224.22
235.40
375.13
381.80
237.02
112.97
91.91
68.75
142.86
96.33
64.72
119.91
200.10
215.23
139.17
118.29
175.84
76.89
80.99
63.41
263.37
71.15
99.68
135.82
217.76
194.10
342.31
171.46
200.36
334.02
342.19
122.61
183.56
283.66
472.65
223.78
219.71
141.78
Appendix C
Dst.
Dst.
No. Type
584
1
592
1
593
1
595
1
599
1
600
1
601
1
611
1
621
1
622
1
623
1
624
1
625
1
627
1
628
1
630
1
635
1
640
1
656
1
659
1
671
1
676
1
682
1
690
1
695
1
696
1
698
1
700
1
701
1
704
1
706
1
707
1
709
1
712
1
716
1
717
1
719
1
720
1
721
1
726
1
727
1
728
1
738
1
739
1
740
1
741
1
742
1
743
1
745
1
748
1
750
1
756
1
761
1
763
1
768
1
769
1
771
1
775
1
777
1
786
1
787
1
Total
Total
Eligible/
Eligible/
Transp.
Transp.
Public
District Name
Students
Students
RUTHTON
169
160
CLIMAX
171
180
CROOKSTON
1,976
1,805
EAST GRAND FORKS
1,686
1,547
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
439
439
FISHER
247
247
FOSSTON
619
623
CYRUS
121
121
MOUNDS VIEW
13,461
12,225
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
12,073
10,565
ROSEVILLE
7,881
7,027
WHITE BEAR LAKE
9,853
8,883
ST. PAUL
43,550
39,800
OKLEE
162
162
PLUMMER
161
161
RED LAKE FALLS
459
395
MILROY
163
161
WABASSO
487
378
FARIBAULT
4,331
3,632
NORTHFIELD
3,144
2,887
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
310
307
BADGER
187
187
ROSEAU
1,385
1,385
WARROAD
1,478
1,500
CHISHOLM
710
710
ELY
408
408
FLOODWOOD
326
326
HERMANTOWN
1,970
1,970
HIBBING
2,855
2,651
PROCTOR
1,960
1,849
VIRGINIA
1,643
1,572
NETT LAKE
52
95
DULUTH
10,734
9,600
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
617
617
BELLE PLAINE
1,057
965
JORDAN
1,238
1,182
PRIOR LAKE
5,458
4,840
SHAKOPEE
3,544
2,951
NEW PRAGUE
3,030
2,643
BECKER
1,741
1,735
BIG LAKE
2,440
2,417
ELK RIVER
9,858
9,202
HOLDINGFORD
1,085
1,085
KIMBALL
898
868
MELROSE
1,747
1,458
PAYNESVILLE
1,221
1,217
ST. CLOUD
11,592
9,546
SAUK CENTRE
1,350
1,092
ALBANY
1,729
1,580
SARTELL
2,681
2,489
ROCORI
2,591
2,394
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
655
632
OWATONNA
4,280
3,787
MEDFORD
424
424
HANCOCK
159
159
MORRIS
1,200
1,099
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
230
230
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
637
629
BENSON
905
904
BERTHA-HEWITT
505
505
BROWERVILLE
477
421
FY 00 ADJ
ADM
163.61
163.17
1,657.71
1,870.32
521.10
286.86
711.92
143.52
12,004.57
11,901.73
6,704.96
9,396.31
45,856.12
223.38
183.83
423.32
181.25
483.54
4,171.03
3,727.14
340.59
227.92
1,497.94
1,442.66
945.78
738.13
387.71
1,921.28
3,051.78
2,025.26
1,870.97
82.81
12,366.54
603.11
1,171.53
1,292.86
4,642.36
3,909.70
2,550.38
2,022.08
2,365.95
8,985.96
1,085.86
924.42
1,583.87
1,280.89
10,908.77
1,252.60
1,641.25
2,559.76
2,293.20
851.87
4,990.27
546.83
245.09
1,038.83
263.92
663.77
1,195.59
521.71
513.66
FY 00
AMCPU
188.76
188.61
1,958.40
2,169.06
609.48
329.64
830.14
166.65
13,907.43
13,693.99
7,732.49
10,923.53
52,178.78
262.02
215.62
507.84
210.62
581.93
4,893.80
4,331.13
398.30
265.40
1,722.95
1,683.10
1,102.89
858.02
448.87
2,219.02
3,578.14
2,367.25
2,192.96
94.39
14,406.96
705.43
1,352.63
1,491.49
5,273.96
4,436.34
2,956.17
2,299.39
2,631.85
10,324.91
1,265.01
1,079.34
1,876.45
1,507.72
12,732.11
1,498.52
1,935.52
2,954.72
2,686.72
997.25
5,772.73
621.66
287.59
1,243.44
312.54
773.05
1,397.12
618.00
615.21
Total Reg &
Excess
Students
Transp.
165
168
1,965
1,671
437
247
603
119
12,889
11,772
7,621
9,450
14,088
161
161
456
163
484
4,162
3,028
301
186
1,380
1,455
702
405
324
1,948
2,833
1,916
1,593
51
9,607
613
1,006
1,180
5,299
3,467
2,933
1,726
2,416
9,677
1,082
877
1,692
1,218
11,140
1,287
1,715
2,650
2,543
635
4,104
422
158
1,198
230
635
897
504
471
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$70,706.22
$81,440.56
$206,116.60
$251,261.21
$215,383.79
$80,340.06
$163,344.20
$56,687.91
$2,414,700.24
$1,870,350.50
$1,410,991.50
$1,308,223.80
$2,522,703.65
$76,596.76
$50,707.93
$173,957.44
$53,335.35
$128,009.73
$1,180,689.31
$1,163,668.27
$91,797.23
$57,339.24
$480,688.41
$378,588.60
$118,839.48
$151,719.42
$136,042.08
$394,420.40
$801,059.01
$537,840.28
$342,106.03
$30,946.22
$2,226,887.61
$226,673.00
$378,484.97
$329,396.89
$1,289,031.28
$1,187,189.57
$510,622.02
$485,913.74
$646,386.51
$2,779,598.03
$222,563.74
$381,757.91
$659,763.47
$388,600.12
$2,945,557.53
$320,754.63
$365,071.76
$652,841.05
$908,325.04
$282,609.92
$1,204,181.88
$99,315.56
$29,068.34
$208,661.49
$88,909.65
$298,996.03
$289,463.59
$239,291.06
$195,597.14
Reg &
Reg &
Excess
Excess
Cost
Cost
Transp.
Unit
$428.52
$374.58
$484.77
$431.79
$104.89
$105.25
$150.37
$115.84
$492.87
$353.39
$325.26
$243.72
$270.89
$196.77
$476.37
$340.16
$187.35
$173.63
$158.88
$136.58
$185.15
$182.48
$138.44
$119.76
$179.07
$48.35
$475.76
$292.33
$314.96
$235.17
$381.49
$342.54
$327.21
$253.23
$264.48
$219.97
$283.68
$241.26
$384.30
$268.68
$304.97
$230.47
$308.28
$216.05
$348.32
$278.99
$260.20
$224.94
$169.29
$107.75
$374.62
$176.83
$419.88
$303.08
$202.47
$177.75
$282.76
$223.88
$280.71
$227.20
$214.76
$156.00
$606.79
$327.85
$231.80
$154.57
$369.78
$321.33
$376.23
$279.81
$279.15
$220.85
$243.26
$244.41
$342.43
$267.61
$174.10
$172.73
$281.53
$211.32
$267.54
$245.60
$287.24
$269.21
$205.70
$175.94
$435.30
$353.70
$389.93
$351.60
$319.05
$257.74
$264.41
$231.35
$249.23
$214.05
$212.87
$188.62
$246.36
$220.95
$357.19
$338.08
$445.05
$283.39
$293.42
$208.60
$235.34
$159.76
$183.98
$101.08
$174.17
$167.81
$386.56
$284.47
$470.86
$386.77
$322.70
$207.19
$474.78
$387.20
$415.28
$317.94
Disabled
Students
4
3
11
15
2
0
16
2
572
155
176
387
1,789
1
0
3
0
3
169
116
9
1
5
23
8
3
2
22
22
44
50
1
357
4
51
58
159
77
97
15
24
181
3
21
55
3
452
63
14
31
48
20
176
2
1
2
0
2
8
1
6
93
Disabled
Cost
$11,373.86
$2,860.00
$39,538.86
$41,163.31
$7,976.23
$0.00
$32,975.25
$383.50
$1,289,041.58
$1,321,589.56
$748,956.78
$849,691.53
$5,261,203.98
$2,657.82
$0.00
$633.60
$0.00
$6,684.57
$668,817.80
$253,181.75
$29,761.43
$2,900.00
$17,158.97
$43,104.43
$42,119.14
$33,897.70
$9,729.75
$175,143.55
$104,887.06
$149,626.90
$72,457.30
$12,750.47
$974,871.60
$48,881.56
$209,064.65
$95,291.93
$453,399.27
$337,294.40
$338,667.51
$109,683.43
$102,528.67
$701,952.11
$27,077.33
$38,746.60
$40,180.67
$53,316.55
$1,059,035.99
$59,708.30
$52,527.69
$148,260.40
$165,997.46
$59,211.51
$372,253.20
$28,969.98
$21,785.00
$4,831.74
$0.00
$57,897.20
$59,406.86
$3,744.18
$34,478.39
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
84
16
27,673
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
770
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$150,196.89
$80,689.24
$30,510.00
$9,349,728.98
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$223,163.49
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Deseg.
Deseg.
Student
Cost per
Transp.
Pupil Unit
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,028.75
$10.97
$960.59
$10.44
$1,906.88
$2.79
$337.86
$179.19
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$289.82
$15.49
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Total Public
School
Students
Eligible
for Transp.
Pupils
as % of
Square
per Square
FY 00 Adj
Mile
Mile
ADM
98%
1.57
1.75
110%
1.41
1.55
109%
4.78
4.74
83%
9.67
12.44
84%
1.23
1.70
86%
1.68
2.24
88%
2.04
2.73
84%
1.50
2.07
102%
316.06
326.54
89%
328.87
373.03
105%
364.02
357.16
95%
213.73
236.95
87%
775.60
929.27
73%
0.73
1.19
88%
1.43
1.92
93%
2.42
2.67
89%
1.86
2.40
78%
2.29
2.74
87%
19.62
22.17
77%
17.60
24.25
90%
2.66
3.41
82%
1.02
1.45
92%
1.94
2.41
104%
1.56
1.78
75%
10.46
16.25
55%
1.64
3.44
84%
1.03
1.42
103%
21.31
24.00
87%
8.36
10.47
91%
13.10
15.82
84%
10.48
13.98
115%
0.48
0.87
78%
30.16
40.48
102%
4.44
5.08
82%
9.86
12.62
91%
16.99
20.47
104%
111.80
108.03
75%
69.61
87.14
104%
19.38
18.91
86%
15.50
20.48
102%
38.67
41.71
102%
57.45
60.18
100%
8.87
10.34
94%
7.07
8.50
92%
7.84
8.42
95%
7.18
8.87
88%
47.21
51.85
87%
6.86
7.61
96%
11.41
12.77
97%
56.47
62.23
104%
20.40
21.15
74%
3.69
5.62
76%
18.44
24.87
78%
5.66
8.31
65%
1.78
3.22
106%
5.37
5.57
87%
1.02
1.38
95%
2.56
3.10
76%
2.25
3.47
97%
3.65
4.46
82%
4.04
5.22
Square
Miles
107.57
121.42
413.43
174.36
357.48
147.29
304.03
80.69
42.59
36.71
21.65
46.10
56.15
220.78
112.44
190.02
87.64
212.68
220.76
178.59
116.64
183.25
713.79
946.86
67.89
249.40
316.84
92.46
341.59
149.62
156.82
108.11
355.94
138.96
107.18
72.86
48.82
50.91
156.35
112.29
63.10
171.58
122.31
127.04
222.88
169.96
245.56
196.92
151.59
47.48
127.04
177.47
232.10
74.85
89.22
223.43
226.46
249.13
402.24
138.46
117.94
Appendix C
Dst.
Dst.
No. Type
801
1
803
1
806
1
810
1
811
1
813
1
815
2
818
1
820
1
821
1
829
1
831
1
832
1
833
1
834
1
836
1
837
1
840
1
846
1
850
1
852
1
857
1
858
1
861
1
876
1
877
1
879
1
881
1
882
1
883
1
885
1
891
1
911
1
912
1
914
1
2071
1
2125
1
2134
1
2135
1
2137
1
2142
1
2143
1
2144
1
2149
1
2154
1
2155
1
2159
1
2164
1
2165
1
2167
1
2168
1
2169
1
2170
1
2171
1
2172
1
2174
1
2176
1
2180
1
2184
1
2190
1
2198
1
Total
Total
Eligible/
Eligible/
Transp.
Transp.
Public
District Name
Students
Students
BROWNS VALLEY
76
76
WHEATON AREA SCH
313
313
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
431
485
PLAINVIEW
1,026
999
WABASHA-KELLOGG
968
815
LAKE CITY
1,271
1,214
PRINSBURG
94
30
VERNDALE
453
453
SEBEKA
605
600
MENAHGA
699
714
WASECA
2,105
1,991
FOREST LAKE
9,003
8,494
MAHTOMEDI
3,482
3,160
SOUTH WASHINGTON 13,276
11,932
STILLWATER
9,131
8,317
BUTTERFIELD
132
125
MADELIA
449
456
ST. JAMES
1,305
1,236
BRECKENRIDGE
947
812
ROTHSAY
232
232
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
137
137
LEWISTON
773
683
ST. CHARLES
626
626
WINONA
4,766
3,572
ANNANDALE
2,018
2,010
BUFFALO
4,689
4,359
DELANO
1,854
1,686
MAPLE LAKE
1,008
940
MONTICELLO
3,739
3,722
ROCKFORD
1,806
1,757
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
2,901
2,611
CANBY
515
496
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
4,591
4,481
MILACA
1,813
1,696
ULEN-HITTERDAL
262
262
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
857
808
TRITON
1,217
1,179
UNITED SOUTH CEN
909
804
MAPLE RIVER
1,106
1,075
KINGSLAND
1,054
1,011
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
2,488
2,488
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
1,015
956
CHISAGO LAKES
3,767
3,751
MINNEWASKA
1,721
1,709
EVELETH-GILBERT
1,103
1,103
WADENA-DEER CREE
1,068
1,029
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
639
631
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
859
1,283
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
1,102
1,094
LAKEVIEW
442
437
N.R.H.E.G.
909
909
MURRAY COUNTY CE
797
753
STAPLES-MOTLEY
1,729
1,619
KITTSON CENTRAL
289
289
KENYON-WANAMINGO 1,020
1,019
PINE RIVER-BACKU
1,236
1,223
WARREN-ALVARADO398
398
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
1,021
937
LUVERNE
980
931
YELLOW MEDICINE
1,193
1,193
FILLMORE CENTRAL
744
739
FY 00 ADJ
ADM
149.41
521.77
594.72
1,190.51
795.45
1,532.90
28.30
458.60
604.00
731.40
2,273.14
7,849.84
3,071.80
15,134.04
9,294.88
211.80
591.01
1,338.31
928.02
256.94
186.56
830.50
1,080.89
4,614.96
1,947.30
4,791.94
1,838.23
937.47
3,656.06
1,697.28
2,600.43
741.30
4,816.84
1,774.36
303.95
1,044.84
1,194.53
1,045.22
1,293.13
1,007.44
2,703.26
1,078.18
3,534.64
1,720.72
1,459.13
1,417.76
628.91
1,304.14
1,145.83
585.71
1,057.54
878.97
1,674.26
471.01
1,034.15
1,317.32
668.17
945.65
1,392.95
1,284.07
816.93
FY 00
AMCPU
170.28
610.82
687.45
1,370.06
941.97
1,784.94
32.88
537.98
695.70
853.99
2,650.38
9,068.79
3,543.89
17,312.63
10,761.95
244.13
698.89
1,535.11
1,080.49
303.35
219.32
975.51
1,241.98
5,418.76
2,259.45
5,588.99
2,131.15
1,099.83
4,193.13
1,941.14
2,963.83
880.73
5,614.46
2,067.72
358.79
1,230.68
1,384.59
1,241.61
1,511.61
1,177.23
3,195.11
1,254.61
4,073.76
2,020.17
1,692.79
1,667.25
728.69
1,493.65
1,317.47
677.61
1,236.13
1,023.19
1,962.61
550.82
1,208.39
1,539.02
785.33
1,107.57
1,631.16
1,504.18
955.60
Total Reg &
Excess
Students
Transp.
76
302
427
1,021
950
1,251
94
451
595
688
2,048
8,847
3,423
12,836
9,002
131
431
1,285
939
232
136
764
622
4,630
1,986
4,642
1,807
1,007
3,685
1,782
2,873
503
4,510
1,772
258
807
1,196
873
1,095
1,048
2,455
973
3,678
1,679
1,067
1,059
635
834
1,095
436
847
786
1,717
287
994
1,230
383
999
947
1,181
730
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$56,031.48
$130,805.91
$197,027.36
$434,813.19
$358,404.47
$461,261.64
$42,731.99
$40,904.76
$190,277.12
$208,385.22
$652,780.53
$1,982,096.05
$652,585.28
$1,955,242.00
$2,380,740.17
$56,609.02
$180,887.53
$384,437.73
$165,431.81
$83,540.36
$53,846.28
$170,545.49
$296,943.20
$1,513,743.46
$684,885.54
$1,672,510.92
$586,992.45
$289,569.82
$1,056,647.13
$312,745.34
$799,518.61
$158,351.88
$826,739.83
$629,784.95
$105,449.82
$552,096.27
$266,780.42
$358,107.33
$439,595.53
$191,290.33
$1,359,426.23
$280,178.98
$766,540.71
$627,743.70
$354,741.90
$306,075.70
$116,210.26
$468,907.19
$290,134.87
$123,885.22
$190,019.32
$463,589.69
$678,390.25
$182,640.31
$398,967.21
$413,178.41
$176,356.14
$434,712.55
$319,404.99
$669,542.24
$304,405.09
Reg &
Reg &
Excess
Excess
Cost
Cost
Transp.
Unit
$737.26
$329.05
$433.13
$214.15
$461.42
$286.61
$425.87
$317.37
$377.27
$380.48
$368.71
$258.42
$454.60 $1,299.63
$90.70
$76.03
$319.79
$273.50
$302.89
$244.01
$318.74
$246.30
$224.04
$218.56
$190.65
$184.14
$152.32
$112.94
$264.47
$221.22
$432.13
$231.88
$419.69
$258.82
$299.17
$250.43
$176.18
$153.11
$360.09
$275.39
$395.93
$245.51
$223.23
$174.83
$477.40
$239.09
$326.94
$279.35
$344.86
$303.12
$360.30
$299.25
$324.84
$275.43
$287.56
$263.29
$286.74
$251.99
$175.50
$161.11
$278.29
$269.76
$314.81
$179.80
$183.31
$147.25
$355.41
$304.58
$408.72
$293.90
$684.13
$448.61
$223.06
$192.68
$410.20
$288.42
$401.46
$290.81
$182.53
$162.49
$553.74
$425.47
$287.95
$223.32
$208.41
$188.17
$373.88
$310.74
$332.47
$209.56
$289.02
$183.58
$183.01
$159.48
$562.24
$313.93
$264.96
$220.22
$284.14
$182.83
$224.34
$153.72
$589.81
$453.08
$395.10
$345.66
$636.38
$331.58
$401.38
$330.16
$335.92
$268.47
$460.46
$224.56
$435.15
$392.49
$337.28
$195.81
$566.93
$445.12
$416.99
$318.55
Disabled
Students
0
11
4
5
18
20
0
2
10
11
57
156
59
435
116
1
18
20
8
0
1
9
4
136
32
47
47
1
54
24
28
12
81
41
4
50
21
36
11
6
33
42
89
42
36
9
4
25
7
6
62
11
12
2
26
6
15
22
33
12
14
94
Disabled
Cost
$0.00
$21,796.97
$14,113.24
$70,244.14
$59,288.70
$60,854.70
$0.00
$29,386.56
$8,346.61
$8,699.16
$154,743.08
$622,051.94
$202,957.93
$1,330,250.21
$1,002,901.86
$11,741.00
$56,908.40
$70,494.40
$53,121.04
$9,964.71
$1,462.28
$22,546.86
$15,755.69
$317,795.35
$138,541.65
$146,618.07
$105,792.89
$30,310.69
$183,918.02
$48,500.00
$139,709.40
$27,670.96
$139,162.56
$59,554.85
$9,898.38
$50,190.45
$71,452.93
$44,946.64
$47,099.89
$41,321.64
$274,453.15
$108,770.54
$142,891.21
$21,347.32
$94,238.41
$29,237.83
$17,480.18
$51,032.06
$10,133.41
$24,478.46
$48,812.47
$42,153.29
$65,582.31
$10,558.55
$203,194.66
$35,065.79
$3,113.15
$75,991.92
$63,421.07
$74,551.15
$27,303.33
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,220.00
$29,478.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Deseg.
Deseg.
Student
Cost per
Transp.
Pupil Unit
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$644.00
$0.19
$2,267.57
$2.74
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Total Public
School
Students
Eligible
for Transp.
Pupils
as % of
Square
per Square
FY 00 Adj
Mile
Mile
ADM
51%
1.42
3.18
60%
1.08
2.11
82%
5.23
8.34
84%
6.26
8.36
102%
7.04
6.85
79%
6.52
9.15
106%
3.40
1.19
99%
4.30
5.11
99%
2.34
2.69
98%
3.28
4.01
88%
13.81
17.39
108%
42.11
42.42
103%
123.83
126.03
79%
164.76
214.85
89%
59.59
70.24
59%
1.40
2.59
77%
3.08
4.79
92%
5.85
6.88
87%
2.76
3.14
90%
1.33
1.74
73%
0.52
0.83
82%
4.87
6.14
58%
4.74
9.40
77%
17.70
20.12
103%
14.92
16.71
91%
31.46
37.50
92%
28.03
32.22
100%
17.42
19.01
102%
42.43
47.58
104%
41.64
44.76
100%
72.07
73.64
67%
1.50
2.57
93%
18.69
22.85
96%
6.35
7.24
86%
1.23
1.69
77%
3.79
5.44
99%
5.67
6.45
77%
2.65
3.62
83%
3.65
4.99
100%
5.76
6.43
92%
0.59
0.76
89%
6.79
8.39
106%
22.80
24.66
99%
3.74
4.39
76%
7.91
12.14
73%
5.61
8.75
100%
2.78
3.18
98%
3.13
5.43
95%
2.64
3.15
75%
2.46
3.78
86%
3.86
5.25
86%
2.55
3.27
97%
3.60
4.09
61%
0.61
1.17
99%
4.63
5.48
93%
2.29
2.86
60%
0.79
1.55
99%
3.21
3.49
67%
3.71
6.17
93%
2.83
3.57
90%
3.51
4.51
Square
Miles
53.50
289.93
82.42
163.92
137.49
195.01
27.64
105.34
258.58
213.08
152.41
213.81
28.12
80.58
153.22
94.21
146.01
223.10
343.68
174.54
265.19
158.88
132.12
269.32
135.25
149.03
66.14
57.86
88.13
43.37
40.25
342.39
245.68
285.45
212.18
226.40
214.62
343.09
302.71
183.02
4,201.48
149.46
165.20
460.34
139.40
190.53
229.48
274.88
417.82
179.38
235.66
313.11
480.07
470.10
220.54
538.77
505.39
317.78
264.41
420.90
212.09
Appendix C
Dst.
Dst.
No. Type
2215
1
2310
1
2311
1
2342
1
2358
1
2364
1
2365
1
2396
1
2397
1
2448
1
2527
1
2534
1
2536
1
2580
1
2609
1
2683
1
2687
1
2689
1
2711
1
2752
1
2753
1
2754
1
2759
1
2805
1
2835
1
2853
1
2854
1
2856
1
2859
1
2860
1
2884
1
2886
1
2887
1
2888
1
2889
1
2890
1
2895
1
2897
1
2898
1
Total
Total
Eligible/
Eligible/
Transp.
Transp.
Public
District Name
Students
Students
NORMAN COUNTY EA
416
416
SIBLEY EAST
1,336
1,183
CLEARBROOK-GONVI
571
571
WEST CENTRAL ARE
907
907
TRI-COUNTY
356
328
BELGRADE-BROOTEN
855
855
G.F.W.
1,050
926
A.C.G.C.
1,031
995
LESUEUR-HENDERSO 1,224
1,166
MARTIN COUNTY WE
935
922
NORMAN COUNTY WE
352
409
BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
1,148
1,065
GRANADA HUNTLEY331
319
EAST CENTRAL
1,103
1,115
WIN-E-MAC
500
500
GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
470
470
HOWARD LAKE-WAVE 1,129
878
PIPESTONE-JASPER
958
916
MESABI EAST
1,496
1,494
FAIRMONT AREA SC
1,973
1,680
LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
1,173
1,037
CEDAR MOUNTAIN
353
326
EAGLE VALLEY
402
402
ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA 1,144
1,122
JANESVILLE-WALDO
560
456
LAC QUI PARLE VA
1,110
1,113
ADA-BORUP
506
506
STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
285
285
GLENCOE-SILVER L
2,112
1,834
BLUE EARTH AREA
1,362
1,356
RED ROCK CENTRAL
532
514
GLENVILLE-EMMONS
388
388
MCLEOD WEST SCHO
505
505
CLINTON-GRACEVIL
497
484
LAKE PARK AUDUBO
663
663
D.R.S.H.
925
836
JACKSON COUNTY C
1,437
1,368
REDWOOD FALLS
1,845
1,782
WESTBROOK -WALNUT GROVE
384
365
STATE TOTALS
833,281
763,548
FY 00 ADJ
FY 00
ADM
AMCPU
425.67
496.16
1,301.55
1,512.52
602.82
711.95
970.18
1,146.99
342.78
399.86
858.16
999.96
1,022.39
1,209.40
1,006.92
1,189.79
1,466.64
1,702.57
1,010.57
1,181.19
391.65
456.95
996.02
1,173.31
341.35
399.56
989.54
1,157.91
453.45
523.20
512.05
604.42
965.37
1,104.68
1,586.79
1,842.45
1,225.76
1,435.17
2,081.47
2,461.07
1,423.29
1,685.92
436.52
516.64
482.04
568.99
1,281.34
1,489.23
618.85
743.53
1,244.06
1,454.51
559.80
645.33
457.14
538.85
1,873.96
2,185.66
1,612.35
1,879.21
583.06
692.01
518.04
605.20
551.99
642.36
561.38
657.62
691.11
804.95
884.66
1,033.83
1,446.79
1,702.86
1,646.13
1,926.47
444.44
517.18
839,077.91 968,709.24
Reg &
Reg &
Excess
Total Reg &
Excess
Cost
Excess
Cost
Students
Total Reg &
Transp.
Unit
Transp.
Excess Cost
412
$163,396.57
$396.59
$329.32
1,311
$272,501.63
$207.86
$180.16
570
$382,142.23
$670.42
$536.75
900
$412,054.38
$457.84
$359.25
356
$157,792.98
$443.24
$394.62
846
$258,441.77
$305.49
$258.45
1,044
$264,291.66
$253.15
$218.53
1,007
$477,858.76
$474.54
$401.63
1,203
$284,151.88
$236.20
$166.90
923
$224,996.70
$243.77
$190.48
350
$166,084.75
$474.53
$363.46
1,128
$449,879.86
$398.83
$383.43
322
$121,474.62
$377.25
$304.02
1,098
$306,056.34
$278.74
$264.32
498
$127,385.85
$255.79
$243.47
460
$225,128.63
$489.41
$372.47
1,122
$225,660.90
$201.12
$204.28
950
$564,732.00
$594.45
$306.51
1,486
$333,033.70
$224.11
$232.05
1,929
$795,763.40
$412.53
$323.34
1,163
$533,922.70
$459.09
$316.70
338
$190,064.04
$562.32
$367.88
396
$205,471.55
$518.87
$361.12
1,121
$343,878.00
$306.76
$230.91
528
$225,926.14
$427.89
$303.86
1,089
$299,293.38
$274.83
$205.77
502
$323,335.32
$644.09
$501.04
284
$104,605.10
$368.33
$194.13
2,070
$562,606.53
$271.79
$257.41
1,320
$286,940.47
$217.38
$152.69
530
$190,623.36
$359.67
$275.46
386
$121,077.49
$313.67
$200.06
499
$141,094.59
$282.75
$219.65
495
$205,025.48
$414.19
$311.77
641
$204,071.47
$318.36
$253.52
921
$302,542.77
$328.49
$292.64
1,419
$481,976.03
$339.66
$283.04
1,764
$501,449.12
$284.27
$260.29
382
$182,621.38
$478.07
$353.11
745,884 $192,405,127.76
$257.96
$198.62
Disabled
Students
4
25
1
7
0
9
6
24
21
12
2
20
9
5
2
10
7
8
10
44
10
15
6
23
32
21
4
1
42
42
2
2
6
2
22
4
18
81
2
26,704
95
Disabled
Cost
$16,180.39
$72,432.36
$23,070.25
$50,482.49
$1,570.00
$43,855.81
$73,939.01
$66,176.52
$59,504.89
$38,799.34
$14,145.50
$13,450.53
$3,399.36
$12,811.60
$10,045.24
$25,377.60
$23,312.05
$132,475.80
$39,177.45
$84,298.17
$101,001.10
$28,349.47
$16,558.37
$29,583.72
$128,576.10
$85,603.05
$4,374.77
$330.00
$102,345.74
$41,889.90
$7,537.00
$40,541.84
$44,826.36
$3,532.82
$55,907.53
$50,252.74
$42,833.87
$36,131.81
$35,857.33
$78,696,944.87
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,693
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$27,829,399.36
Deseg.
Cost per
Deseg.
Deseg.
Student
Cost per
Transp.
Pupil Unit
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$458.53
$28.73
Total Public
School
Students
Eligible
for Transp.
Pupils
as % of
Square
per Square
FY 00 Adj
Mile
Mile
ADM
98%
1.46
1.75
91%
5.36
6.07
95%
1.72
2.14
93%
1.96
2.47
96%
0.79
0.89
100%
2.48
2.90
91%
3.01
3.47
99%
2.94
3.39
80%
7.23
10.06
91%
3.34
4.22
104%
1.77
2.30
107%
4.77
4.87
93%
1.66
2.00
113%
1.76
1.85
110%
1.69
1.77
92%
0.64
0.83
91%
10.10
9.88
58%
2.29
4.41
122%
3.76
3.60
81%
11.31
14.10
73%
4.78
6.86
75%
1.83
2.68
83%
3.00
4.25
88%
8.28
10.78
74%
2.77
3.68
89%
1.46
1.91
90%
1.47
1.87
62%
0.70
1.33
98%
9.70
10.04
84%
3.49
4.81
88%
1.54
2.01
75%
2.60
4.05
91%
3.10
3.95
86%
1.12
1.49
96%
3.05
3.70
94%
2.96
3.31
95%
3.26
3.86
108%
6.83
7.14
82%
1.47
1.98
91%
9.89
11.49
Square
Miles
284.08
249.05
332.50
463.48
450.83
344.88
348.57
350.48
169.25
280.17
198.90
240.69
199.87
627.07
296.35
729.16
111.77
417.70
398.38
174.52
245.61
192.63
133.86
138.20
202.12
761.19
345.05
404.31
217.68
390.71
344.44
149.49
162.65
442.84
217.70
312.20
441.14
269.94
260.75
84,282.26
Appendix C
To And From Transportation Data
By School District
FY 2000
Dst.
No.
1
1
2
4
6
11
12
13
14
15
16
22
23
25
31
32
36
38
47
51
62
75
77
81
84
85
88
91
93
94
95
97
99
100
108
110
111
112
113
115
116
118
129
138
139
146
150
152
162
166
173
177
181
182
186
Dst.
Type
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
District Name
Total
Eligible/
Transp.
Students
AITKIN
1,269
MINNEAPOLIS
58,617
HILL CITY
324
MCGREGOR
570
SOUTH ST. PAUL
2,376
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
42,073
CENTENNIAL
6,603
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
2,474
FRIDLEY
2,402
ST. FRANCIS
6,427
SPRING LAKE PARK
4,126
DETROIT LAKES
3,041
FRAZEE
1,258
PINE POINT
64
BEMIDJI
6,133
BLACKDUCK
787
KELLIHER
243
RED LAKE
1,666
SAUK RAPIDS
3,520
FOLEY
2,003
ORTONVILLE
329
ST. CLAIR
633
MANKATO
5,901
COMFREY
179
SLEEPY EYE
736
SPRINGFIELD
433
NEW ULM
3,602
BARNUM
671
CARLTON
730
CLOQUET
2,053
CROMWELL
339
MOOSE LAKE
740
ESKO
1,059
WRENSHALL
342
NORWOOD
1,422
WACONIA
2,489
WATERTOWN-MAYER
1,570
CHASKA
7,912
WALKER-HACKENSAC
1,043
CASS LAKE
1,194
PILLAGER
718
REMER-LONGVILLE
689
MONTEVIDEO
1,403
NORTH BRANCH
3,656
RUSH CITY
855
BARNESVILLE
484
HAWLEY
579
MOORHEAD
4,806
BAGLEY
1,137
COOK COUNTY
646
MOUNTAIN LAKE
339
WINDOM
1,135
BRAINERD
7,099
CROSBY-IRONTON
1,651
PEQUOT LAKES
1,349
FY 00 ADJ ADM
1,361.45
49,549.17
380.69
549.85
3,633.87
40,548.61
6,753.02
2,995.52
2,612.82
5,775.95
4,180.24
2,856.43
1,242.96
49.98
5,353.69
821.99
275.09
1,328.77
3,372.47
1,757.34
600.04
665.55
7,047.43
168.44
668.59
736.00
2,699.13
648.05
750.76
2,621.35
335.76
775.98
1,040.27
404.00
1,147.47
2,017.75
1,333.56
6,992.91
1,044.88
1,121.03
690.22
609.67
1,685.98
3,544.61
946.46
745.32
933.65
5,750.92
1,128.20
726.15
521.83
1,125.35
7,228.03
1,546.01
1,265.00
FY 00 AMCPU
1,583.45
55,739.93
452.98
639.08
4,220.78
46,508.38
7,666.80
3,453.12
3,025.57
6,611.05
4,804.22
3,339.07
1,447.72
54.66
6,212.12
965.37
325.41
1,498.94
3,905.53
2,059.33
707.77
777.45
8,197.89
194.86
789.64
873.12
3,186.80
760.61
860.12
3,032.55
392.58
898.91
1,202.05
477.87
1,350.11
2,297.62
1,555.61
7,965.93
1,212.27
1,276.57
790.30
714.11
1,975.97
4,074.85
1,085.05
864.99
1,071.15
6,662.69
1,318.98
849.32
609.70
1,319.06
8,401.74
1,800.27
1,447.25
Total Eligible/
Transp. Reg & Total Reg &
Excess
Excess
Students
Mileage
1,249
20,416
317
556
2,220
40,691
6,376
2,417
2,324
6,028
4,000
2,951
1,221
64
5,992
780
242
1,655
3,464
1,966
322
618
5,724
176
709
420
3,578
664
725
1,962
334
738
1,048
341
1,366
2,471
1,558
7,745
1,035
1,157
693
685
1,380
3,561
844
470
575
4,581
1,118
645
322
1,128
6,793
1,601
1,337
268,226
1,390,379
73,231
143,274
81,725
3,575,091
482,248
78,007
70,677
823,197
208,956
293,445
257,300
3,354
1,063,494
226,092
73,683
168,035
620,300
227,540
76,617
51,300
407,228
51,652
112,581
120,570
550,000
115,457
124,271
121,068
76,371
95,162
92,349
45,812
116,025
161,778
159,036
666,198
237,545
261,218
106,575
180,048
120,006
374,523
96,804
133,150
90,132
533,498
240,521
191,506
51,304
146,096
526,744
253,164
166,078
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
Total Reg &
Excess Miles
per Pupil
Transp.
$475,498.24
$5,208,176.83
$177,262.18
$317,156.99
$405,819.00
$7,975,756.66
$1,396,199.69
$260,076.16
$424,616.89
$1,834,723.55
$866,180.12
$958,476.45
$534,008.79
$8,265.56
$2,220,901.87
$245,194.82
$111,389.63
$291,620.50
$1,188,112.87
$434,798.67
$85,705.46
$100,974.98
$1,335,573.17
$45,268.88
$282,196.37
$157,591.20
$1,089,495.48
$187,843.75
$223,052.64
$684,490.00
$95,163.61
$200,298.26
$227,327.89
$97,488.89
$195,233.89
$799,282.85
$483,213.41
$1,911,967.87
$341,720.69
$560,928.02
$214,798.98
$320,198.58
$380,736.22
$805,265.63
$198,108.71
$258,167.07
$133,884.08
$1,475,737.15
$340,292.50
$297,106.41
$74,434.44
$183,833.41
$2,121,833.73
$579,832.16
$317,776.70
214.75
68.10
231.01
257.69
36.81
87.86
75.63
32.27
30.41
136.56
52.24
99.44
210.73
52.41
177.49
289.86
304.48
101.53
179.07
115.74
237.94
83.01
71.14
293.48
158.79
287.07
153.72
173.88
171.41
61.71
228.66
128.95
88.12
134.35
84.94
65.47
102.08
86.02
229.51
225.77
153.79
262.84
86.96
105.17
114.70
283.30
156.75
116.46
215.14
296.91
159.33
129.52
77.54
158.13
124.22
96
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
per Mile
$1.77
$3.75
$2.42
$2.21
$4.97
$2.23
$2.90
$3.33
$6.01
$2.23
$4.15
$3.27
$2.08
$2.46
$2.09
$1.08
$1.51
$1.74
$1.92
$1.91
$1.12
$1.97
$3.28
$0.88
$2.51
$1.31
$1.98
$1.63
$1.79
$5.65
$1.25
$2.10
$2.46
$2.13
$1.68
$4.94
$3.04
$2.87
$1.44
$2.15
$2.02
$1.78
$3.17
$2.15
$2.05
$1.94
$1.49
$2.77
$1.41
$1.55
$1.45
$1.26
$4.03
$2.29
$1.91
Disabled
Students
20
6,420
7
14
156
1,382
227
43
78
399
126
90
37
0
141
7
1
11
56
37
7
15
177
3
27
13
24
7
5
91
5
2
11
1
56
18
12
167
8
37
25
4
23
95
11
14
4
225
19
1
17
7
306
50
12
Disabled Cost
$53,467.20
$8,494,137.53
$34,207.17
$44,078.63
$423,577.60
$4,804,550.98
$801,674.27
$484,332.66
$340,579.19
$471,975.05
$630,669.41
$248,869.24
$135,062.63
$0.00
$137,624.17
$13,023.43
$3,813.00
$45,276.53
$264,337.75
$79,177.98
$4,045.35
$84,767.87
$448,507.32
$7,827.24
$48,007.58
$32,198.64
$193,095.40
$48,170.19
$35,767.13
$163,061.87
$21,168.34
$24,053.36
$48,338.55
$26,116.30
$78,951.12
$223,331.61
$65,756.50
$867,032.89
$59,301.71
$203,920.32
$45,729.61
$20,102.24
$59,803.47
$280,851.93
$29,447.74
$27,788.27
$22,929.32
$529,144.26
$18,075.35
$774.08
$21,958.99
$31,487.16
$478,803.66
$125,056.00
$39,955.24
Deseg.
Students
Deseg.
Cost
0
$0.00
31,781 $17,674,140.32
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
14
$26,053.20
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
0
$0.00
Deseg.
Mileage
0
4,617,060
0
0
0
0
0
10,488
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Miles per
Pupil
Transp.
0.00
145.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
749.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Mile
$0.00
$3.83
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.48
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Appendix C
By School District
FY 2000
Total
Eligible/
Transp.
Dst.
Dst.
Students
No.
Type
District Name
191
1 BURNSVILLE
10,531
192
1 FARMINGTON
4,490
194
1 LAKEVILLE
7,418
195
1 RANDOLPH
409
196
1 ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
28,796
197
1 WEST ST. PAUL-ME
6,674
199
1 INVER GROVE
3,894
200
1 HASTINGS
5,579
203
1 HAYFIELD
828
204
1 KASSON-MANTORVIL
1,766
206
1 ALEXANDRIA
4,509
207
1 BRANDON
280
208
1 EVANSVILLE
199
213
1 OSAKIS
561
227
1 CHATFIELD
681
229
1 LANESBORO
306
238
1 MABEL-CANTON
340
239
1 RUSHFORD-PETERSO
695
241
1 ALBERT LEA
3,093
242
1 ALDEN
323
252
1 CANNON FALLS
1,638
253
1 GOODHUE
484
255
1 PINE ISLAND
921
256
1 RED WING
3,371
261
1 ASHBY
275
264
1 HERMAN-NORCROSS
95
270
1 HOPKINS
9,235
271
1 BLOOMINGTON
12,639
272
1 EDEN PRAIRIE
11,713
273
1 EDINA
6,982
276
1 MINNETONKA
8,809
277
1 WESTONKA
2,847
278
1 ORONO
3,087
279
1 OSSEO
16,804
280
1 RICHFIELD
4,210
281
1 ROBBINSDALE
15,239
282
1 ST. ANTHONY-NEW
1,440
283
1 ST. LOUIS PARK
4,938
284
1 WAYZATA
10,752
1,073
286
1 BROOKLYN CENTER
294
1 HOUSTON
347
297
1 SPRING GROVE
229
299
1 CALEDONIA
873
1,722
300
1 LACRESCENT-HOKAH
306
1 LAPORTE
399
308
1 NEVIS
540
309
1 PARK RAPIDS
1,974
314
1 BRAHAM
907
316
1 GREENWAY
1,437
317
1 DEER RIVER
1,244
318
1 GRAND RAPIDS
4,624
643
319
1 NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
323
2 FRANCONIA
46
330
1 HERON LAKE-OKABE
352
332
1 MORA
1,865
333
1 OGILVIE
817
FY 00 ADJ ADM
11,715.58
4,506.16
9,120.44
423.93
28,234.37
5,020.11
4,167.31
5,237.85
1,011.95
1,736.19
4,275.88
350.45
263.48
641.63
937.80
381.10
401.24
726.77
3,930.30
442.49
1,542.33
586.98
1,246.34
3,321.82
344.61
166.30
8,570.19
11,208.92
10,318.72
6,951.71
7,782.57
2,356.16
2,599.10
22,097.08
4,335.43
14,431.03
1,490.49
4,376.39
9,238.44
1,729.67
479.55
436.47
1,005.25
1,690.03
374.10
536.91
1,914.30
978.98
1,478.07
1,107.52
4,489.62
690.21
43.63
385.85
1,992.85
761.63
FY 00 AMCPU
13,411.53
5,072.28
10,363.72
498.33
32,296.99
5,779.59
4,831.09
6,120.39
1,177.62
1,987.64
5,018.84
411.01
314.70
754.38
1,080.45
448.82
469.07
854.59
4,588.66
520.30
1,794.34
688.76
1,448.53
3,899.07
397.63
195.88
9,897.69
12,985.73
11,856.22
7,961.68
8,917.63
2,738.31
3,036.80
25,385.45
5,011.79
16,530.26
1,723.02
5,022.43
10,601.84
2,001.35
552.82
512.45
1,188.89
1,993.00
441.80
628.50
2,223.66
1,143.41
1,727.64
1,288.07
5,273.38
810.15
48.06
459.98
2,326.16
877.16
Total Eligible/
Excess
Excess
Students
Mileage
10,172
567,209
4,250
332,023
7,204
533,706
400
50,862
27,710
1,578,458
6,393
394,823
3,697
189,036
5,405
577,468
796
141,781
1,733
106,128
4,379
507,750
278
74,280
196
41,410
557
99,027
675
93,895
299
88,187
339
60,456
693
132,696
2,942
336,525
323
38,160
1,612
151,183
478
92,420
901
86,159
3,302
279,920
274
59,800
95
44,880
9,113
477,337
12,191
763,803
11,605
763,876
6,811
960,718
8,630
614,838
2,791
261,154
3,043
275,529
16,229
1,067,847
3,997
164,615
14,714
1,455,477
1,421
39,864
4,766
264,239
10,653
607,950
1,015
27,531
338
114,625
226
61,840
856
210,888
1,687
115,187
387
79,726
535
120,062
1,964
362,775
873
148,818
1,408
217,911
1,241
318,877
4,530
894,094
613
234,765
46
7,560
351
74,377
1,849
268,298
809
96,111
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$2,175,379.61
$1,135,710.54
$2,363,666.46
$112,570.67
$3,412,720.39
$907,940.32
$706,376.73
$1,310,654.55
$333,439.19
$429,487.54
$974,109.15
$152,003.75
$58,334.12
$173,545.94
$269,748.08
$140,724.86
$81,124.40
$254,296.98
$934,286.92
$92,221.34
$334,570.58
$232,522.98
$202,764.55
$1,059,785.82
$62,283.84
$30,850.98
$1,996,407.84
$1,659,248.68
$2,230,883.10
$934,897.07
$1,912,901.17
$583,087.22
$924,229.53
$4,499,138.14
$407,965.79
$2,707,412.11
$171,529.95
$995,646.50
$2,019,970.19
$109,315.89
$102,832.24
$119,837.39
$390,473.88
$439,485.62
$116,695.25
$159,268.40
$633,979.96
$344,894.48
$452,002.76
$624,188.81
$1,600,640.23
$332,862.24
$13,146.30
$104,024.05
$447,744.26
$178,870.73
Total Reg &
Excess Miles Total Reg &
per Pupil
Excess Cost
Transp.
per Mile
55.76
$3.84
78.12
$3.42
74.08
$4.43
127.16
$2.21
56.96
$2.16
61.76
$2.30
51.13
$3.74
106.84
$2.27
178.12
$2.35
61.24
$4.05
115.95
$1.92
267.19
$2.05
211.28
$1.41
177.79
$1.75
139.10
$2.87
294.94
$1.60
178.34
$1.34
191.48
$1.92
114.39
$2.78
118.14
$2.42
93.79
$2.21
193.35
$2.52
95.63
$2.35
84.77
$3.79
218.25
$1.04
472.42
$0.69
52.38
$4.18
62.65
$2.17
65.82
$2.92
141.05
$0.97
71.24
$3.11
93.57
$2.23
90.55
$3.35
65.80
$4.21
41.18
$2.48
98.92
$1.86
28.05
$4.30
55.44
$3.77
57.07
$3.32
27.12
$3.97
339.13
$0.90
273.63
$1.94
246.36
$1.85
68.28
$3.82
206.01
$1.46
224.41
$1.33
184.71
$1.75
170.47
$2.32
154.77
$2.07
256.95
$1.96
197.37
$1.79
382.98
$1.42
164.35
$1.74
211.90
$1.40
145.10
$1.67
118.80
$1.86
97
Disabled
Students
359
240
214
9
1,086
279
193
174
32
33
130
2
3
4
6
7
1
2
151
0
26
6
20
69
1
0
74
448
108
163
179
56
44
575
195
442
19
153
99
49
9
3
17
35
12
5
10
34
29
3
94
30
0
1
16
8
Disabled Cost
$1,497,522.98
$509,293.91
$1,038,687.94
$34,043.42
$4,019,082.00
$729,244.48
$692,108.18
$621,378.18
$59,932.00
$71,180.57
$273,360.66
$16,600.00
$996.13
$5,397.35
$16,996.36
$11,070.09
$22,406.90
$12,974.02
$238,854.45
$9,866.10
$58,540.20
$12,340.00
$55,945.76
$163,192.32
$1,250.17
$0.00
$1,152,710.89
$1,806,651.58
$618,337.92
$434,818.04
$826,714.61
$322,768.23
$242,741.84
$3,111,279.90
$965,534.84
$2,712,688.72
$160,964.81
$966,740.76
$689,546.32
$127,774.71
$21,130.01
$16,927.15
$68,071.61
$98,048.45
$15,511.00
$775.00
$54,844.38
$65,654.62
$67,321.79
$10,749.47
$218,889.83
$229,813.41
$0.00
$1,375.75
$31,061.27
$45,891.84
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
18
83
0
19
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,246.32
$11,794.68
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$92,309.00
$0.00
$0.00
$22,322.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$22,414.07
$47,965.32
$0.00
$29,627.19
$0.00
$32,540.26
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Deseg.
Mileage
0
0
0
0
0
1,364
12,353
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,616
0
0
0
0
7,298
22,100
0
17,794
0
1,730
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Miles per
Pupil
Transp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
682.00
3088.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1452.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
405.44
266.27
0.00
936.53
0.00
192.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Mile
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.38
$0.95
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1.92
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.07
$2.17
$0.00
$1.67
$0.00
$18.81
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Appendix C
By School District
FY 2000
Total
Eligible/
Transp.
Dst.
Dst.
Students
No.
Type
District Name
345
1 NEW LONDON-SPICE
1,964
347
1 WILLMAR
4,757
356
1 LANCASTER
153
361
1 INTERNATIONAL FA
1,649
362
1 LITTLEFORK-BIG F
271
363
1 SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
480
371
1 BELLINGHAM
129
378
1 DAWSON-BOYD
431
381
1 LAKE SUPERIOR
1,693
390
1 LAKE OF THE WOOD
843
391
1 CLEVELAND
349
392
1 LECENTER
380
394
1 MONTGOMERY-LONSD 1,018
402
1 HENDRICKS
185
403
1 IVANHOE
258
404
1 LAKE BENTON
172
409
1 TYLER
358
411
1 BALATON
138
413
1 MARSHALL
2,267
414
1 MINNEOTA
495
415
1 LYND
132
417
1 TRACY
870
418
1 RUSSELL
180
423
1 HUTCHINSON
3,426
424
1 LESTER PRAIRIE
355
432
1 MAHNOMEN
817
435
1 WAUBUN
703
441
1 MARSHALL COUNTY
358
447
1 GRYGLA
172
458
1 TRUMAN
371
463
1 EDEN VALLEY-WATK
916
465
1 LITCHFIELD
2,059
466
1 DASSEL-COKATO
2,241
473
1 ISLE
601
477
1 PRINCETON
3,200
480
1 ONAMIA
764
482
1 LITTLE FALLS
3,400
484
1 PIERZ
1,017
485
1 ROYALTON
716
486
1 SWANVILLE
371
487
1 UPSALA
407
492
1 AUSTIN
3,396
495
1 GRAND MEADOW
225
497
1 LYLE
154
499
1 LEROY
294
500
1 SOUTHLAND
734
505
1 FULDA
460
507
1 NICOLLET
445
508
1 ST. PETER
1,702
511
1 ADRIAN
474
513
1 BREWSTER
236
514
1 ELLSWORTH
138
516
1 ROUND LAKE
57
518
1 WORTHINGTON
2,540
531
1 BYRON
1,246
533
1 DOVER-EYOTA
829
FY 00 ADJ ADM
1,824.62
4,465.09
221.84
1,646.75
326.49
426.51
125.87
659.55
2,131.11
811.58
445.54
786.15
1,120.13
204.46
270.93
269.32
362.81
194.04
2,288.83
544.44
128.09
776.73
175.28
3,109.40
544.17
808.09
655.47
381.42
201.70
422.36
870.71
2,049.18
2,258.41
536.71
3,018.25
762.35
3,458.49
989.91
735.01
408.54
420.45
4,204.39
366.57
247.65
400.09
688.63
615.19
364.19
1,936.47
672.01
269.29
187.94
96.18
2,444.89
1,411.62
1,046.29
FY 00 AMCPU
2,128.73
5,176.77
258.49
1,911.76
381.40
506.51
145.07
773.97
2,467.57
945.91
520.25
915.84
1,311.76
234.98
318.50
319.39
427.58
226.29
2,673.01
635.33
151.75
913.54
206.22
3,625.37
634.44
953.65
753.18
448.96
234.61
499.63
1,017.67
2,395.60
2,622.26
618.23
3,499.39
892.64
4,059.17
1,171.45
858.11
484.49
488.35
4,854.83
430.47
290.42
467.91
795.29
718.03
438.34
2,271.44
766.91
299.69
217.85
129.47
2,839.21
1,617.73
1,207.13
Total Eligible/
Excess
Excess
Students
Mileage
1,942
308,933
4,606
567,128
153
73,142
1,640
139,692
270
83,597
477
157,564
129
49,103
421
92,123
1,653
467,186
828
224,077
342
58,541
357
54,720
985
132,921
178
39,004
245
63,286
172
32,232
350
60,192
136
25,605
2,220
162,000
489
78,751
132
41,856
857
107,712
176
38,459
3,359
358,350
354
63,421
811
175,271
699
141,180
356
104,679
172
90,683
362
94,164
895
100,064
2,026
194,378
2,222
206,348
594
116,798
3,146
387,642
739
165,863
3,308
444,743
991
146,370
703
110,584
368
58,706
407
40,715
3,255
251,680
222
39,441
142
31,861
292
44,540
730
121,071
450
79,013
442
66,222
1,612
179,627
472
99,950
228
43,890
137
41,260
57
18,000
2,476
252,597
1,203
98,432
827
100,906
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$698,896.79
$1,550,536.40
$65,094.00
$419,834.79
$81,496.42
$222,442.64
$64,418.79
$137,970.95
$676,580.07
$276,537.04
$90,233.75
$147,057.66
$363,760.81
$50,377.32
$75,765.02
$76,028.76
$132,358.82
$90,757.94
$626,899.13
$83,914.53
$64,671.90
$196,419.95
$56,023.99
$937,491.89
$148,542.36
$392,593.11
$330,210.76
$124,362.97
$144,763.54
$180,268.26
$316,132.83
$751,259.18
$669,493.07
$163,375.45
$1,115,491.86
$301,260.91
$1,050,490.46
$402,648.31
$129,210.28
$107,279.43
$82,633.71
$774,091.94
$57,699.22
$44,603.62
$94,788.74
$335,397.46
$228,289.95
$188,095.28
$527,583.66
$219,397.21
$78,671.32
$45,432.83
$1,348.18
$705,971.17
$178,626.05
$205,178.04
Total Reg &
per Pupil
Excess Cost
Transp.
per Mile
159.08
$2.26
123.13
$2.73
478.05
$0.89
85.18
$3.01
309.62
$0.97
330.32
$1.41
380.64
$1.31
218.82
$1.50
282.63
$1.45
270.62
$1.23
171.17
$1.54
153.28
$2.69
134.95
$2.74
219.12
$1.29
258.31
$1.20
187.40
$2.36
171.98
$2.20
188.27
$3.54
72.97
$3.87
161.04
$1.07
317.09
$1.55
125.68
$1.82
218.52
$1.46
106.68
$2.62
179.16
$2.34
216.12
$2.24
201.97
$2.34
294.04
$1.19
527.23
$1.60
260.12
$1.91
111.80
$3.16
95.94
$3.86
92.87
$3.24
196.63
$1.40
123.22
$2.88
224.44
$1.82
134.44
$2.36
147.70
$2.75
157.30
$1.17
159.53
$1.83
100.04
$2.03
77.32
$3.08
177.66
$1.46
224.37
$1.40
152.53
$2.13
165.85
$2.77
175.58
$2.89
149.82
$2.84
111.43
$2.94
211.76
$2.20
192.50
$1.79
301.17
$1.10
315.79
$0.07
102.02
$2.79
81.82
$1.81
122.01
$2.03
98
Disabled
Students
22
151
0
9
1
3
0
10
40
15
7
23
33
7
13
0
8
2
47
6
0
13
4
67
1
6
4
2
0
9
21
33
19
7
54
25
92
26
13
3
0
141
3
12
2
4
10
3
90
2
8
1
0
64
43
2
Disabled Cost
$80,080.27
$234,584.63
$0.00
$24,570.32
$3,126.04
$13,230.06
$0.00
$23,151.29
$104,140.63
$15,423.73
$23,618.00
$41,440.50
$135,928.22
$770.15
$18.20
$871.90
$26,333.17
$17,950.74
$140,170.22
$19,091.56
$300.00
$45,949.61
$49,104.71
$198,814.22
$29,172.40
$13,492.36
$24,325.90
$1,527.85
$0.00
$62,497.00
$33,874.55
$120,500.40
$63,925.90
$28,169.57
$388,184.18
$68,273.09
$240,543.76
$59,808.65
$30,147.64
$25,910.46
$7,442.71
$287,748.61
$16,614.00
$40,908.74
$24,392.99
$67,436.66
$30,906.92
$9,158.96
$98,182.39
$14,108.19
$13,101.77
$17,753.92
$2,005.49
$97,810.87
$117,039.01
$2,106.69
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Deseg.
Mileage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Miles per
Pupil
Transp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Mile
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Appendix C
By School District
FY 2000
Total
Eligible/
Transp.
Dst.
Dst.
Students
No.
Type
District Name
534
1 STEWARTVILLE
1,363
535
1 ROCHESTER
12,798
542
1 BATTLE LAKE
524
544
1 FERGUS FALLS
2,785
545
1 HENNING
352
547
1 PARKERS PRAIRIE
547
548
1 PELICAN RAPIDS
1,115
549
1 PERHAM
1,896
550
1 UNDERWOOD
403
553
1 NEW YORK MILLS
755
561
1 GOODRIDGE
186
564
1 THIEF RIVER FALL
2,024
577
1 WILLOW RIVER
490
578
1 PINE CITY
1,780
581
1 EDGERTON
422
584
1 RUTHTON
169
592
1 CLIMAX
171
593
1 CROOKSTON
1,976
595
1 EAST GRAND FORKS
1,686
599
1 FERTILE-BELTRAMI
439
600
1 FISHER
247
601
1 FOSSTON
619
611
1 CYRUS
121
621
1 MOUNDS VIEW
13,461
622
1 NORTH ST PAUL-MA
12,073
623
1 ROSEVILLE
7,881
624
1 WHITE BEAR LAKE
9,853
625
1 ST. PAUL
43,550
627
1 OKLEE
162
628
1 PLUMMER
161
630
1 RED LAKE FALLS
459
635
1 MILROY
163
640
1 WABASSO
487
656
1 FARIBAULT
4,331
659
1 NORTHFIELD
3,144
671
1 HILLS-BEAVER CRE
310
676
1 BADGER
187
682
1 ROSEAU
1,385
690
1 WARROAD
1,478
695
1 CHISHOLM
710
696
1 ELY
408
698
1 FLOODWOOD
326
700
1 HERMANTOWN
1,970
701
1 HIBBING
2,855
704
1 PROCTOR
1,960
706
1 VIRGINIA
1,643
707
1 NETT LAKE
52
709
1 DULUTH
10,734
617
712
1 MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
716
1 BELLE PLAINE
1,057
717
1 JORDAN
1,238
719
1 PRIOR LAKE
5,458
720
1 SHAKOPEE
3,544
721
1 NEW PRAGUE
3,030
726
1 BECKER
1,741
727
1 BIG LAKE
2,440
FY 00 ADJ ADM
1,787.23
15,747.92
543.21
3,125.43
414.92
638.15
1,329.52
1,810.68
444.67
763.19
214.07
2,172.51
473.05
1,770.87
275.47
163.61
163.17
1,657.71
1,870.32
521.10
286.86
711.92
143.52
12,004.57
11,901.73
6,704.96
9,396.31
45,856.12
223.38
183.83
423.32
181.25
483.54
4,171.03
3,727.14
340.59
227.92
1,497.94
1,442.66
945.78
738.13
387.71
1,921.28
3,051.78
2,025.26
1,870.97
82.81
12,366.54
603.11
1,171.53
1,292.86
4,642.36
3,909.70
2,550.38
2,022.08
2,365.95
FY 00 AMCPU
2,053.63
18,162.18
634.36
3,660.97
490.10
754.30
1,557.36
2,115.54
520.61
884.11
251.10
2,547.94
553.61
2,070.55
325.73
188.76
188.61
1,958.40
2,169.06
609.48
329.64
830.14
166.65
13,907.43
13,693.99
7,732.49
10,923.53
52,178.78
262.02
215.62
507.84
210.62
581.93
4,893.80
4,331.13
398.30
265.40
1,722.95
1,683.10
1,102.89
858.02
448.87
2,219.02
3,578.14
2,367.25
2,192.96
94.39
14,406.96
705.43
1,352.63
1,491.49
5,273.96
4,436.34
2,956.17
2,299.39
2,631.85
Total Eligible/
Excess
Excess
Students
Mileage
1,344
129,664
12,307
1,697,150
523
130,591
2,754
294,408
347
75,517
542
103,191
1,113
186,990
1,887
422,480
398
77,581
752
99,807
185
92,038
2,012
220,500
490
80,737
1,761
145,725
420
86,388
165
43,063
168
43,044
1,965
145,392
1,671
149,650
437
153,278
247
74,777
603
130,702
119
25,518
12,889
1,479,225
11,772
727,809
7,621
352,958
9,450
544,655
14,088
648,885
161
58,467
161
47,646
456
78,293
163
62,776
484
105,139
4,162
375,089
3,028
293,230
301
51,236
186
33,524
1,380
279,100
1,455
162,624
702
46,169
405
48,430
324
86,706
1,948
189,613
2,833
227,888
1,916
311,205
1,593
185,393
51
25,016
9,607
1,039,390
613
83,217
1,006
142,552
1,180
113,947
5,299
268,463
3,467
304,300
2,933
367,129
1,726
173,714
2,416
191,999
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$456,963.41
$3,743,747.35
$186,074.33
$840,631.24
$127,669.72
$274,455.71
$464,021.00
$674,751.33
$112,653.90
$202,232.52
$87,635.23
$523,630.51
$269,902.61
$702,468.55
$194,113.54
$70,706.22
$81,440.56
$206,116.60
$251,261.21
$215,383.79
$80,340.06
$163,344.20
$56,687.91
$2,414,700.24
$1,870,350.50
$1,410,991.50
$1,308,223.80
$2,522,703.65
$76,596.76
$50,707.93
$173,957.44
$53,335.35
$128,009.73
$1,180,689.31
$1,163,668.27
$91,797.23
$57,339.24
$480,688.41
$378,588.60
$118,839.48
$151,719.42
$136,042.08
$394,420.40
$801,059.01
$537,840.28
$342,106.03
$30,946.22
$2,226,887.61
$226,673.00
$378,484.97
$329,396.89
$1,289,031.28
$1,187,189.57
$510,622.02
$485,913.74
$646,386.51
Total Reg &
per Pupil
Excess Cost
Transp.
per Mile
96.48
$3.52
137.90
$2.21
249.70
$1.42
106.90
$2.86
217.63
$1.69
190.39
$2.66
168.01
$2.48
223.89
$1.60
194.93
$1.45
132.72
$2.03
497.50
$0.95
109.59
$2.37
164.77
$3.34
82.75
$4.82
205.69
$2.25
260.99
$1.64
256.21
$1.89
73.99
$1.42
89.56
$1.68
350.75
$1.41
302.74
$1.07
216.75
$1.25
214.44
$2.22
114.77
$1.63
61.83
$2.57
46.31
$4.00
57.64
$2.40
46.06
$3.89
363.15
$1.31
295.94
$1.06
171.70
$2.22
385.13
$0.85
217.23
$1.22
90.12
$3.15
96.84
$3.97
170.22
$1.79
180.24
$1.71
202.25
$1.72
111.77
$2.33
65.77
$2.57
119.58
$3.13
267.61
$1.57
97.34
$2.08
80.44
$3.52
162.42
$1.73
116.38
$1.85
490.51
$1.24
108.19
$2.14
135.75
$2.72
141.70
$2.66
96.57
$2.89
50.66
$4.80
87.77
$3.90
125.17
$1.39
100.65
$2.80
79.47
$3.37
99
Disabled
Students
19
491
1
31
5
5
2
9
5
3
1
12
0
19
2
4
3
11
15
2
0
16
2
572
155
176
387
1,789
1
0
3
0
3
169
116
9
1
5
23
8
3
2
22
22
44
50
1
357
4
51
58
159
77
97
15
24
Disabled Cost
$112,847.23
$2,086,466.36
$25,060.30
$302,326.29
$14,669.28
$33,999.67
$19,279.70
$92,042.63
$15,234.51
$13,981.12
$1,700.00
$37,866.67
$0.00
$114,781.00
$1,793.51
$11,373.86
$2,860.00
$39,538.86
$41,163.31
$7,976.23
$0.00
$32,975.25
$383.50
$1,289,041.58
$1,321,589.56
$748,956.78
$849,691.53
$5,261,203.98
$2,657.82
$0.00
$633.60
$0.00
$6,684.57
$668,817.80
$253,181.75
$29,761.43
$2,900.00
$17,158.97
$43,104.43
$42,119.14
$33,897.70
$9,729.75
$175,143.55
$104,887.06
$149,626.90
$72,457.30
$12,750.47
$974,871.60
$48,881.56
$209,064.65
$95,291.93
$453,399.27
$337,294.40
$338,667.51
$109,683.43
$102,528.67
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
84
16
27,673
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
770
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$150,196.89
$80,689.24
$30,510.00
$9,349,728.98
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$223,163.49
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Deseg.
Mileage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,411
14,111
2,800
2,738,759
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
103,630
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Miles per
Pupil
Transp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.36
167.99
175.00
98.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
134.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Mile
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$44.03
$5.72
$10.90
$3.41
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.15
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Appendix C
By School District
FY 2000
Total
Eligible/
Transp.
Dst.
Dst.
Students
No.
Type
District Name
728
1 ELK RIVER
9,858
738
1 HOLDINGFORD
1,085
739
1 KIMBALL
898
740
1 MELROSE
1,747
741
1 PAYNESVILLE
1,221
742
1 ST. CLOUD
11,592
743
1 SAUK CENTRE
1,350
745
1 ALBANY
1,729
748
1 SARTELL
2,681
750
1 ROCORI
2,591
756
1 BLOOMING PRAIRIE
655
761
1 OWATONNA
4,280
763
1 MEDFORD
424
768
1 HANCOCK
159
769
1 MORRIS
1,200
771
1 CHOKIO-ALBERTA
230
775
1 KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
637
777
1 BENSON
905
786
1 BERTHA-HEWITT
505
787
1 BROWERVILLE
477
801
1 BROWNS VALLEY
76
803
1 WHEATON AREA SCH
313
806
1 ELGIN-MILLVILLE
431
810
1 PLAINVIEW
1,026
811
1 WABASHA-KELLOGG
968
813
1 LAKE CITY
1,271
815
2 PRINSBURG
94
818
1 VERNDALE
453
820
1 SEBEKA
605
821
1 MENAHGA
699
829
1 WASECA
2,105
831
1 FOREST LAKE
9,003
832
1 MAHTOMEDI
3,482
833
1 SOUTH WASHINGTON 13,276
834
1 STILLWATER
9,131
836
1 BUTTERFIELD
132
837
1 MADELIA
449
840
1 ST. JAMES
1,305
846
1 BRECKENRIDGE
947
850
1 ROTHSAY
232
137
852
1 CAMPBELL-TINTAH
857
1 LEWISTON
773
858
1 ST. CHARLES
626
861
1 WINONA
4,766
876
1 ANNANDALE
2,018
877
1 BUFFALO
4,689
879
1 DELANO
1,854
881
1 MAPLE LAKE
1,008
882
1 MONTICELLO
3,739
883
1 ROCKFORD
1,806
2,901
885
1 ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
891
1 CANBY
515
911
1 CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
4,591
912
1 MILACA
1,813
914
1 ULEN-HITTERDAL
262
2071
1 LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
857
FY 00 ADJ ADM
8,985.96
1,085.86
924.42
1,583.87
1,280.89
10,908.77
1,252.60
1,641.25
2,559.76
2,293.20
851.87
4,990.27
546.83
245.09
1,038.83
263.92
663.77
1,195.59
521.71
513.66
149.41
521.77
594.72
1,190.51
795.45
1,532.90
28.30
458.60
604.00
731.40
2,273.14
7,849.84
3,071.80
15,134.04
9,294.88
211.80
591.01
1,338.31
928.02
256.94
186.56
830.50
1,080.89
4,614.96
1,947.30
4,791.94
1,838.23
937.47
3,656.06
1,697.28
2,600.43
741.30
4,816.84
1,774.36
303.95
1,044.84
FY 00 AMCPU
10,324.91
1,265.01
1,079.34
1,876.45
1,507.72
12,732.11
1,498.52
1,935.52
2,954.72
2,686.72
997.25
5,772.73
621.66
287.59
1,243.44
312.54
773.05
1,397.12
618.00
615.21
170.28
610.82
687.45
1,370.06
941.97
1,784.94
32.88
537.98
695.70
853.99
2,650.38
9,068.79
3,543.89
17,312.63
10,761.95
244.13
698.89
1,535.11
1,080.49
303.35
219.32
975.51
1,241.98
5,418.76
2,259.45
5,588.99
2,131.15
1,099.83
4,193.13
1,941.14
2,963.83
880.73
5,614.46
2,067.72
358.79
1,230.68
Total Eligible/
Excess
Excess
Students
Mileage
9,677
789,578
1,082
126,586
877
117,245
1,692
307,642
1,218
96,742
11,140
987,113
1,287
177,848
1,715
243,324
2,650
232,065
2,543
376,648
635
154,874
4,104
538,100
422
53,269
158
23,129
1,198
129,607
230
76,166
635
131,433
897
196,381
504
93,040
471
95,790
76
29,226
302
67,717
427
68,507
1,021
162,556
950
141,399
1,251
165,638
94
11,968
451
84,032
595
203,536
688
145,697
2,048
131,163
8,847
1,375,879
3,423
263,898
12,836
910,614
9,002
1,070,020
131
43,161
431
78,715
1,285
149,164
939
135,801
232
65,048
136
66,674
764
137,780
622
97,178
4,630
468,916
1,986
193,199
4,642
723,148
1,807
141,548
1,007
77,480
3,685
321,666
1,782
138,362
2,873
279,352
503
134,875
4,510
487,348
1,772
297,609
258
90,825
807
228,568
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$2,779,598.03
$222,563.74
$381,757.91
$659,763.47
$388,600.12
$2,945,557.53
$320,754.63
$365,071.76
$652,841.05
$908,325.04
$282,609.92
$1,204,181.88
$99,315.56
$29,068.34
$208,661.49
$88,909.65
$298,996.03
$289,463.59
$239,291.06
$195,597.14
$56,031.48
$130,805.91
$197,027.36
$434,813.19
$358,404.47
$461,261.64
$42,731.99
$40,904.76
$190,277.12
$208,385.22
$652,780.53
$1,982,096.05
$652,585.28
$1,955,242.00
$2,380,740.17
$56,609.02
$180,887.53
$384,437.73
$165,431.81
$83,540.36
$53,846.28
$170,545.49
$296,943.20
$1,513,743.46
$684,885.54
$1,672,510.92
$586,992.45
$289,569.82
$1,056,647.13
$312,745.34
$799,518.61
$158,351.88
$826,739.83
$629,784.95
$105,449.82
$552,096.27
Total Reg &
per Pupil
Excess Cost
Transp.
per Mile
81.59
$3.52
116.99
$1.76
133.69
$3.26
181.82
$2.14
79.43
$4.02
88.61
$2.98
138.19
$1.80
141.88
$1.50
87.57
$2.81
148.11
$2.41
243.90
$1.82
131.12
$2.24
126.23
$1.86
146.39
$1.26
108.19
$1.61
331.16
$1.17
206.98
$2.27
218.93
$1.47
184.60
$2.57
203.38
$2.04
384.55
$1.92
224.23
$1.93
160.44
$2.88
159.21
$2.67
148.84
$2.53
132.40
$2.78
127.32
$3.57
186.32
$0.49
342.08
$0.93
211.77
$1.43
64.04
$4.98
155.52
$1.44
77.10
$2.47
70.94
$2.15
118.86
$2.22
329.47
$1.31
182.63
$2.30
116.08
$2.58
144.62
$1.22
280.38
$1.28
490.25
$0.81
180.34
$1.24
156.23
$3.06
101.28
$3.23
97.28
$3.54
155.78
$2.31
78.33
$4.15
76.94
$3.74
87.29
$3.28
77.64
$2.26
97.23
$2.86
268.14
$1.17
108.06
$1.70
167.95
$2.12
352.03
$1.16
283.23
$2.42
100
Disabled
Students
181
3
21
55
3
452
63
14
31
48
20
176
2
1
2
0
2
8
1
6
0
11
4
5
18
20
0
2
10
11
57
156
59
435
116
1
18
20
8
0
1
9
4
136
32
47
47
1
54
24
28
12
81
41
4
50
Disabled Cost
$701,952.11
$27,077.33
$38,746.60
$40,180.67
$53,316.55
$1,059,035.99
$59,708.30
$52,527.69
$148,260.40
$165,997.46
$59,211.51
$372,253.20
$28,969.98
$21,785.00
$4,831.74
$0.00
$57,897.20
$59,406.86
$3,744.18
$34,478.39
$0.00
$21,796.97
$14,113.24
$70,244.14
$59,288.70
$60,854.70
$0.00
$29,386.56
$8,346.61
$8,699.16
$154,743.08
$622,051.94
$202,957.93
$1,330,250.21
$1,002,901.86
$11,741.00
$56,908.40
$70,494.40
$53,121.04
$9,964.71
$1,462.28
$22,546.86
$15,755.69
$317,795.35
$138,541.65
$146,618.07
$105,792.89
$30,310.69
$183,918.02
$48,500.00
$139,709.40
$27,670.96
$139,162.56
$59,554.85
$9,898.38
$50,190.45
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,220.00
$29,478.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Deseg.
Mileage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,593
45,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Miles per
Pupil
Transp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
318.60
3461.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Mile
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2.02
$0.66
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Appendix C
By School District
FY 2000
Total
Eligible/
Transp.
Dst.
Dst.
Students
No.
Type
District Name
2125
1 TRITON
1,217
2134
1 UNITED SOUTH CEN
909
2135
1 MAPLE RIVER
1,106
2137
1 KINGSLAND
1,054
2142
1 ST. LOUIS COUNTY
2,488
2143
1 WATERVILLE-ELYSI
1,015
2144
1 CHISAGO LAKES
3,767
2149
1 MINNEWASKA
1,721
2154
1 EVELETH-GILBERT
1,103
2155
1 WADENA-DEER CREE
1,068
2159
1 BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
639
2164
1 DILWORTH-GLYNDON
859
1,102
2165
1 HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
2167
1 LAKEVIEW
442
2168
1 N.R.H.E.G.
909
2169
1 MURRAY COUNTY CE
797
2170
1 STAPLES-MOTLEY
1,729
2171
1 KITTSON CENTRAL
289
2172
1 KENYON-WANAMINGO 1,020
2174
1 PINE RIVER-BACKU
1,236
2176
1 WARREN-ALVARADO398
2180
1 M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
1,021
2184
1 LUVERNE
980
2190
1 YELLOW MEDICINE
1,193
2198
1 FILLMORE CENTRAL
744
2215
1 NORMAN COUNTY EA
416
2310
1 SIBLEY EAST
1,336
2311
1 CLEARBROOK-GONVI
571
2342
1 WEST CENTRAL ARE
907
2358
1 TRI-COUNTY
356
2364
1 BELGRADE-BROOTEN
855
2365
1 G.F.W.
1,050
2396
1 A.C.G.C.
1,031
2397
1 LESUEUR-HENDERSO
1,224
935
2448
1 MARTIN COUNTY WE
2527
1 NORMAN COUNTY WE
352
2534
1 BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
1,148
331
2536
1 GRANADA HUNTLEY2580
1 EAST CENTRAL
1,103
2609
1 WIN-E-MAC
500
470
2683
1 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
2687
1 HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
1,129
2689
1 PIPESTONE-JASPER
958
2711
1 MESABI EAST
1,496
2752
1 FAIRMONT AREA SC
1,973
2753
1 LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
1,173
2754
1 CEDAR MOUNTAIN
353
2759
1 EAGLE VALLEY
402
1,144
2805
1 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
2835
1 JANESVILLE-WALDO
560
2853
1 LAC QUI PARLE VA
1,110
2854
1 ADA-BORUP
506
2856
1 STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
285
2859
1 GLENCOE-SILVER L
2,112
2860
1 BLUE EARTH AREA
1,362
2884
1 RED ROCK CENTRAL
532
FY 00 ADJ ADM
1,194.53
1,045.22
1,293.13
1,007.44
2,703.26
1,078.18
3,534.64
1,720.72
1,459.13
1,417.76
628.91
1,304.14
1,145.83
585.71
1,057.54
878.97
1,674.26
471.01
1,034.15
1,317.32
668.17
945.65
1,392.95
1,284.07
816.93
425.67
1,301.55
602.82
970.18
342.78
858.16
1,022.39
1,006.92
1,466.64
1,010.57
391.65
996.02
341.35
989.54
453.45
512.05
965.37
1,586.79
1,225.76
2,081.47
1,423.29
436.52
482.04
1,281.34
618.85
1,244.06
559.80
457.14
1,873.96
1,612.35
583.06
FY 00 AMCPU
1,384.59
1,241.61
1,511.61
1,177.23
3,195.11
1,254.61
4,073.76
2,020.17
1,692.79
1,667.25
728.69
1,493.65
1,317.47
677.61
1,236.13
1,023.19
1,962.61
550.82
1,208.39
1,539.02
785.33
1,107.57
1,631.16
1,504.18
955.60
496.16
1,512.52
711.95
1,146.99
399.86
999.96
1,209.40
1,189.79
1,702.57
1,181.19
456.95
1,173.31
399.56
1,157.91
523.20
604.42
1,104.68
1,842.45
1,435.17
2,461.07
1,685.92
516.64
568.99
1,489.23
743.53
1,454.51
645.33
538.85
2,185.66
1,879.21
692.01
Total Eligible/
Excess
Excess
Students
Mileage
1,196
157,328
873
263,533
1,095
254,442
1,048
122,003
2,455
720,003
973
169,642
3,678
422,287
1,679
322,191
1,067
147,283
1,059
158,219
635
124,861
834
156,194
1,095
200,692
436
110,872
847
188,454
786
233,077
1,717
401,165
287
115,369
994
117,624
1,230
291,676
383
151,523
999
287,037
947
217,854
1,181
351,800
730
118,688
412
116,816
1,311
204,056
570
117,302
900
194,295
356
127,288
846
168,774
1,044
223,750
1,007
229,764
1,203
129,827
923
178,832
350
87,426
1,128
244,290
322
97,487
1,098
233,541
498
113,237
460
219,437
1,122
135,307
950
267,251
1,486
174,416
1,929
135,114
1,163
234,263
338
92,510
396
84,518
1,121
126,106
528
92,672
1,089
254,357
502
133,261
284
92,437
2,070
242,705
1,320
233,744
530
165,507
Total Reg &
Excess Cost
$266,780.42
$358,107.33
$439,595.53
$191,290.33
$1,359,426.23
$280,178.98
$766,540.71
$627,743.70
$354,741.90
$306,075.70
$116,210.26
$468,907.19
$290,134.87
$123,885.22
$190,019.32
$463,589.69
$678,390.25
$182,640.31
$398,967.21
$413,178.41
$176,356.14
$434,712.55
$319,404.99
$669,542.24
$304,405.09
$163,396.57
$272,501.63
$382,142.23
$412,054.38
$157,792.98
$258,441.77
$264,291.66
$477,858.76
$284,151.88
$224,996.70
$166,084.75
$449,879.86
$121,474.62
$306,056.34
$127,385.85
$225,128.63
$225,660.90
$564,732.00
$333,033.70
$795,763.40
$533,922.70
$190,064.04
$205,471.55
$343,878.00
$225,926.14
$299,293.38
$323,335.32
$104,605.10
$562,606.53
$286,940.47
$190,623.36
Total Reg &
per Pupil
Excess Cost
Transp.
per Mile
131.55
$1.70
301.87
$1.36
232.37
$1.73
116.42
$1.57
293.28
$1.89
174.35
$1.65
114.81
$1.82
191.89
$1.95
138.03
$2.41
149.40
$1.93
196.63
$0.93
187.28
$3.00
183.28
$1.45
254.29
$1.12
222.50
$1.01
296.54
$1.99
233.64
$1.69
401.98
$1.58
118.33
$3.39
237.13
$1.42
395.62
$1.16
287.32
$1.51
230.05
$1.47
297.88
$1.90
162.59
$2.56
283.53
$1.40
155.65
$1.34
205.79
$3.26
215.88
$2.12
357.55
$1.24
199.50
$1.53
214.32
$1.18
228.17
$2.08
107.92
$2.19
193.75
$1.26
249.79
$1.90
216.57
$1.84
302.75
$1.25
212.70
$1.31
227.38
$1.12
477.04
$1.03
120.59
$1.67
281.32
$2.11
117.37
$1.91
70.04
$5.89
201.43
$2.28
273.70
$2.05
213.43
$2.43
112.49
$2.73
175.52
$2.44
233.57
$1.18
265.46
$2.43
325.48
$1.13
117.25
$2.32
177.08
$1.23
312.28
$1.15
101
Disabled
Students
21
36
11
6
33
42
89
42
36
9
4
25
7
6
62
11
12
2
26
6
15
22
33
12
14
4
25
1
7
0
9
6
24
21
12
2
20
9
5
2
10
7
8
10
44
10
15
6
23
32
21
4
1
42
42
2
Disabled Cost
$71,452.93
$44,946.64
$47,099.89
$41,321.64
$274,453.15
$108,770.54
$142,891.21
$21,347.32
$94,238.41
$29,237.83
$17,480.18
$51,032.06
$10,133.41
$24,478.46
$48,812.47
$42,153.29
$65,582.31
$10,558.55
$203,194.66
$35,065.79
$3,113.15
$75,991.92
$63,421.07
$74,551.15
$27,303.33
$16,180.39
$72,432.36
$23,070.25
$50,482.49
$1,570.00
$43,855.81
$73,939.01
$66,176.52
$59,504.89
$38,799.34
$14,145.50
$13,450.53
$3,399.36
$12,811.60
$10,045.24
$25,377.60
$23,312.05
$132,475.80
$39,177.45
$84,298.17
$101,001.10
$28,349.47
$16,558.37
$29,583.72
$128,576.10
$85,603.05
$4,374.77
$330.00
$102,345.74
$41,889.90
$7,537.00
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Deseg.
Mileage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Deseg.
Miles per
Pupil
Transp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Deseg.
Cost per
Mile
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Appendix C
By School District
FY 2000
Total
Eligible/
Transp.
Dst.
Dst.
Students
FY 00 ADJ ADM
No.
Type
District Name
2886
1 GLENVILLE-EMMONS
388
518.04
2887
1 MCLEOD WEST SCHO
505
551.99
497
561.38
2888
1 CLINTON-GRACEVIL
2889
1 LAKE PARK AUDUBO
663
691.11
2890
1 D.R.S.H.
925
884.66
2895
1 JACKSON COUNTY C
1,437
1,446.79
2897
1 REDWOOD FALLS
1,845
1,646.13
2898
1 WESTBROOK -WALNUT GROVE
384
444.44
STATE TOTALS
833,281
839,077.91
FY 00 AMCPU
605.20
642.36
657.62
804.95
1,033.83
1,702.86
1,926.47
517.18
968,709.24
Total Eligible/
Excess
Excess
Total Reg &
Students
Mileage
Excess Cost
386
103,900
$121,077.49
499
90,212
$141,094.59
495
147,965
$205,025.48
641
129,127
$204,071.47
921
331,004
$302,542.77
1,419
259,974
$481,976.03
1,764
145,073
$501,449.12
382
111,205
$182,621.38
745,884 82,357,240 $192,405,127.76
Total Reg &
per Pupil
Excess Cost
Transp.
per Mile
269.17
$1.17
180.79
$1.56
298.92
$1.39
201.45
$1.58
359.40
$0.91
183.21
$1.85
82.24
$3.46
291.11
$1.64
110.42
$2.34
102
Disabled
Students
2
6
2
22
4
18
81
2
26,704
Disabled Cost
$40,541.84
$44,826.36
$3,532.82
$55,907.53
$50,252.74
$42,833.87
$36,131.81
$35,857.33
$78,696,944.87
Deseg.
Students
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60,693
Deseg.
Cost
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$27,829,399.36
Deseg.
Mileage
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,611,107
Deseg.
Miles per
Pupil
Transp.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
125.40
Deseg.
Cost per
Mile
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3.66
Appendix C
Topographic Characteristics
by School District
Unpopulated Area
Dst
Dst No Type
1
1
2
4
6
11
12
13
14
15
16
22
23
25
31
32
36
38
47
51
62
75
77
81
84
85
88
91
93
94
95
97
99
100
108
110
111
112
113
115
116
118
129
138
139
146
150
152
162
166
173
177
181
182
186
191
192
194
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
School District
Name
Total
Interstate
Miles
Aitkin
0.00
Minneapolis
48.02
Hill City
0.00
McGregor
0.00
South St. Paul
3.23
Anoka-Hennepin
0.00
Centennial
13.21
Columbia Heights
2.98
Fridley
2.45
St. Francis
0.00
Spring Lake Park
1.75
Detroit Lakes
0.00
Frazee
0.00
Pine Point
0.00
Bemidji
0.00
Blackduck
0.00
Kelliher
0.00
Red Lake
0.00
Sauk Rapids
0.00
Foley
0.00
Ortonville
0.00
St. Clair
0.00
Mankato
0.00
Comfrey
0.00
Sleepy Eye
0.00
Springfield
0.00
New Ulm
0.00
Barnum
27.70
Carlton
11.66
Cloquet
5.62
Cromwell
0.00
Moose Lake
11.98
Esko
11.42
Wrenshall
0.00
Norwood
0.00
Waconia
0.00
Watertown-Mayer
0.00
Chaska
0.00
Walker-Hackensack-Akeley 0.00
Cass Lake-Bena Schools
0.00
Pillager
0.00
Northland Community Schools
0.00
Montevideo
0.00
North Branch
29.49
Rush City
21.39
Barnesville
34.24
Hawley
0.00
Moorhead
10.29
Bagley
0.00
Cook County
0.00
Mountain Lake
0.00
Windom
0.00
Brainerd
0.00
Crosby-Ironton
0.00
Pequot Lakes
0.00
Burnsville
9.00
Farmington
0.00
Lakeville
25.24
Total Road
Miles
807.74
1,193.05
221.66
630.31
90.35
1,248.02
170.86
101.09
83.12
480.30
166.79
537.92
463.98
9.53
1,238.30
427.34
283.53
394.53
370.14
536.20
343.20
164.67
554.68
223.14
380.68
288.80
599.75
268.68
158.19
231.27
195.87
236.63
121.32
129.41
242.66
222.34
217.41
309.70
531.51
400.47
246.90
607.69
401.51
420.45
233.48
688.82
289.04
575.30
742.89
829.95
287.13
435.63
992.88
430.49
319.63
352.32
209.53
375.01
% of
Interstate
Miles to Total Miles %of Miles >
Total Road > 5 Degree 5 Degree
Miles
Slope
Slope
0.00%
4.02%
0.00%
0.00%
3.57%
0.00%
7.73%
2.95%
2.95%
0.00%
1.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
10.31%
7.37%
2.43%
0.00%
5.06%
9.41%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7.01%
9.16%
4.97%
0.00%
1.79%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.55%
0.00%
6.73%
31.93
37.17
5.16
30.33
16.75
5.95
0.16
3.89
1.88
3.31
0.01
47.07
41.14
0.00
44.32
9.46
0.53
7.64
5.74
1.42
14.89
6.04
64.48
0.75
9.57
1.16
36.17
8.08
11.95
10.32
0.90
5.68
7.55
9.12
2.00
15.34
6.11
35.79
67.29
2.87
21.04
36.10
17.13
5.43
6.72
4.01
12.99
1.34
51.45
192.73
3.92
10.84
30.77
31.15
30.00
34.07
3.43
21.77
3.95%
3.12%
2.33%
4.81%
18.54%
0.48%
0.09%
3.85%
2.26%
0.69%
0.01%
8.75%
8.87%
0.00%
3.58%
2.21%
0.19%
1.94%
1.55%
0.26%
4.34%
3.67%
11.62%
0.34%
2.51%
0.40%
6.03%
3.01%
7.55%
4.46%
0.46%
2.40%
6.22%
7.05%
0.82%
6.90%
2.81%
11.56%
12.66%
0.72%
8.52%
5.94%
4.27%
1.29%
2.88%
0.58%
4.49%
0.23%
6.93%
23.22%
1.37%
2.49%
3.10%
7.24%
9.39%
9.67%
1.64%
5.81%
No.of
Interstate
Miles/Sq.
Miles of
District
0.00
1.22
0.00
0.00
1.89
0.00
2.14
2.08
2.19
0.00
10.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.06
9.32
17.23
0.00
13.23
3.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.96
4.98
10.02
0.00
19.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.05
0.00
3.39
Total No.
of Road
Miles/
Sq.Miles
Circumference
in Miles
1.02
0.05
1.17
1.28
0.07
0.14
0.17
0.06
0.06
0.34
0.11
0.60
0.70
0.52
0.67
1.00
2.21
2.57
0.37
0.50
0.55
0.46
0.25
0.55
0.54
0.51
0.53
0.73
0.69
0.42
1.08
0.67
0.35
0.97
0.46
0.45
0.46
0.27
0.86
1.06
0.70
1.38
0.46
0.42
0.46
0.50
0.51
0.35
0.77
1.95
0.48
0.47
0.52
0.76
0.48
0.10
0.37
0.23
103
Ratio of
Circumference
to Area
167.77
0.20
35.24
93.67
203.54
14.87
89.09
39.37
10.68
12.14
70.72
27.32
145.95
165.38
10.10
159.64
121.30
143.21
132.81
92.59
132.85
108.47
65.47
98.47
70.80
122.85
75.97
144.53
88.42
85.68
53.88
68.52
79.24
28.72
58.58
68.20
99.79
66.00
73.24
146.05
117.13
93.41
153.24
177.66
80.20
64.65
145.04
77.11
155.69
103.80
252.16
81.06
118.36
160.48
139.16
73.79
60.03
48.15
59.67
0.60
0.36
0.25
2.43
0.52
1.39
1.72
2.26
0.43
1.46
0.45
0.51
2.04
0.19
0.28
0.23
0.13
0.67
0.50
0.58
0.87
0.72
0.58
0.59
0.51
0.46
0.45
0.79
0.56
0.32
0.50
0.68
0.47
0.61
1.00
0.67
0.87
0.32
0.28
0.54
0.18
0.95
0.46
0.61
0.42
0.52
0.77
0.18
0.16
0.58
0.58
0.31
0.43
0.48
1.65
0.62
0.70
Populated
Area
(Sq. Mi.)
367.03
29.93
65.04
260.97
3.05
137.63
20.41
2.43
2.54
144.08
10.66
200.85
243.48
2.80
441.28
200.04
111.14
353.94
125.99
260.00
122.16
69.96
108.60
107.08
193.83
133.50
287.17
144.67
69.23
63.78
99.20
121.19
33.92
68.11
104.81
83.77
88.86
69.29
148.49
54.74
109.22
145.87
160.93
155.73
93.84
266.54
124.24
156.35
301.24
158.73
115.77
166.19
389.06
179.98
92.04
15.68
73.45
77.47
Publically
Owned
(Sq. Mi.)
219.24
11.50
105.61
304.13
1.06
16.64
1.10
2.18
1.54
6.43
4.53
34.65
25.66
1.54
239.26
147.98
118.81
1.02
1.91
1.14
20.97
0.38
8.77
2.51
0.96
0.60
3.78
29.64
20.39
12.49
81.98
18.75
5.53
30.96
1.25
4.45
4.97
5.73
111.83
66.05
32.04
368.22
3.31
10.77
6.22
9.14
7.36
0.66
103.69
562.78
1.93
5.60
42.15
77.04
14.28
5.12
0.81
1.00
Census
Bureau Zero
Pop
(Sq. Mi.)
86.89
13.30
84.04
207.93
1.51
10.84
2.82
1.30
0.65
6.82
3.30
44.50
19.97
0.15
63.50
42.91
321.03
280.60
4.90
4.01
32.33
4.29
14.40
13.11
8.61
12.84
19.97
18.04
14.56
17.80
27.24
13.64
1.87
26.04
3.22
2.52
2.00
4.77
77.93
173.98
14.86
203.50
20.64
3.42
1.57
65.97
10.71
44.65
146.03
735.75
20.37
26.53
20.63
20.83
12.29
13.92
2.72
4.55
DNR Lake
(Sq. Mi.)
130.15
3.49
3.66
31.78
0.46
5.88
3.92
0.15
0.28
5.10
0.19
44.30
34.97
0.47
76.75
34.57
76.12
378.19
4.11
0.58
12.32
0.03
3.34
0.39
2.51
0.46
3.38
2.99
4.19
1.32
2.79
4.52
0.62
0.48
2.33
8.54
3.04
3.58
110.17
128.68
15.85
114.36
0.46
4.99
4.00
1.25
5.06
0.39
21.90
149.20
1.17
4.05
63.42
47.15
34.70
1.61
0.08
2.59
DNR River DNR Island
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
2.96
0.07
0.90
1.16
0.00
1.05
0.03
0.14
0.34
0.51
0.00
0.09
0.42
0.00
1.82
0.14
0.17
0.44
0.43
0.01
0.10
0.39
1.42
0.00
0.84
0.37
1.58
0.09
0.27
1.32
0.00
0.37
0.37
0.22
0.04
0.10
0.25
0.79
0.25
0.53
0.60
1.51
0.85
0.67
0.62
0.14
0.00
1.27
0.32
1.86
0.00
0.88
1.68
1.43
0.32
0.13
0.00
0.00
15.73
0.11
0.03
0.48
0.03
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.16
0.19
0.00
1.91
0.06
0.02
0.02
0.07
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.10
0.01
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.01
0.00
7.12
0.44
0.11
2.12
0.01
0.05
0.36
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.06
7.30
0.00
0.00
0.46
0.27
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Square
Miles
822.00
58.40
259.28
806.45
6.11
172.28
28.28
6.20
5.36
162.96
18.68
324.55
324.69
4.96
824.52
425.70
627.29
1,014.21
137.41
265.74
188.07
75.05
136.59
123.09
206.75
147.77
315.88
195.43
108.68
96.81
211.22
158.47
42.40
125.81
111.65
99.44
99.13
84.16
455.79
424.42
172.68
835.58
186.20
175.63
106.61
343.04
147.39
203.32
573.24
1,615.62
139.24
203.25
517.40
326.70
153.95
36.46
77.06
85.61
% of Total
Square
Miles w
Pop.
44.65%
51.25%
25.08%
32.36%
49.92%
79.89%
72.17%
39.19%
47.39%
88.41%
57.07%
61.89%
74.99%
56.45%
53.52%
46.99%
17.72%
34.90%
91.69%
97.84%
64.95%
93.22%
79.51%
86.99%
93.75%
90.34%
90.91%
74.03%
63.70%
65.88%
46.97%
76.48%
80.00%
54.14%
93.87%
84.24%
89.64%
82.33%
32.58%
12.90%
63.25%
17.46%
86.43%
88.67%
88.02%
77.70%
84.29%
76.90%
52.55%
9.82%
83.14%
81.77%
75.20%
55.09%
59.79%
43.01%
95.32%
90.49%
Appendix C
by School District
Unpopulated Area
Dst
Dst No Type
195
1
196
1
197
1
199
1
200
1
203
1
204
1
206
1
207
1
208
1
213
1
227
1
229
1
238
1
239
1
241
1
242
1
252
1
253
1
255
1
256
1
261
1
264
1
270
1
271
1
272
1
273
1
276
1
277
1
278
1
279
1
280
1
281
1
282
1
283
1
284
1
286
1
294
1
297
1
299
1
300
1
306
1
308
1
309
1
314
1
316
1
317
1
318
1
319
1
323
2
330
1
332
1
333
1
345
1
347
1
356
1
361
1
362
1
Total
School District
Interstate
Total Road
Name
Miles
Miles
Randolph
0.00
139.01
Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan
20.01
715.01
West St. Paul-Mendota Hts.-Eagan
23.24
289.94
Inver Grove
3.63
169.90
Hastings
0.00
447.17
Hayfield
1.10
396.59
Kasson-Mantorville
0.00
221.77
Alexandria
30.88
829.79
Brandon
11.53
185.43
Evansville
18.46
228.79
Osakis
17.59
298.45
Chatfield
1.96
305.43
Lanesboro
0.00
202.27
Mabel-Canton
0.00
230.96
Rushford-Peterson
0.00
290.05
Albert Lea
62.55
637.91
Alden
18.29
182.85
Cannon Falls
0.00
272.66
Goodhue
0.00
230.39
Pine Island
0.00
201.36
Red Wing
0.00
366.55
Ashby
17.13
192.32
Herman-Norcross
0.00
378.70
Hopkins
16.90
397.65
Bloomington
19.22
457.31
Eden Prairie
7.31
288.51
Edina
1.96
218.84
Minnetonka
0.00
259.34
Westonka
0.00
126.47
Orono
0.00
143.80
Osseo
32.38
616.93
Richfield
7.85
172.79
Robbinsdale
3.48
462.93
St. Anthony-New Brighton 0.02
36.18
St. Louis Park
1.46
186.87
Wayzata
13.00
356.22
Brooklyn Center
7.34
55.72
Houston
0.00
206.96
Spring Grove
0.00
172.51
Caledonia
0.00
363.26
La Crescent-Hokah
8.69
181.86
Laporte
0.00
194.12
Nevis
0.00
203.13
Park Rapids
0.00
844.93
Braham
0.00
289.74
Greenway
0.00
238.27
Deer River
0.00
487.02
Grand Rapids
0.00
1,745.74
Nashwauk-Keewatin
0.00
222.25
Franconia
0.00
9.29
Heron Lake-Okabena
11.59
305.36
Mora
0.00
442.28
Ogilvie
0.00
221.39
New London-Spicer
0.00
309.34
Willmar
0.00
485.41
Lancaster
0.00
396.89
International Falls
0.00
278.33
Littlefork-Big Falls
0.00
429.40
% of
Interstate
Miles
Slope
Slope
0.00%
5.37
3.86%
2.80%
69.07
9.66%
8.02%
30.72
10.60%
2.14%
28.96
17.05%
0.00%
22.67
5.07%
0.28%
0.29
0.07%
0.00%
6.26
2.82%
3.72%
48.71
5.87%
6.22%
11.53
6.22%
8.07%
22.34
9.76%
5.89%
3.22
1.08%
0.64%
63.31
20.73%
0.00%
90.05
44.52%
0.00%
51.72
22.39%
0.00%
104.27
35.95%
9.81%
13.82
2.17%
10.00%
2.04
1.12%
0.00%
52.89
19.40%
0.00%
26.77
11.62%
0.00%
27.46
13.64%
0.00%
118.09
32.22%
8.91%
27.06
14.07%
0.00%
0.30
0.08%
4.25%
38.46
9.67%
4.20%
27.50
6.01%
2.53%
46.78
16.21%
0.90%
12.84
5.87%
0.00%
26.31
10.14%
0.00%
16.72
13.22%
0.00%
11.19
7.78%
5.25%
15.26
2.47%
4.54%
0.84
0.49%
0.75%
15.31
3.31%
0.06%
1.05
2.90%
0.78%
3.09
1.65%
3.65%
19.36
5.43%
13.17%
0.17
0.31%
0.00%
94.31
45.57%
0.00%
59.12
34.27%
0.00%
146.22
40.25%
4.78%
91.73
50.44%
0.00%
19.10
9.84%
0.00%
18.33
9.02%
0.00%
62.47
7.39%
0.00%
5.40
1.86%
0.00%
14.23
5.97%
0.00%
17.43
3.58%
0.00%
97.62
5.59%
0.00%
9.87
4.44%
0.00%
1.01
10.87%
3.80%
0.35
0.11%
0.00%
9.88
2.23%
0.00%
3.20
1.45%
0.00%
23.32
7.54%
0.00%
6.54
1.35%
0.00%
0.21
0.05%
0.00%
4.50
1.62%
0.00%
6.60
1.54%
No.of
Interstate
Miles/Sq.
Miles of
District
0.00
5.37
1.16
5.95
0.00
180.97
0.00
11.14
8.09
6.68
8.81
83.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.65
4.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.70
0.00
1.74
1.99
4.66
6.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.01
1.02
8.49
130.00
7.25
3.35
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total No.
of Road
Miles/
Sq.Miles
0.49
0.15
0.09
0.13
0.40
0.50
0.43
0.41
0.50
0.54
0.52
0.53
0.52
0.50
0.61
0.36
0.47
0.49
0.53
0.44
0.48
0.51
0.54
0.07
0.08
0.12
0.06
0.12
0.22
0.34
0.11
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.12
0.05
0.74
0.52
0.66
0.53
0.84
0.62
0.69
0.48
0.78
1.11
1.12
1.23
0.47
0.51
0.59
0.70
0.54
0.45
0.81
1.69
2.04
Circumference
in Miles
62.61
78.09
29.92
31.04
104.87
128.39
63.67
125.88
68.46
89.35
93.48
114.99
88.38
88.46
111.58
130.39
59.97
80.42
84.07
86.14
113.76
65.34
97.54
43.41
28.72
32.90
21.35
36.16
32.87
42.86
47.97
15.68
28.64
7.95
14.36
48.83
8.36
110.15
59.87
96.79
75.65
88.17
73.12
155.62
77.84
65.29
130.44
375.26
95.42
11.37
103.96
110.48
80.28
96.14
127.90
90.13
110.16
135.31
104
Ratio of
Circumference
to Area
0.92
0.73
1.11
1.44
0.59
0.64
0.67
0.37
0.73
0.72
0.60
0.70
0.84
0.76
0.63
0.57
0.70
0.61
0.69
0.97
0.65
0.67
0.48
1.47
0.75
0.96
1.62
1.14
1.18
0.88
0.74
1.96
0.97
3.07
1.36
1.12
3.11
0.72
0.67
0.41
0.78
0.54
0.58
0.27
0.56
0.35
0.24
0.19
0.35
2.59
0.67
0.42
0.52
0.58
0.58
0.28
0.23
0.15
Populated Publically
Area
Owned
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
60.71
0.84
77.84
13.15
15.32
3.24
14.66
1.65
156.37
4.73
188.77
2.54
91.65
0.35
269.90
12.08
74.30
5.01
87.50
5.99
126.98
7.65
153.73
1.19
88.44
10.22
108.38
1.36
153.48
15.58
199.79
5.42
80.32
0.83
126.86
1.23
118.08
1.29
82.17
2.67
132.10
9.84
75.00
3.27
135.20
5.40
20.14
4.08
15.96
13.78
23.23
2.86
7.18
3.43
18.99
2.85
14.35
1.71
29.32
7.20
50.04
6.22
4.16
2.54
17.89
7.02
1.43
0.31
5.89
3.01
32.44
2.94
1.44
0.38
139.26
6.14
85.01
0.37
194.03
18.64
75.44
6.77
62.54
57.33
65.21
25.78
330.85
150.88
128.11
2.70
115.06
19.26
155.14
257.18
656.57
652.82
107.08
94.32
2.77
0.83
116.44
1.17
228.61
16.45
116.32
28.02
118.74
10.23
181.91
9.00
203.95
40.89
88.13
151.76
119.71
248.68
Census
Bureau Zero
Pop
DNR Lake DNR River DNR Island
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
4.11
1.91
0.33
0.01
11.97
4.31
0.00
0.13
6.53
1.75
0.05
0.00
3.26
1.84
0.00
0.19
3.51
8.16
0.01
5.50
7.67
0.09
0.00
0.00
3.29
0.07
0.01
0.00
10.23
51.53
0.19
0.10
2.80
11.11
0.00
0.03
12.54
17.20
0.02
0.03
7.27
12.72
0.29
0.00
7.40
0.20
0.64
0.00
5.70
0.22
0.70
0.00
6.56
0.12
0.00
0.00
8.13
0.24
0.65
0.00
15.42
7.63
0.06
0.02
4.33
0.60
0.00
0.00
4.21
0.21
0.24
0.00
1.68
0.11
0.00
0.00
3.89
0.08
0.01
0.00
12.48
11.16
0.40
10.23
5.32
13.96
0.02
0.05
59.58
4.28
0.03
0.00
4.20
1.00
0.05
0.00
5.86
2.07
0.54
0.00
5.30
2.38
0.32
0.00
2.16
0.41
0.02
0.00
0.67
8.81
0.01
0.27
0.87
8.65
0.02
2.37
2.60
8.78
0.01
0.73
5.88
2.97
0.00
0.00
1.17
0.14
0.00
0.00
3.08
1.54
0.02
0.01
0.73
0.12
0.00
0.01
1.49
0.20
0.00
0.00
4.56
3.54
0.02
0.01
0.79
0.01
0.07
0.00
6.32
0.28
0.62
0.00
4.17
0.15
0.00
0.00
12.54
11.82
0.03
1.34
7.02
7.09
0.26
0.38
32.68
9.94
0.13
0.00
17.19
16.98
0.42
0.24
62.97
41.60
0.26
0.12
2.54
4.60
0.41
0.15
37.04
13.32
0.58
0.02
65.41
61.12
2.14
0.32
467.21
174.68
4.18
1.01
56.53
15.65
0.05
0.02
0.31
0.04
0.28
0.17
32.75
3.66
0.27
0.00
7.96
6.51
1.27
0.08
8.71
1.79
0.00
0.00
8.24
29.58
0.03
0.09
11.74
16.76
0.01
0.15
77.87
0.54
0.16
0.00
195.43
32.19
1.27
2.85
501.55
0.81
5.13
0.01
Total
Square
Miles
67.91
107.40
26.89
21.60
178.28
199.07
95.37
344.03
93.25
123.28
154.91
163.16
105.28
116.42
178.08
228.34
86.08
132.75
121.16
88.82
176.21
97.62
204.49
29.47
38.21
34.09
13.20
31.60
27.97
48.64
65.11
8.01
29.56
2.60
10.59
43.51
2.69
152.62
89.70
238.40
96.96
162.62
125.82
586.68
138.51
185.28
541.31
1,956.47
273.65
4.40
154.29
260.88
154.84
166.91
219.57
323.41
471.63
875.89
% of Total
Square
Miles w
Pop.
89.40%
72.48%
56.97%
67.87%
87.71%
94.83%
96.10%
78.45%
79.68%
70.98%
81.97%
94.22%
84.00%
93.09%
86.19%
87.50%
93.31%
95.56%
97.46%
92.51%
74.97%
76.83%
66.12%
68.34%
41.77%
68.14%
54.39%
60.09%
51.30%
60.28%
76.85%
51.94%
60.52%
55.00%
55.62%
74.56%
53.53%
91.25%
94.77%
81.39%
77.81%
38.46%
51.83%
56.39%
92.49%
62.10%
28.66%
33.56%
39.13%
62.95%
75.47%
87.63%
75.12%
71.14%
82.85%
63.06%
18.69%
13.67%
Appendix C
by School District
Unpopulated Area
Dst
Dst No Type
363
1
371
1
378
1
381
1
390
1
391
1
392
1
394
1
402
1
403
1
404
1
409
1
411
1
413
1
414
1
415
1
417
1
418
1
423
1
424
1
432
1
435
1
441
1
447
1
458
1
463
1
465
1
466
1
473
1
477
1
480
1
482
1
484
1
485
1
486
1
487
1
492
1
495
1
497
1
499
1
500
1
505
1
507
1
508
1
511
1
513
1
514
1
516
1
518
1
531
1
533
1
534
1
535
1
542
1
544
1
545
1
547
1
548
1
Total
School District
Interstate
Name
Miles
South Koochiching
0.00
Bellingham
0.00
Dawson-Boyd
0.00
Lake Superior
0.00
Lake of the Woods
0.00
Cleveland
0.00
Le Center
0.00
Montgomery-Lonsdale
0.00
Hendricks
0.00
Ivanhoe
0.00
Lake Benton
0.00
Tyler
0.00
Balaton
0.00
Marshall
0.00
Minneota
0.00
Lynd
0.00
Tracy
0.00
Russell
0.00
Hutchinson
0.00
Lester Prairie
0.00
Mahnomen
0.00
Waubun
0.00
Marshall County Central Schools
0.00
Grygla
0.00
Truman
0.00
Eden Valley-Watkins
0.00
Litchfield
0.00
Dassel-Cokato
0.00
Isle
0.00
Princeton
0.00
Onamia
0.00
Little Falls
0.00
Pierz
0.00
Royalton
0.00
Swanville
0.00
Upsala
0.00
Austin
30.33
Grand Meadow
8.03
Lyle
0.00
Leroy
0.00
Southland
24.15
Fulda
0.00
Nicollet
0.00
St. Peter
0.00
Adrian
17.78
Brewster
7.83
Ellsworth
0.00
Round Lake
0.00
Worthington
33.31
Byron
0.00
Dover-Eyota
20.64
Stewartville
24.77
Rochester
14.25
Battle Lake
0.00
Fergus Falls
50.67
Henning
0.00
Parkers Prairie
0.00
Pelican Rapids
0.00
Total Road
Miles
563.07
212.40
488.06
1,177.50
783.09
129.70
168.59
279.11
167.74
281.97
278.37
241.17
199.76
363.50
338.23
127.26
453.42
157.80
377.95
83.64
440.32
504.08
515.39
565.68
292.25
231.90
463.85
390.06
234.63
536.76
387.00
798.87
393.22
244.47
152.66
139.98
424.58
187.79
144.54
244.45
415.85
437.80
212.96
269.59
362.51
166.89
158.70
117.29
622.81
160.78
221.93
314.90
872.18
339.66
694.07
298.46
328.41
544.01
% of
Interstate
Miles
Slope
Slope
0.00%
5.16
0.92%
0.00%
1.99
0.94%
0.00%
1.51
0.31%
0.00%
118.36
10.05%
0.00%
3.68
0.47%
0.00%
7.81
6.02%
0.00%
6.19
3.67%
0.00%
21.86
7.83%
0.00%
2.55
1.52%
0.00%
8.47
3.00%
0.00%
9.17
3.29%
0.00%
1.17
0.49%
0.00%
3.63
1.82%
0.00%
1.75
0.48%
0.00%
3.62
1.07%
0.00%
5.71
4.49%
0.00%
8.35
1.84%
0.00%
4.31
2.73%
0.00%
6.03
1.60%
0.00%
0.12
0.14%
0.00%
10.73
2.44%
0.00%
39.11
7.76%
0.00%
0.38
0.07%
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.93
0.32%
0.00%
10.38
4.48%
0.00%
7.84
1.69%
0.00%
21.81
5.59%
0.00%
1.92
0.82%
0.00%
4.97
0.93%
0.00%
12.97
3.35%
0.00%
16.20
2.03%
0.00%
4.66
1.19%
0.00%
2.54
1.04%
0.00%
11.86
7.77%
0.00%
2.11
1.51%
7.14%
3.27
0.77%
4.28%
0.08
0.04%
0.00%
0.06
0.04%
0.00%
0.18
0.07%
5.81%
0.58
0.14%
0.00%
2.34
0.53%
0.00%
10.18
4.78%
0.00%
30.45
11.29%
4.90%
1.49
0.41%
4.69%
0.13
0.08%
0.00%
0.20
0.13%
0.00%
0.27
0.23%
5.35%
1.52
0.24%
0.00%
12.81
7.97%
9.30%
8.94
4.03%
7.87%
5.70
1.81%
1.63%
106.86
12.25%
0.00%
31.15
9.17%
7.30%
52.24
7.53%
0.00%
12.66
4.24%
0.00%
15.07
4.59%
0.00%
71.36
13.12%
No.of
Interstate
Miles/Sq.
Miles of
District
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.71
12.00
0.00
0.00
8.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.89
9.82
0.00
0.00
7.91
0.00
4.83
5.48
15.28
0.00
6.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total No.
of Road
Miles/
Sq.Miles
2.72
0.51
0.51
2.20
1.46
0.52
0.50
0.49
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.47
0.54
0.45
0.52
0.55
0.53
0.51
0.45
0.50
0.78
0.79
0.60
1.43
0.51
0.44
0.52
0.45
0.96
0.44
0.97
0.48
0.60
0.46
0.60
0.49
0.34
0.51
0.45
0.49
0.48
0.49
0.65
0.44
0.49
0.46
0.51
0.54
0.42
0.44
0.45
0.43
0.25
0.57
0.49
0.57
0.61
0.61
Circumference
in Miles
270.19
64.64
151.50
288.95
170.99
56.06
71.71
93.57
70.99
110.21
71.97
77.41
74.33
109.23
115.72
59.63
122.83
62.46
127.51
51.12
106.85
123.72
105.28
164.62
97.01
93.27
131.26
101.13
79.83
109.99
109.18
150.44
154.47
140.32
67.82
74.41
115.99
61.19
59.88
71.06
91.79
93.70
122.89
101.06
82.57
63.72
57.16
47.32
99.12
68.39
73.63
105.19
181.72
118.15
147.01
103.10
89.61
125.48
105
Ratio of
Circumference
to Area
0.18
0.60
0.61
0.11
0.15
0.84
0.85
0.68
0.80
0.74
0.50
0.68
0.69
0.67
0.66
0.85
0.51
0.77
0.76
1.23
0.31
0.31
0.34
0.20
0.65
0.92
0.54
0.57
0.36
0.47
0.29
0.39
0.65
1.24
0.74
1.08
0.81
0.64
0.93
0.59
0.46
0.44
0.88
0.85
0.47
0.83
0.71
0.75
0.38
0.96
0.74
0.77
0.83
0.61
0.43
0.60
0.45
0.38
Area
Owned
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
217.91
424.08
83.10
7.77
200.55
7.21
315.39
530.62
275.46
231.91
52.98
0.64
76.12
3.40
124.33
1.88
64.11
4.34
118.53
6.15
114.57
2.96
94.93
1.20
92.08
4.37
142.31
3.83
157.04
2.21
63.19
1.67
202.00
7.18
65.68
7.24
146.21
8.49
39.78
0.50
274.79
27.11
227.19
74.11
239.59
5.77
186.28
142.36
138.49
1.98
93.83
0.51
211.66
5.68
155.72
3.03
132.91
55.99
188.95
13.88
213.02
51.93
349.68
10.25
224.68
2.89
99.71
1.19
83.23
2.34
64.67
0.25
128.90
5.08
91.20
0.11
56.48
1.35
100.09
2.42
182.16
2.39
174.77
4.90
119.24
0.98
102.45
3.52
157.42
0.18
64.76
0.00
74.70
0.12
55.33
0.95
242.39
3.72
67.94
1.58
95.63
0.16
126.15
1.97
199.50
3.30
136.36
4.45
270.77
25.62
144.85
6.14
177.72
4.33
253.70
22.56
Census
Bureau Zero
Pop
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
879.72
5.49
4.94
0.16
15.80
1.73
0.12
0.06
38.61
0.46
0.46
0.00
1,545.32
190.10
3.18
7.22
629.98
3.07
2.62
0.00
4.75
8.45
0.00
0.03
3.34
1.97
0.00
0.00
3.88
7.31
0.00
0.02
18.44
1.72
0.00
0.00
19.86
3.75
0.00
0.00
23.21
2.93
0.00
0.00
15.64
2.65
0.00
0.02
8.65
3.07
0.00
0.00
16.65
0.55
0.01
0.00
15.87
0.49
0.01
0.00
4.67
0.28
0.01
0.00
21.80
8.61
0.01
0.00
6.22
1.84
0.00
0.00
4.60
8.95
0.00
0.13
1.17
0.08
0.06
0.00
30.18
12.01
0.66
0.05
68.94
29.22
0.11
0.14
61.31
0.16
0.00
0.00
479.49
1.33
0.02
0.00
8.44
0.71
0.00
0.00
2.69
4.69
0.03
0.05
8.86
14.35
0.49
0.07
3.82
13.58
0.49
0.03
5.52
29.58
0.03
0.20
24.30
7.20
0.88
0.19
18.00
91.62
0.51
0.05
12.68
7.10
1.70
0.39
6.99
2.39
0.07
0.00
9.32
1.01
1.52
0.23
3.89
2.46
0.00
0.00
2.58
1.24
0.00
0.00
8.13
0.47
0.28
0.00
4.91
0.06
0.05
0.00
6.73
0.05
0.11
0.00
17.18
0.17
0.05
0.00
15.41
0.14
0.00
0.00
31.58
3.94
0.05
0.00
11.47
7.26
0.22
0.00
8.76
2.56
1.00
0.00
18.00
0.20
0.04
0.00
11.72
0.40
0.01
0.00
5.98
0.10
0.09
0.00
4.80
2.33
0.00
0.00
12.79
4.46
0.01
0.00
1.57
0.04
0.03
0.00
3.81
0.08
0.00
0.00
7.25
0.28
0.17
0.00
13.07
1.47
0.41
0.00
8.32
44.79
0.15
0.03
16.70
28.53
0.63
0.06
7.85
12.61
0.01
0.01
8.17
10.12
0.00
0.02
8.08
49.43
0.05
0.20
Total
Square
Miles
1,532.30
108.58
247.29
2,591.83
1,143.04
66.85
84.83
137.42
88.61
148.29
143.67
114.44
108.17
163.35
175.62
69.82
239.60
80.98
168.38
41.59
344.80
399.71
306.83
809.48
149.62
101.80
241.11
176.67
224.23
235.40
375.13
381.80
237.02
112.98
91.92
68.74
142.86
96.33
64.72
119.91
200.10
215.24
139.17
118.29
175.84
76.89
80.99
63.41
263.37
71.16
99.68
135.82
217.75
194.10
342.31
171.47
200.36
334.02
% of Total
Square
Miles w
Pop.
14.22%
76.53%
81.10%
12.17%
24.10%
79.25%
89.73%
90.47%
72.35%
79.93%
79.75%
82.95%
85.13%
87.12%
89.42%
90.50%
84.31%
81.11%
86.83%
95.65%
79.70%
56.84%
78.09%
23.01%
92.56%
92.17%
87.79%
88.14%
59.27%
80.27%
56.79%
91.59%
94.79%
88.25%
90.55%
94.08%
90.23%
94.67%
87.27%
83.47%
91.03%
81.20%
85.68%
86.61%
89.52%
84.22%
92.23%
87.26%
92.03%
95.47%
95.94%
92.88%
91.62%
70.25%
79.10%
84.48%
88.70%
75.95%
Appendix C
by School District
Unpopulated Area
Dst
Dst No Type
549
1
550
1
553
1
561
1
564
1
577
1
578
1
581
1
584
1
592
1
593
1
595
1
599
1
600
1
601
1
611
1
621
1
622
1
623
1
624
1
625
1
627
1
628
1
630
1
635
1
640
1
656
1
659
1
671
1
676
1
682
1
690
1
695
1
696
1
698
1
700
1
701
1
704
1
706
1
707
1
709
1
712
1
716
1
717
1
719
1
720
1
721
1
726
1
727
1
728
1
738
1
739
1
740
1
741
1
742
1
743
1
745
1
748
1
Total
School District
Interstate
Name
Miles
Perham
0.00
Underwood
0.00
New York Mills
0.00
Goodridge
0.00
Thief River Falls
0.00
Willow River
21.22
Pine City
25.88
Edgerton
0.00
Ruthton
0.00
Climax
0.00
Crookston
0.00
East Grand Forks
0.00
Fertile-Beltrami
0.00
Fisher
0.00
Fosston
0.00
Cyrus
0.00
Mounds View
27.09
North St Paul-Maplewood 26.01
Roseville
10.98
White Bear Lake
27.02
St. Paul
35.40
Oklee
0.00
Plummer
0.00
Red Lake Falls
0.00
Milroy
0.00
Wabasso
0.00
Faribault
29.33
Northfield
18.72
Hills-Beaver Creek
15.33
Badger
0.00
Roseau
0.00
Warroad
0.00
Chisholm
0.00
Ely
0.00
Floodwood
0.00
Hermantown
0.00
Hibbing
0.00
Proctor
10.86
Virginia
0.00
Nett Lake
0.00
Duluth
21.03
Mountain Iron-Buhl
0.00
Belle Plaine
0.00
Jordan
0.00
Prior Lake
0.00
Shakopee
0.00
New Prague
0.00
Becker
0.00
Big Lake
0.00
Elk River
15.27
Holdingford
0.19
Kimball
0.00
Melrose
26.49
Paynesville
0.00
St. Cloud
55.02
Sauk Centre
25.91
Albany
23.39
Sartell
0.00
Total Road
Miles
591.42
212.86
317.97
410.61
883.29
294.17
441.04
275.85
219.69
231.76
846.30
416.24
578.15
296.92
491.09
137.37
408.28
396.43
291.01
335.02
981.54
368.74
205.36
343.42
163.23
405.13
577.98
426.52
275.60
301.79
898.29
437.15
123.65
148.71
249.32
189.89
464.99
301.99
215.72
44.17
830.54
199.33
230.64
171.41
220.04
232.09
330.40
241.39
165.12
620.01
225.49
255.61
443.56
352.96
889.64
383.73
309.56
119.37
% of
Interstate
Miles
Slope
Slope
0.00%
27.59
4.67%
0.00%
25.11
11.80%
0.00%
3.79
1.19%
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.27
0.03%
7.21%
5.11
1.74%
5.87%
5.67
1.29%
0.00%
3.25
1.18%
0.00%
1.72
0.78%
0.00%
1.68
0.72%
0.00%
1.77
0.21%
0.00%
0.83
0.20%
0.00%
3.20
0.55%
0.00%
0.53
0.18%
0.00%
16.40
3.34%
0.00%
2.51
1.83%
6.64%
15.01
3.68%
6.56%
14.51
3.66%
3.77%
12.31
4.23%
8.07%
9.66
2.88%
3.61%
92.82
9.46%
0.00%
0.14
0.04%
0.00%
0.51
0.25%
0.00%
3.48
1.01%
0.00%
0.18
0.11%
0.00%
0.40
0.10%
5.07%
42.81
7.41%
4.39%
18.57
4.35%
5.56%
1.71
0.62%
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.39
0.04%
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
2.81
2.27%
0.00%
25.68
17.27%
0.00%
3.14
1.26%
0.00%
8.50
4.48%
0.00%
11.61
2.50%
3.60%
25.30
8.38%
0.00%
5.40
2.50%
0.00%
0.33
0.75%
2.53%
163.40
19.67%
0.00%
7.41
3.72%
0.00%
19.33
8.38%
0.00%
11.40
6.65%
0.00%
17.45
7.93%
0.00%
8.26
3.56%
0.00%
17.92
5.42%
0.00%
2.27
0.94%
0.00%
3.71
2.25%
2.46%
16.64
2.68%
0.08%
6.43
2.85%
0.00%
8.86
3.47%
5.97%
18.15
4.09%
0.00%
14.29
4.05%
6.18%
21.60
2.43%
6.75%
9.77
2.55%
7.56%
18.02
5.82%
0.00%
2.05
1.72%
No.of
Interstate
Miles/Sq.
Miles of
District
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.55
8.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.57
1.41
1.97
1.71
1.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.53
9.54
7.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.78
0.00
0.00
16.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.24
643.68
0.00
8.41
0.00
4.46
7.60
6.48
0.00
Total No.
of Road
Miles/
Sq.Miles
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.69
0.54
0.76
0.50
0.51
0.49
0.52
0.49
0.42
0.62
0.50
0.62
0.59
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.14
0.06
0.60
0.55
0.55
0.54
0.52
0.38
0.42
0.42
0.61
0.79
2.17
0.55
1.68
1.27
0.49
0.73
0.50
0.73
2.45
0.43
0.70
0.46
0.43
0.22
0.22
0.47
0.47
0.38
0.28
0.54
0.50
0.50
0.48
0.28
0.51
0.49
0.40
Circumference
in Miles
169.55
98.66
119.97
101.35
140.44
124.66
101.14
96.35
73.53
91.43
150.31
97.65
116.78
87.14
99.01
59.20
30.95
41.78
24.95
46.69
37.47
123.71
76.82
87.02
66.42
133.89
125.63
92.94
66.51
77.32
166.80
204.95
34.98
66.06
96.17
59.25
111.60
76.38
70.00
54.22
123.12
60.24
70.79
75.03
53.75
46.52
108.47
73.08
55.75
113.08
114.19
82.44
122.71
113.16
149.47
108.50
123.45
63.09
106
Ratio of
Circumference
to Area
0.50
0.80
0.65
0.36
0.30
0.56
0.46
0.68
0.68
0.75
0.36
0.56
0.33
0.59
0.33
0.73
0.73
1.14
1.15
1.01
0.67
0.56
0.68
0.46
0.76
0.63
0.57
0.52
0.57
0.42
0.23
0.22
0.52
0.26
0.30
0.64
0.33
0.51
0.45
0.50
0.35
0.43
0.66
1.03
1.10
0.91
0.69
0.65
0.88
0.66
0.93
0.65
0.55
0.67
0.61
0.55
0.81
1.33
Area
Owned
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
255.68
5.70
95.62
2.24
168.92
3.61
174.77
3.55
384.49
16.95
160.77
38.36
172.79
26.90
129.49
0.52
90.03
3.31
67.46
0.04
273.19
6.45
135.59
0.35
283.62
14.14
103.63
0.06
245.75
17.02
64.89
4.66
24.76
5.81
25.45
6.31
11.75
5.76
32.55
3.62
27.05
11.39
159.66
2.20
88.24
1.41
145.54
3.57
73.64
0.79
184.05
3.95
196.95
8.52
167.72
1.83
112.42
0.18
137.39
7.61
443.60
89.35
177.00
110.76
38.79
20.01
54.60
110.53
116.52
131.49
59.04
13.78
144.86
61.08
92.14
24.89
71.65
39.51
27.03
3.45
132.01
106.51
54.87
27.11
96.83
2.87
62.05
4.09
38.56
3.63
40.14
3.37
150.17
1.80
90.51
2.51
40.50
16.95
149.52
8.41
115.55
1.70
115.67
1.38
203.89
4.33
148.17
2.56
211.69
7.11
165.48
12.53
138.54
2.00
44.34
0.63
Census
Bureau Zero
Pop
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
12.09
67.66
0.82
0.24
5.62
18.97
0.14
0.02
6.62
4.41
0.00
0.00
103.93
1.11
0.29
0.00
68.38
1.08
1.75
0.00
20.08
3.92
0.64
0.03
11.73
5.87
1.38
1.05
11.32
0.26
0.19
0.00
12.70
1.52
0.00
0.00
53.27
0.09
0.57
0.00
131.56
1.21
1.02
0.00
36.01
0.98
1.41
0.01
52.74
8.39
0.01
0.01
42.57
0.12
0.91
0.00
25.73
15.42
0.05
0.07
7.00
4.14
0.00
0.00
7.83
4.18
0.01
0.00
3.43
1.51
0.01
0.01
2.51
1.63
0.01
0.00
3.08
6.84
0.00
0.01
13.41
3.79
0.08
0.43
58.29
0.21
0.41
0.00
22.29
0.13
0.36
0.01
38.94
0.32
1.58
0.08
12.90
0.31
0.00
0.00
24.27
0.23
0.19
0.00
6.18
8.68
0.40
0.03
6.59
2.00
0.29
0.17
3.88
0.11
0.04
0.00
38.01
0.19
0.06
0.00
178.29
1.97
0.56
0.02
290.74
361.82
0.23
6.31
7.58
1.50
0.00
0.01
48.78
33.38
0.39
1.71
65.49
2.30
1.02
0.02
5.36
13.81
0.20
0.27
121.58
13.86
0.07
0.13
24.59
7.45
0.48
0.07
35.81
9.50
0.23
0.13
65.71
11.54
0.09
0.29
99.56
15.26
1.26
1.34
51.02
5.81
0.00
0.16
5.53
0.89
1.07
0.00
5.32
1.34
0.06
0.00
1.79
4.80
0.00
0.04
5.85
1.43
0.09
0.03
1.41
2.97
0.00
0.00
16.33
1.43
1.39
0.14
2.75
2.54
0.27
0.09
6.72
4.64
2.11
0.18
3.93
1.03
0.09
0.00
4.49
5.49
0.00
0.01
8.39
6.12
0.15
0.00
11.13
7.97
0.08
0.05
13.71
9.96
2.33
0.75
10.78
8.07
0.06
0.01
4.60
6.36
0.08
0.00
1.22
1.19
0.10
0.00
Total
Square
Miles
342.19
122.61
183.56
283.65
472.65
223.80
219.72
141.78
107.56
121.43
413.43
174.35
358.91
147.29
304.04
80.69
42.59
36.72
21.66
46.10
56.15
220.77
112.44
190.03
87.64
212.69
220.76
178.60
116.63
183.26
713.79
946.86
67.89
249.39
316.84
92.46
341.58
149.62
156.83
108.11
355.94
138.97
107.19
72.86
48.82
50.91
156.35
112.31
63.10
171.58
122.30
127.04
222.88
169.96
245.55
196.93
151.58
47.48
% of Total
Square
Miles w
Pop.
74.72%
77.99%
92.02%
61.61%
81.35%
71.84%
78.64%
91.33%
83.70%
55.55%
66.08%
77.77%
79.02%
70.36%
80.83%
80.42%
58.14%
69.31%
54.25%
70.61%
48.17%
72.32%
78.48%
76.59%
84.03%
86.53%
89.21%
93.91%
96.39%
74.97%
62.15%
18.69%
57.14%
21.89%
36.78%
63.85%
42.41%
61.58%
45.69%
25.00%
37.09%
39.48%
90.33%
85.16%
78.98%
78.85%
96.05%
80.59%
64.18%
87.14%
94.48%
91.05%
91.48%
87.18%
86.21%
84.03%
91.40%
93.39%
Appendix C
by School District
Unpopulated Area
Dst
Dst No Type
750
1
756
1
761
1
763
1
768
1
769
1
771
1
775
1
777
1
786
1
787
1
801
1
803
1
806
1
810
1
811
1
813
1
815
2
818
1
820
1
821
1
829
1
831
1
832
1
833
1
834
1
836
1
837
1
840
1
846
1
850
1
852
1
857
1
858
1
861
1
876
1
877
1
879
1
881
1
882
1
883
1
885
1
891
1
911
1
912
1
914
1
2071
1
2125
1
2134
1
2135
1
2137
1
2142
1
2143
1
2144
1
2149
1
2154
1
2155
1
2159
1
Total
School District
Interstate
Name
Miles
Rocori
0.00
Blooming Prairie
0.00
Owatonna
28.53
Medford
9.36
Hancock
0.00
Morris
0.00
Chokio-Alberta
0.00
Kerkhoven-Murdock-Sunburg0.00
Benson
0.00
Bertha-Hewitt
0.00
Browerville
0.00
Browns Valley
0.00
Wheaton Area School
0.00
Elgin-Millville
0.00
Plainview
0.00
Wabasha-Kellogg
0.00
Lake City
0.00
Prinsburg
0.00
Verndale
0.00
Sebeka
0.00
Menahga
0.00
Waseca
0.00
Forest Lake
39.52
Mahtomedi
1.98
South Washington County 6.93
Stillwater
15.53
Butterfield
0.00
Madelia
0.00
St. James
0.00
Breckenridge
0.00
Rothsay
25.96
Campbell-Tintah
0.00
Lewiston-Altura
19.52
St. Charles
15.71
Winona
45.42
Annandale
0.00
Buffalo
0.61
Delano
0.00
Maple Lake
0.00
Monticello
31.42
Rockford
0.00
St. Michael-Albertville
8.87
Canby
0.00
Cambridge-Isanti
0.00
Milaca
0.00
Ulen-Hitterdal
0.00
Lake Crystal-Wellcome Memorial
0.00
Triton
0.00
United South Central
22.37
Maple River
0.00
Kingsland
0.00
St. Louis County
0.00
Waterville-Elysian-Morristown0.00
Chisago Lakes
0.00
Minnewaska
0.00
Eveleth-Gilbert
0.00
Wadena-Deer Creek
0.00
Buffalo Lake-Hector
0.00
Total Road
Miles
259.79
339.78
566.16
166.56
174.03
412.56
389.55
484.72
729.44
238.90
208.60
94.51
564.67
151.87
264.90
252.36
355.49
58.61
181.45
403.25
332.16
310.44
617.62
140.44
466.28
618.65
186.89
299.83
473.12
730.53
342.11
528.44
289.78
247.96
645.88
333.63
397.94
166.51
145.44
291.64
118.20
131.74
658.82
601.87
509.45
345.31
444.32
418.37
691.17
566.09
355.13
2,336.30
308.46
378.40
801.93
223.22
382.84
431.86
% of
Interstate
Miles
Slope
Slope
0.00%
21.39
8.23%
0.00%
0.90
0.26%
5.04%
6.99
1.23%
5.62%
4.22
2.53%
0.00%
0.59
0.34%
0.00%
3.69
0.89%
0.00%
0.24
0.06%
0.00%
5.15
1.06%
0.00%
4.18
0.57%
0.00%
0.85
0.36%
0.00%
7.72
3.70%
0.00%
4.11
4.35%
0.00%
1.17
0.21%
0.00%
24.29
15.99%
0.00%
43.84
16.55%
0.00%
84.97
33.67%
0.00%
79.90
22.48%
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.67
0.37%
0.00%
0.98
0.24%
0.00%
5.42
1.63%
0.00%
5.44
1.75%
6.40%
11.07
1.79%
1.41%
5.48
3.90%
1.49%
23.46
5.03%
2.51%
71.94
11.63%
0.00%
0.45
0.24%
0.00%
1.97
0.66%
0.00%
1.91
0.40%
0.00%
0.55
0.08%
7.59%
2.26
0.66%
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
6.74%
43.98
15.18%
6.34%
35.30
14.24%
7.03%
212.11
32.84%
0.00%
29.25
8.77%
0.15%
23.02
5.78%
0.00%
6.21
3.73%
0.00%
9.93
6.83%
10.77%
11.57
3.97%
0.00%
6.55
5.54%
6.73%
5.71
4.33%
0.00%
9.44
1.43%
0.00%
8.22
1.37%
0.00%
4.72
0.93%
0.00%
1.19
0.34%
0.00%
17.72
3.99%
0.00%
3.97
0.95%
3.24%
4.68
0.68%
0.00%
5.16
0.91%
0.00%
31.73
8.93%
0.00%
125.79
5.38%
0.00%
24.43
7.92%
0.00%
22.45
5.93%
0.00%
28.23
3.52%
0.00%
8.82
3.95%
0.00%
4.54
1.19%
0.00%
0.84
0.19%
No.of
Interstate
Miles/Sq.
Miles of
District
0.00
0.00
8.15
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.41
14.21
11.63
9.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.72
0.00
8.14
8.41
5.93
0.00
244.31
0.00
0.00
2.81
0.00
4.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total No.
of Road
Miles/
Sq.Miles
0.49
0.52
0.41
0.45
0.51
0.54
0.58
0.51
0.55
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.51
0.54
0.62
0.54
0.55
0.47
0.58
0.64
0.64
0.49
0.35
0.20
0.17
0.25
0.50
0.49
0.47
0.47
0.51
0.50
0.55
0.53
0.42
0.41
0.37
0.40
0.40
0.30
0.37
0.31
0.52
0.41
0.56
0.61
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.53
0.52
1.80
0.48
0.44
0.57
0.62
0.50
0.53
Circumference
in Miles
108.44
135.89
104.53
77.74
90.11
144.20
117.31
135.26
176.14
102.03
112.90
40.56
147.10
122.34
186.57
94.83
115.15
46.66
85.12
108.56
127.25
100.55
93.66
27.09
45.53
88.60
57.50
97.68
98.92
181.24
95.70
127.50
129.55
104.92
158.36
90.30
130.98
68.79
58.08
81.23
64.01
62.33
148.03
105.43
129.05
90.07
143.12
89.20
169.16
174.99
102.59
578.94
106.60
71.75
141.40
66.36
116.67
76.68
107
Ratio of
Circumference
to Area
0.85
0.77
0.45
1.04
1.01
0.65
0.52
0.54
0.44
0.74
0.96
0.76
0.51
1.48
1.14
0.69
0.59
1.69
0.81
0.42
0.60
0.66
0.44
0.96
0.57
0.58
0.61
0.67
0.44
0.53
0.55
0.48
0.82
0.79
0.59
0.67
0.88
1.04
1.00
0.92
1.48
1.55
0.43
0.43
0.45
0.42
0.63
0.42
0.49
0.58
0.56
0.14
0.71
0.43
0.31
0.48
0.61
0.33
Area
Owned
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
110.55
1.79
168.53
1.82
213.29
3.71
69.42
0.76
71.08
2.35
179.87
13.30
165.91
8.22
211.78
5.44
318.64
10.26
133.66
0.39
103.07
2.84
35.64
0.91
179.17
1.10
78.93
0.56
136.23
14.88
92.00
22.55
166.88
5.66
24.03
2.47
96.44
4.47
231.56
8.85
159.11
28.76
137.47
4.92
157.49
29.30
21.76
2.09
65.27
3.88
122.81
11.96
81.08
0.26
132.87
1.77
201.93
3.54
226.16
2.21
112.42
1.52
143.99
0.18
140.72
10.36
107.14
9.65
216.82
19.76
106.25
5.55
127.97
4.92
59.15
1.51
49.08
2.26
74.86
4.64
38.24
2.08
35.48
0.62
291.31
6.06
223.25
6.96
272.98
7.85
170.36
11.66
208.27
0.90
204.67
1.38
313.00
2.65
272.46
2.64
173.92
2.34
1,007.28
1,431.04
125.46
8.53
137.03
9.44
366.70
20.53
79.57
29.73
178.40
1.55
206.02
0.19
Census
Bureau Zero
Pop
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
5.09
9.05
0.47
0.09
6.75
0.36
0.01
0.00
14.13
1.31
0.07
0.00
4.44
0.04
0.20
0.00
15.02
0.70
0.06
0.00
24.87
4.94
0.44
0.01
49.29
3.03
0.01
0.00
26.91
4.99
0.00
0.01
69.70
3.19
0.45
0.00
4.04
0.34
0.03
0.00
7.49
4.43
0.09
0.01
9.75
7.21
0.00
0.00
105.22
4.23
0.21
0.00
2.62
0.07
0.24
0.00
12.02
0.63
0.16
0.00
8.00
12.79
1.02
1.13
4.82
17.24
0.40
0.00
1.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.20
0.13
0.10
0.00
16.79
0.68
0.69
0.01
18.07
6.26
0.86
0.03
7.51
2.51
0.00
0.00
8.46
17.51
0.85
0.13
0.50
3.77
0.00
0.01
2.74
6.23
0.00
2.46
5.53
12.85
0.00
0.07
11.88
0.99
0.00
0.00
10.44
0.65
0.28
0.00
15.24
2.38
0.00
0.00
113.09
0.52
1.65
0.05
59.47
1.12
0.00
0.00
120.43
0.08
0.49
0.01
7.48
0.30
0.02
0.00
14.90
0.25
0.18
0.00
10.90
20.95
0.05
0.84
3.59
19.64
0.14
0.06
3.86
11.78
0.46
0.04
2.38
2.69
0.38
0.03
1.74
4.75
0.00
0.03
2.49
4.82
1.10
0.23
1.54
1.25
0.25
0.00
1.33
2.79
0.02
0.01
44.17
0.85
0.01
0.00
7.16
7.28
1.03
0.01
3.23
0.61
0.73
0.03
27.54
2.59
0.02
0.01
11.78
3.15
2.30
0.01
8.48
0.09
0.00
0.00
22.44
4.92
0.09
0.00
21.95
5.01
0.65
0.00
6.12
0.56
0.09
0.00
1,365.77
354.23
10.52
32.64
3.82
11.35
0.17
0.13
3.16
14.57
0.71
0.29
33.70
39.41
0.00
0.00
24.28
5.76
0.01
0.05
10.26
0.31
0.01
0.00
21.61
1.66
0.00
0.00
Total
Square
Miles
127.04
177.47
232.51
74.86
89.21
223.43
226.46
249.13
402.24
138.46
117.93
53.51
289.93
82.42
163.92
137.49
195.00
27.64
105.34
258.58
213.09
152.41
213.74
28.13
80.58
153.22
94.21
146.01
223.09
343.68
174.53
265.18
158.88
132.12
269.32
135.23
149.03
66.14
57.86
88.14
43.36
40.25
342.40
245.69
285.43
212.18
226.41
214.62
343.10
302.71
183.03
4,201.48
149.46
165.20
460.34
139.40
190.53
229.48
% of Total
Square
Miles w
Pop.
87.02%
94.96%
91.73%
92.73%
79.68%
80.50%
73.26%
85.01%
79.22%
96.53%
87.40%
66.60%
61.80%
95.77%
83.11%
66.91%
85.58%
86.94%
91.55%
89.55%
74.67%
90.20%
73.68%
77.36%
81.00%
80.15%
86.06%
91.00%
90.52%
65.81%
64.41%
54.30%
88.57%
81.09%
80.51%
78.57%
85.87%
89.43%
84.83%
84.93%
88.19%
88.15%
85.08%
90.87%
95.64%
80.29%
91.99%
95.36%
91.23%
90.01%
95.02%
23.97%
83.94%
82.95%
79.66%
57.08%
93.63%
89.78%
Appendix C
by School District
Unpopulated Area
Dst
Dst No Type
2164
1
2165
1
2167
1
2168
1
2169
1
2170
1
2171
1
2172
1
2174
1
2176
1
2180
1
2184
1
2190
1
2198
1
2215
1
2310
1
2311
1
2342
1
2358
1
2364
1
2365
1
2396
1
2397
1
2448
1
2527
1
2534
1
2536
1
2580
1
2609
1
2683
1
2687
1
2689
1
2711
1
2752
1
2753
1
2754
1
2759
1
2805
1
2835
1
2853
1
2854
1
2856
1
2859
1
2860
1
2884
1
2886
1
2887
1
2888
1
2889
1
2890
1
2895
1
2897
1
2898
1
Total
School District
Interstate
Name
Miles
Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton 18.38
Hinckley-Finlayson
20.28
Lakeview
0.00
N.R.H.E.G.
24.53
Murray County Central
0.00
Staples-Motley
0.00
Kittson Central
0.00
Kenyon-Wanamingo
0.00
Pine River-Backus
0.00
Warren-Alvarado-Oslo
0.00
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
0.00
Luverne
31.70
Yellow Medicine East
0.00
Fillmore Central
0.00
Norman County East
0.00
Sibley East
0.00
Clearbrook-Gonvick
0.00
West Central Area
0.00
Tri-County
0.00
Belgrade-Brooten-Elrosa
0.00
G.F.W.
0.00
A.C.G.C.
0.00
Le Sueur-Henderson
0.00
Martin County West
32.46
Norman County West
0.00
Bird Island-Olivia-Lake Lillian0.00
Granada Huntley-East Chain
21.04
East Central
25.78
Win-E-Mac
0.00
Greenbush-Middle River
0.00
Howard Lake-Waverly-Winsted
0.00
Pipestone-Jasper
0.00
Mesabi East
0.00
Fairmont Area Schools
13.69
Long Prairie-Grey Eagle
0.00
Cedar Mountain
0.00
Eagle Valley
0.00
Zumbrota-Mazeppa
0.00
Janesville-Waldorf-Pemberton
0.00
Lac Qui Parle Valley
0.00
Ada-Borup
0.00
Stephen-Argyle Central Schools
0.00
Glencoe-Silver Lake
0.00
Blue Earth Area Public School
34.28
Red Rock Central
0.00
Glenville-Emmons
9.38
McLeod West Schools
0.00
Clinton-Graceville-Beardsley 0.00
Lake Park Audubon District 0.00
Renville County West
0.00
Jackson County Central
45.17
Redwood Falls Area Schools0.00
Westbrook-Walnut Grove Schools
0.00
State Total
1822.56
Total Road
Miles
516.52
536.44
330.96
459.01
605.53
747.49
899.57
433.70
566.99
964.33
633.25
572.99
865.13
397.28
490.16
476.45
497.93
841.54
596.25
570.65
643.99
627.81
343.42
592.01
416.97
462.17
396.93
643.96
565.64
879.04
263.01
865.29
378.81
397.61
462.09
347.87
256.33
301.14
402.93
1,453.96
620.18
770.62
467.25
797.03
660.73
311.10
302.92
816.21
384.14
624.74
894.02
518.47
520.98
139,014.80
% of
Interstate
Miles
Slope
Slope
3.56%
0.24
0.05%
3.78%
5.89
1.10%
0.00%
0.86
0.26%
5.34%
4.89
1.07%
0.00%
8.83
1.46%
0.00%
21.99
2.94%
0.00%
0.12
0.01%
0.00%
19.19
4.42%
0.00%
16.90
2.98%
0.00%
0.90
0.09%
0.00%
0.46
0.07%
5.53%
0.97
0.17%
0.00%
31.07
3.59%
0.00%
68.82
17.32%
0.00%
4.09
0.83%
0.00%
1.93
0.41%
0.00%
12.96
2.60%
0.00%
23.32
2.77%
0.00%
0.14
0.02%
0.00%
21.37
3.74%
0.00%
12.15
1.89%
0.00%
5.21
0.83%
0.00%
37.97
11.06%
5.48%
2.36
0.40%
0.00%
1.84
0.44%
0.00%
0.22
0.05%
5.30%
3.27
0.82%
4.00%
11.26
1.75%
0.00%
4.00
0.71%
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
9.01
3.43%
0.00%
3.75
0.43%
0.00%
11.72
3.09%
3.44%
4.84
1.22%
0.00%
22.40
4.85%
0.00%
16.14
4.64%
0.00%
1.51
0.59%
0.00%
34.23
11.37%
0.00%
5.99
1.49%
0.00%
9.87
0.68%
0.00%
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.14
0.02%
0.00%
1.22
0.26%
4.30%
5.87
0.74%
0.00%
7.22
1.09%
3.02%
1.37
0.44%
0.00%
1.33
0.44%
0.00%
8.67
1.06%
0.00%
22.90
5.96%
0.00%
16.78
2.69%
5.05%
15.47
1.73%
0.00%
22.74
4.39%
0.00%
6.94
1.33%
1.31%
6,041.79
4.35%
No.of
Interstate
Miles/Sq.
Miles of
District
14.95
20.60
0.00
9.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.63
0.00
0.00
9.50
24.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.40
0.00
15.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.77
0.00
0.00
46.24
Total No.
of Road
Miles/
Sq.Miles
0.53
0.78
0.54
0.51
0.52
0.64
0.52
0.51
0.95
0.52
0.50
0.46
0.49
0.53
0.58
0.52
0.67
0.55
0.76
0.60
0.54
0.56
0.49
0.47
0.48
0.52
0.50
0.97
0.52
0.83
0.42
0.48
1.05
0.44
0.53
0.55
0.52
0.46
0.50
0.52
0.56
0.52
0.47
0.49
0.52
0.48
0.54
0.54
0.57
0.50
0.49
0.52
0.50
0.61
Circumference
in Miles
121.24
187.11
100.55
160.29
145.98
158.64
147.73
102.66
132.99
185.84
135.86
103.74
257.85
106.97
84.90
132.66
122.12
183.50
135.29
161.63
115.31
168.05
118.09
108.01
124.26
90.20
91.87
211.35
114.81
194.20
74.92
152.05
89.96
90.28
135.92
100.04
92.53
88.36
125.25
292.20
104.10
122.64
131.86
117.42
151.51
123.43
73.07
145.04
105.34
119.47
126.00
136.32
131.05
35458.70
108
Ratio of
Circumference
to Area
0.44
0.45
0.56
0.68
0.47
0.33
0.31
0.47
0.25
0.37
0.43
0.39
0.61
0.50
0.30
0.53
0.37
0.40
0.30
0.47
0.33
0.48
0.70
0.39
0.62
0.37
0.46
0.34
0.39
0.27
0.67
0.36
0.23
0.52
0.55
0.52
0.69
0.64
0.62
0.38
0.30
0.30
0.61
0.30
0.44
0.83
0.45
0.33
0.48
0.38
0.29
0.50
0.50
0.42
Area
Owned
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
215.18
2.62
317.38
66.09
157.19
2.08
221.39
0.47
275.09
10.44
372.84
56.82
217.53
0.14
213.27
0.32
284.22
160.45
342.93
1.84
281.53
6.30
230.87
3.19
369.81
6.39
195.84
5.34
258.92
4.71
228.09
1.96
260.36
11.59
350.84
22.48
282.96
35.94
295.27
13.42
311.91
2.84
302.55
12.57
149.91
4.39
244.68
1.91
124.19
0.13
217.43
1.44
177.90
1.20
336.16
185.93
230.27
14.36
379.47
69.00
98.81
4.14
375.52
7.11
119.07
60.97
151.88
2.34
222.61
3.66
169.45
0.76
127.71
0.84
132.07
2.68
179.73
2.11
564.59
40.94
241.32
1.77
207.32
0.79
204.31
3.73
340.97
1.85
290.42
2.54
138.77
0.76
145.50
2.98
309.87
14.84
160.33
10.63
273.78
3.83
390.33
8.36
229.58
5.50
218.74
4.00
52,733.72
10,378.03
Census
Bureau Zero
Pop
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
(Sq. Mi.)
56.62
0.32
0.13
0.00
28.17
4.99
1.09
0.11
16.94
3.05
0.10
0.01
11.32
2.33
0.00
0.00
24.20
3.37
0.00
0.00
35.71
11.88
2.66
0.16
250.45
0.52
1.47
0.01
6.62
0.08
0.00
0.00
53.93
39.61
0.49
0.07
159.10
0.39
1.13
0.00
29.84
0.10
0.00
0.00
28.45
0.92
0.94
0.04
41.51
1.89
1.22
0.07
10.55
0.25
0.12
0.00
19.04
0.82
0.58
0.01
14.80
4.15
0.03
0.02
52.74
7.66
0.11
0.04
67.86
22.06
0.18
0.06
129.19
2.53
0.19
0.02
24.79
11.36
0.00
0.04
31.67
1.81
0.33
0.00
19.77
15.45
0.06
0.09
12.86
0.73
1.31
0.05
28.56
5.01
0.00
0.00
73.35
0.10
1.14
0.00
20.80
1.02
0.00
0.00
19.05
1.70
0.02
0.00
98.58
5.19
1.18
0.03
40.49
9.79
0.01
0.01
264.74
15.26
0.52
0.00
1.74
6.78
0.30
0.00
34.16
0.62
0.26
0.02
198.20
18.56
1.26
0.32
9.81
10.46
0.03
0.00
8.41
10.71
0.21
0.01
21.61
0.18
0.62
0.01
4.96
0.36
0.00
0.00
2.67
0.50
0.29
0.00
15.32
4.91
0.02
0.03
131.71
22.63
0.97
0.35
101.01
0.32
0.63
0.01
195.40
0.22
0.58
0.00
4.43
5.18
0.01
0.02
45.62
1.10
1.16
0.01
49.98
1.31
0.18
0.00
8.02
1.70
0.24
0.00
9.86
4.30
0.00
0.01
107.91
10.15
0.07
0.00
21.86
24.75
0.00
0.13
33.63
0.57
0.40
0.00
32.27
9.45
0.71
0.01
32.94
0.79
1.12
0.02
35.31
2.63
0.06
0.00
16,331.24
4,557.93
152.66
128.43
Total
Square
Miles
274.87
417.83
179.37
235.51
313.10
480.07
470.12
220.29
538.77
505.39
317.77
264.41
420.89
212.10
284.08
249.05
332.50
463.48
450.83
344.88
348.56
350.49
169.25
280.16
198.91
240.69
199.87
627.07
294.93
728.99
111.77
417.69
398.38
174.52
245.61
192.63
133.87
138.21
202.12
761.19
345.06
404.31
217.68
390.71
344.43
149.49
162.65
442.84
217.70
312.21
441.13
269.95
260.74
84,282.01
% of Total
Square
Miles w
Pop.
78.28%
75.96%
87.63%
94.00%
87.86%
77.66%
46.27%
96.81%
52.75%
67.85%
88.60%
87.32%
87.86%
92.33%
91.14%
91.58%
78.30%
75.70%
62.76%
85.62%
89.49%
86.32%
88.57%
87.34%
62.44%
90.34%
89.01%
53.61%
78.08%
52.05%
88.40%
89.90%
29.89%
87.03%
90.64%
87.97%
95.40%
95.56%
88.92%
74.17%
69.94%
51.28%
93.86%
87.27%
84.32%
92.83%
89.46%
69.97%
73.65%
87.69%
88.48%
85.05%
83.89%
62.57%
Appendix C
Transportation Revenue as a Percent
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
School District Name
1
1 AITKIN
1
3 MINNEAPOLIS
2
1 HILL CITY
4
1 MCGREGOR
6
3 SOUTH ST. PAUL
11
1 ANOKA-HENNEPIN
12
1 CENTENNIAL
13
1 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
14
1 FRIDLEY
15
1 ST. FRANCIS
16
1 SPRING LAKE PARK
22
1 DETROIT LAKES
23
1 FRAZEE
25
1 PINE POINT
31
1 BEMIDJI
32
1 BLACKDUCK
36
1 KELLIHER
38
1 RED LAKE
47
1 SAUK RAPIDS
51
1 FOLEY
62
1 ORTONVILLE
75
1 ST. CLAIR
77
1 MANKATO
81
1 COMFREY
84
1 SLEEPY EYE
85
1 SPRINGFIELD
88
1 NEW ULM
91
1 BARNUM
93
1 CARLTON
94
1 CLOQUET
95
1 CROMWELL
97
1 MOOSE LAKE
99
1 ESKO
100
1 WRENSHALL
WADM00
1,556.98
58,742.27
393.27
739.77
3,741.35
47,907.37
7,539.68
3,704.36
2,690.51
6,794.51
4,609.01
3,237.21
1,515.07
70.36
6,366.69
926.15
277.03
1,725.09
4,085.67
2,001.37
663.56
657.22
8,090.60
224.26
773.81
798.78
3,192.72
772.52
967.44
2,794.97
358.61
836.54
1,124.70
403.36
Transportation
Costs FY 200
615,132.46
13,935,615.31
179,382.22
401,719.02
481,668.39
8,908,501.44
1,558,484.18
338,258.36
466,036.88
2,192,437.87
918,959.99
991,942.84
563,000.40
8,265.56
2,558,449.95
397,708.62
152,902.65
535,925.71
1,096,151.00
567,636.66
164,408.40
100,974.98
1,241,292.94
66,727.13
138,912.07
147,259.70
798,757.94
280,732.68
350,953.39
695,863.53
148,443.38
293,094.21
319,175.19
175,571.77
Page 109
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
587,739.38
10,665,421.48
157,281.79
337,186.67
679,290.65
8,698,204.77
1,368,926.75
672,574.63
488,497.01
1,512,536.45
836,825.58
867,917.02
452,403.48
18,019.69
1,764,705.64
337,237.44
152,700.59
669,672.34
950,391.71
556,538.77
213,079.53
179,214.31
1,720,714.78
85,513.05
244,699.20
231,909.78
854,513.64
240,845.32
263,234.72
652,647.90
139,273.44
243,622.70
265,542.47
132,790.17
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
95.55%
76.53%
87.68%
83.94%
141.03%
97.64%
87.84%
198.83%
104.82%
68.99%
91.06%
87.50%
80.36%
218.01%
68.98%
84.80%
99.87%
124.96%
86.70%
98.04%
129.60%
177.48%
138.62%
128.15%
176.15%
157.48%
106.98%
85.79%
75.01%
93.79%
93.82%
83.12%
83.20%
75.63%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
108
1 NORWOOD
110
1 WACONIA
111
1 WATERTOWN-MAYER
112
1 CHASKA
113
1 WALKER-HACKENSAC
115
1 CASS LAKE
116
1 PILLAGER
118
1 REMER-LONGVILLE
129
1 MONTEVIDEO
138
1 NORTH BRANCH
139
1 RUSH CITY
146
1 BARNESVILLE
150
1 HAWLEY
152
1 MOORHEAD
162
1 BAGLEY
166
1 COOK COUNTY
173
1 MOUNTAIN LAKE
177
1 WINDOM
181
1 BRAINERD
182
1 CROSBY-IRONTON
186
1 PEQUOT LAKES
191
1 BURNSVILLE
192
1 FARMINGTON
194
1 LAKEVILLE
195
1 RANDOLPH
196
1 ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
197
1 WEST ST. PAUL-ME
199
1 INVER GROVE
200
1 HASTINGS
203
1 HAYFIELD
204
1 KASSON-MANTORVIL
206
1 ALEXANDRIA
207
1 BRANDON
208
1 EVANSVILLE
WADM00
1,359.44
2,324.98
1,571.87
7,992.12
1,328.56
1,162.84
902.72
734.00
1,772.50
4,104.49
1,071.16
878.50
1,007.99
6,705.34
1,329.29
845.35
612.91
1,298.39
8,264.26
1,968.26
1,326.91
13,492.96
5,059.77
10,312.01
496.43
32,260.54
5,712.22
5,056.90
6,143.00
1,209.24
1,947.23
5,049.86
389.84
362.49
Transportation
Costs FY 200
209,506.45
728,686.29
436,157.68
1,988,575.44
552,335.52
562,655.26
238,447.87
455,783.73
410,469.57
1,237,671.10
316,227.33
273,548.59
213,882.49
1,656,060.11
513,251.02
408,527.39
108,221.94
313,975.87
2,343,111.15
593,316.56
439,266.32
2,261,115.13
1,259,868.82
2,415,592.81
153,747.87
4,975,679.58
931,014.37
763,218.16
1,421,387.09
344,973.03
554,716.36
1,223,637.13
152,003.75
93,675.42
Page 110
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
355,149.43
557,985.85
396,780.50
1,598,603.94
448,343.30
398,785.16
263,231.04
338,344.62
478,114.17
985,132.24
286,911.67
306,607.34
283,836.96
1,538,910.94
476,077.14
445,863.43
185,814.46
368,865.18
2,084,141.39
563,448.28
362,567.58
2,449,822.00
1,061,800.05
1,999,822.63
138,582.71
5,857,319.71
1,037,127.67
918,145.82
1,401,840.99
345,794.30
475,645.79
1,287,572.65
119,785.44
122,050.19
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
169.52%
76.57%
90.97%
80.39%
81.17%
70.88%
110.39%
74.23%
116.48%
79.60%
90.73%
112.09%
132.71%
92.93%
92.76%
109.14%
171.70%
117.48%
88.95%
94.97%
82.54%
108.35%
84.28%
82.79%
90.14%
117.72%
111.40%
120.30%
98.62%
100.24%
85.75%
105.23%
78.80%
130.29%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
213
1 OSAKIS
227
1 CHATFIELD
229
1 LANESBORO
238
1 MABEL-CANTON
239
1 RUSHFORD-PETERSO
241
1 ALBERT LEA
242
1 ALDEN
252
1 CANNON FALLS
253
1 GOODHUE
255
1 PINE ISLAND
256
1 RED WING
261
1 ASHBY
264
1 HERMAN-NORCROSS
270
1 HOPKINS
271
1 BLOOMINGTON
272
1 EDEN PRAIRIE
273
1 EDINA
276
1 MINNETONKA
277
1 WESTONKA
278
1 ORONO
279
1 OSSEO
280
1 RICHFIELD
281
1 ROBBINSDALE
282
1 ST. ANTHONY-NEW
283
1 ST. LOUIS PARK
284
1 WAYZATA
286
1 BROOKLYN CENTER
294
1 HOUSTON
297
1 SPRING GROVE
299
1 CALEDONIA
300
1 LACRESCENT-HOKAH
306
1 LAPORTE
308
1 NEVIS
309
1 PARK RAPIDS
WADM00
695.44
1,046.45
353.78
490.94
887.69
4,691.52
370.84
1,833.23
639.36
1,266.25
3,933.83
317.52
234.23
9,588.55
12,895.45
11,686.26
7,479.60
9,064.73
3,044.11
2,762.73
25,562.66
4,899.03
16,592.02
1,270.21
5,026.38
10,396.01
1,641.29
615.73
496.30
1,248.63
1,807.64
317.66
425.83
2,293.45
Transportation
Costs FY 200
179,957.38
269,876.81
192,736.28
117,916.68
310,495.92
1,073,246.12
92,221.34
536,307.29
238,225.59
309,608.08
1,005,293.23
113,190.41
59,286.19
2,041,599.57
1,651,424.17
2,735,275.29
1,216,265.70
1,885,498.35
706,811.95
918,692.72
4,325,847.59
598,868.36
3,297,807.67
185,949.02
1,057,830.01
1,960,409.40
204,955.90
144,993.12
122,177.58
303,954.90
536,660.96
161,019.88
243,441.00
790,194.48
Page 111
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
209,758.76
297,136.54
115,056.35
150,506.58
260,559.53
1,145,037.38
113,057.65
471,149.45
186,209.19
324,080.70
949,812.62
104,142.87
100,771.45
1,740,925.69
2,341,336.30
2,121,792.17
1,358,018.45
1,645,819.37
598,137.91
590,776.48
4,641,232.68
889,482.48
3,012,496.56
230,623.11
912,604.52
1,887,530.53
297,997.50
190,951.25
143,657.41
364,005.87
446,792.24
118,953.67
138,234.04
717,093.23
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
116.56%
110.10%
59.70%
127.64%
83.92%
106.69%
122.59%
87.85%
78.17%
104.67%
94.48%
92.01%
169.97%
85.27%
141.78%
77.57%
111.65%
87.29%
84.62%
64.31%
107.29%
148.53%
91.35%
124.02%
86.27%
96.28%
145.40%
131.70%
117.58%
119.76%
83.25%
73.88%
56.78%
90.75%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
314
1 BRAHAM
316
1 GREENWAY
317
1 DEER RIVER
318
1 GRAND RAPIDS
319
1 NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
323
2 FRANCONIA
330
1 HERON LAKE-OKABE
332
1 MORA
333
1 OGILVIE
345
1 NEW LONDON-SPICE
347
1 WILLMAR
356
1 LANCASTER
361
1 INTERNATIONAL FA
362
1 LITTLEFORK-BIG F
363
1 SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
371
1 BELLINGHAM
378
1 DAWSON-BOYD
381
1 LAKE SUPERIOR
390
1 LAKE OF THE WOOD
391
1 CLEVELAND
392
1 LECENTER
394
1 MONTGOMERY-LONSD
402
1 HENDRICKS
403
1 IVANHOE
404
1 LAKE BENTON
409
1 TYLER
411
1 BALATON
413
1 MARSHALL
414
1 MINNEOTA
415
1 LYND
417
1 TRACY
418
1 RUSSELL
423
1 HUTCHINSON
424
1 LESTER PRAIRIE
WADM00
1,224.33
1,831.99
1,322.11
5,262.75
834.14
41.36
382.63
2,289.84
893.46
2,029.39
5,086.67
212.57
2,007.11
365.55
343.93
182.73
780.29
2,507.65
944.49
508.11
930.93
1,426.31
229.18
309.35
305.93
435.36
241.45
2,556.92
576.93
218.75
920.46
221.98
3,532.97
592.94
Transportation
Costs FY 200
347,945.65
585,824.49
635,802.54
2,061,847.42
334,575.74
14,369.73
125,758.61
592,293.56
278,906.88
692,058.97
1,550,887.68
109,529.66
552,612.96
148,300.69
361,405.02
86,638.82
198,124.54
1,025,502.99
448,926.70
102,797.11
158,307.60
325,761.48
75,561.43
102,031.55
93,794.54
148,098.75
113,808.23
548,427.96
112,455.02
60,738.45
263,534.00
73,637.38
860,697.75
142,533.19
Page 112
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
333,445.94
491,728.13
467,155.31
1,813,459.06
278,237.03
11,171.38
134,664.03
624,204.37
257,208.31
530,263.71
1,222,250.76
105,660.98
613,859.15
204,477.16
226,050.39
71,133.13
257,946.99
1,127,255.89
442,353.35
141,126.19
246,507.67
380,432.77
79,781.75
113,878.53
112,023.90
137,086.78
87,334.78
646,512.82
188,732.91
72,444.84
289,106.27
76,116.32
859,925.28
151,757.13
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
95.83%
83.94%
73.47%
87.95%
83.16%
77.74%
107.08%
105.39%
92.22%
76.62%
78.81%
96.47%
111.08%
137.88%
62.55%
82.10%
130.19%
109.92%
98.54%
137.29%
155.71%
116.78%
105.59%
111.61%
119.44%
92.56%
76.74%
117.88%
167.83%
119.27%
109.70%
103.37%
99.91%
106.47%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
432
1 MAHNOMEN
435
1 WAUBUN
441
1 MARSHALL COUNTY
447
1 GRYGLA
458
1 TRUMAN
463
1 EDEN VALLEY-WATK
465
1 LITCHFIELD
466
1 DASSEL-COKATO
473
1 ISLE
477
1 PRINCETON
480
1 ONAMIA
482
1 LITTLE FALLS
484
1 PIERZ
485
1 ROYALTON
486
1 SWANVILLE
487
1 UPSALA
492
1 AUSTIN
495
1 GRAND MEADOW
497
1 LYLE
499
1 LEROY
500
1 SOUTHLAND
505
1 FULDA
507
1 NICOLLET
508
1 ST. PETER
511
1 ADRIAN
513
1 BREWSTER
514
1 ELLSWORTH
516
1 ROUND LAKE
518
1 WORTHINGTON
531
1 BYRON
533
1 DOVER-EYOTA
534
1 STEWARTVILLE
535
1 ROCHESTER
542
1 BATTLE LAKE
WADM00
929.07
787.96
422.56
229.92
510.44
1,052.14
2,507.68
2,464.77
568.09
3,611.22
949.85
3,968.17
1,140.31
830.59
452.61
503.08
4,861.06
436.17
319.12
497.24
759.58
663.77
453.57
2,251.69
664.59
242.29
253.87
165.10
2,921.97
1,583.43
900.96
1,990.75
18,870.08
699.51
Transportation
Costs FY 200
428,871.01
349,991.94
192,989.60
209,055.44
148,301.45
324,796.04
746,559.68
800,515.35
226,411.15
1,180,780.07
451,589.65
1,122,488.29
398,062.03
195,525.87
107,279.43
140,347.79
714,079.90
90,521.76
72,093.52
141,502.20
314,546.30
212,925.09
144,379.13
495,666.79
232,942.87
119,126.37
56,575.17
6,663.33
783,287.85
244,938.45
265,787.99
459,204.86
3,983,056.32
234,635.13
Page 113
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
320,000.48
294,372.28
173,291.85
142,144.18
165,349.80
280,784.02
668,676.28
632,612.59
198,825.15
915,492.88
332,490.53
1,058,213.75
337,806.78
231,692.96
133,271.56
140,420.62
1,111,106.11
131,265.50
93,934.10
153,104.72
239,318.32
220,736.96
148,684.59
555,043.37
209,627.24
80,123.83
84,068.23
57,374.80
772,632.05
382,467.86
244,666.23
507,681.14
3,819,631.85
223,388.82
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
74.61%
84.11%
89.79%
67.99%
111.50%
86.45%
89.57%
79.03%
87.82%
77.53%
73.63%
94.27%
84.86%
118.50%
124.23%
100.05%
155.60%
145.01%
130.29%
108.20%
76.08%
103.67%
102.98%
111.98%
89.99%
67.26%
148.60%
861.05%
98.64%
156.15%
92.05%
110.56%
95.90%
95.21%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
544
1 FERGUS FALLS
545
1 HENNING
547
1 PARKERS PRAIRIE
548
1 PELICAN RAPIDS
549
1 PERHAM
550
1 UNDERWOOD
553
1 NEW YORK MILLS
561
1 GOODRIDGE
564
1 THIEF RIVER FALL
577
1 WILLOW RIVER
578
1 PINE CITY
581
1 EDGERTON
584
1 RUTHTON
592
1 CLIMAX
593
1 CROOKSTON
595
1 EAST GRAND FORKS
599
1 FERTILE-BELTRAMI
600
1 FISHER
601
1 FOSSTON
611
1 CYRUS
621
1 MOUNDS VIEW
622
1 NORTH ST PAUL-MA
623
1 ROSEVILLE
624
1 WHITE BEAR LAKE
625
1 ST. PAUL
627
1 OKLEE
628
1 PLUMMER
630
1 RED LAKE FALLS
635
1 MILROY
640
1 WABASSO
656
1 FARIBAULT
659
1 NORTHFIELD
671
1 HILLS-BEAVER CRE
676
1 BADGER
WADM00
3,697.86
531.82
668.56
1,646.01
2,100.87
464.79
849.53
212.13
2,590.84
580.42
2,045.87
282.24
196.19
202.49
2,038.08
2,109.10
628.16
243.76
784.02
151.83
13,901.35
13,368.30
7,580.96
10,851.95
55,844.02
257.58
181.22
512.83
209.33
608.78
5,147.81
4,296.24
452.74
256.22
Transportation
Costs FY 200
905,145.62
176,364.81
293,623.93
463,187.18
666,450.36
150,155.88
289,724.27
151,040.83
762,504.89
303,027.47
682,691.88
97,382.43
71,996.71
96,931.60
309,442.89
431,263.02
362,763.52
163,455.17
236,192.84
78,365.95
2,493,456.88
2,255,388.62
1,475,086.13
1,660,652.97
7,152,376.54
114,026.26
82,801.63
212,078.63
86,942.08
140,223.69
1,054,593.43
1,110,661.02
118,012.63
90,943.91
Page 114
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
981,188.95
176,593.81
217,822.16
484,582.99
599,933.67
146,492.05
254,215.39
101,962.47
750,835.28
201,906.44
553,433.65
105,173.16
74,790.75
79,009.88
599,950.64
551,459.76
241,793.58
95,302.56
273,141.48
57,412.31
2,523,970.50
2,427,188.36
1,376,421.67
1,970,312.36
10,139,206.57
110,288.90
71,341.01
176,561.27
74,395.25
206,412.93
1,235,897.43
1,027,281.93
141,819.45
104,662.81
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
108.40%
100.13%
74.18%
104.62%
90.02%
97.56%
87.74%
67.51%
98.47%
66.63%
81.07%
108.00%
103.88%
81.51%
193.88%
127.87%
66.65%
58.31%
115.64%
73.26%
101.22%
107.62%
93.31%
118.65%
141.76%
96.72%
86.16%
83.25%
85.57%
147.20%
117.19%
92.49%
120.17%
115.09%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
682
1 ROSEAU
690
1 WARROAD
695
1 CHISHOLM
696
1 ELY
698
1 FLOODWOOD
700
1 HERMANTOWN
701
1 HIBBING
704
1 PROCTOR
706
1 VIRGINIA
707
1 NETT LAKE
709
1 DULUTH
712
1 MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
716
1 BELLE PLAINE
717
1 JORDAN
719
1 PRIOR LAKE
720
1 SHAKOPEE
721
1 NEW PRAGUE
726
1 BECKER
727
1 BIG LAKE
728
1 ELK RIVER
738
1 HOLDINGFORD
739
1 KIMBALL
740
1 MELROSE
741
1 PAYNESVILLE
742
1 ST. CLOUD
743
1 SAUK CENTRE
745
1 ALBANY
748
1 SARTELL
750
1 ROCORI
756
1 BLOOMING PRAIRIE
761
1 OWATONNA
763
1 MEDFORD
768
1 HANCOCK
769
1 MORRIS
WADM00
1,760.50
1,645.56
1,131.02
841.34
387.22
2,108.53
3,399.65
2,439.18
1,900.02
93.84
15,356.90
921.29
1,350.95
1,617.13
5,424.75
4,292.36
2,904.58
2,318.56
2,730.72
10,329.77
1,244.99
1,077.07
1,812.57
1,429.46
12,867.15
1,506.86
1,949.48
2,918.85
2,532.17
1,011.41
5,757.09
637.16
307.73
1,126.82
Transportation
Costs FY 200
638,912.51
639,402.32
210,411.50
213,410.67
180,217.96
551,430.06
768,750.29
688,531.30
473,700.66
59,552.70
2,337,582.45
366,127.20
356,153.53
315,475.04
1,179,968.45
1,167,146.97
601,481.58
649,159.71
707,586.73
2,996,561.82
282,139.90
373,146.00
602,161.95
415,672.89
2,768,070.62
402,521.69
491,255.80
840,869.70
824,620.49
277,341.94
1,156,313.66
128,617.02
63,287.01
272,717.43
Page 115
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
620,477.84
635,234.02
283,671.10
273,337.56
163,807.75
507,688.84
911,726.60
613,496.38
496,687.23
43,390.99
3,403,488.40
260,472.39
351,343.69
390,744.51
1,063,137.09
871,949.31
718,251.32
565,516.78
604,959.29
2,192,303.77
332,909.01
294,934.57
499,030.29
391,837.43
2,780,554.07
418,159.82
505,682.25
617,791.37
620,457.80
291,631.31
1,371,120.40
174,382.27
99,401.55
330,113.32
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
97.11%
99.35%
134.82%
128.08%
90.89%
92.07%
118.60%
89.10%
104.85%
72.86%
145.60%
71.14%
98.65%
123.86%
90.10%
74.71%
119.41%
87.12%
85.50%
73.16%
117.99%
79.04%
82.87%
94.27%
100.45%
103.89%
102.94%
73.47%
75.24%
105.15%
118.58%
135.58%
157.06%
121.05%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
771
1 CHOKIO-ALBERTA
775
1 KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
777
1 BENSON
786
1 BERTHA-HEWITT
787
1 BROWERVILLE
801
1 BROWNS VALLEY
803
1 WHEATON AREA SCH
806
1 ELGIN-MILLVILLE
810
1 PLAINVIEW
811
1 WABASHA-KELLOGG
813
1 LAKE CITY
815
2 PRINSBURG
818
1 VERNDALE
820
1 SEBEKA
821
1 MENAHGA
829
1 WASECA
831
1 FOREST LAKE
832
1 MAHTOMEDI
833
1 SOUTH WASHINGTON
834
1 STILLWATER
836
1 BUTTERFIELD
837
1 MADELIA
840
1 ST. JAMES
846
1 BRECKENRIDGE
850
1 ROTHSAY
852
1 CAMPBELL-TINTAH
857
1 LEWISTON
858
1 ST. CHARLES
861
1 WINONA
876
1 ANNANDALE
877
1 BUFFALO
879
1 DELANO
881
1 MAPLE LAKE
882
1 MONTICELLO
WADM00
333.44
728.94
1,394.92
590.63
501.01
178.99
537.22
672.76
1,287.41
993.01
1,795.27
34.24
451.59
677.26
821.92
2,549.24
9,292.63
3,527.54
17,800.05
10,863.14
276.73
732.89
1,538.05
1,089.85
264.60
232.60
883.65
1,283.83
5,616.47
2,261.79
5,611.34
2,065.05
1,098.86
4,113.67
Transportation
Costs FY 200
136,510.58
295,229.15
399,522.37
244,982.95
184,826.82
56,031.48
146,552.24
197,027.36
413,403.41
313,812.07
463,617.77
13,637.87
83,521.86
324,249.00
338,582.48
626,085.80
2,762,656.89
678,486.01
2,750,334.60
2,447,231.00
78,468.00
186,440.26
399,955.52
244,326.45
83,993.56
101,770.64
229,901.51
305,254.33
1,335,218.24
742,661.63
1,633,334.35
605,213.57
310,096.55
1,152,223.31
Page 116
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
134,387.29
245,748.00
449,945.54
180,528.22
153,301.19
58,276.38
203,955.83
185,132.97
356,054.95
277,642.59
486,364.08
14,433.85
137,851.77
234,996.28
257,882.73
639,043.29
2,057,526.61
680,508.86
3,231,830.09
2,257,009.48
93,199.62
214,839.77
432,643.75
359,814.60
105,836.74
107,261.37
255,601.88
345,373.21
1,368,136.13
566,999.30
1,265,828.02
477,321.66
270,950.68
902,416.25
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
98.44%
83.24%
112.62%
73.69%
82.94%
104.01%
139.17%
93.96%
86.13%
88.47%
104.91%
105.84%
165.05%
72.47%
76.17%
102.07%
74.48%
100.30%
117.51%
92.23%
118.77%
115.23%
108.17%
147.27%
126.01%
105.40%
111.18%
113.14%
102.47%
76.35%
77.50%
78.87%
87.38%
78.32%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
883
1 ROCKFORD
885
1 ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
891
1 CANBY
911
1 CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
912
1 MILACA
914
1 ULEN-HITTERDAL
2071
1 LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
2125
1 TRITON
2134
1 UNITED SOUTH CEN
2135
1 MAPLE RIVER
2137
1 KINGSLAND
2142
1 ST. LOUIS COUNTY
2143
1 WATERVILLE-ELYSI
2144
1 CHISAGO LAKES
2149
1 MINNEWASKA
2154
1 EVELETH-GILBERT
2155
1 WADENA-DEER CREE
2159
1 BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
2164
1 DILWORTH-GLYNDON
2165
1 HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
2167
1 LAKEVIEW
2168
1 N.R.H.E.G.
2169
1 MURRAY COUNTY CE
2170
1 STAPLES-MOTLEY
2171
1 KITTSON CENTRAL
2172
1 KENYON-WANAMINGO
2174
1 PINE RIVER-BACKU
2176
1 WARREN-ALVARADO2180
1 M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
2184
1 LUVERNE
2190
1 YELLOW MEDICINE
2198
1 FILLMORE CENTRAL
2215
1 NORMAN COUNTY EA
2310
1 SIBLEY EAST
WADM00
2,045.00
2,889.76
888.83
5,330.08
2,130.30
382.43
1,331.75
1,511.47
1,387.54
1,431.30
1,224.52
3,667.56
1,326.76
4,218.32
2,105.75
1,719.13
1,718.98
747.18
1,459.54
1,357.82
674.50
1,158.34
1,059.77
2,181.97
571.36
1,226.23
1,598.29
847.33
1,133.99
1,551.55
1,678.92
1,027.20
560.95
1,551.41
Transportation
Costs FY 200
472,328.82
774,068.65
204,278.62
1,207,585.94
665,080.11
135,263.31
534,794.61
367,410.67
458,837.11
478,350.88
322,356.42
1,716,667.22
362,805.74
1,066,779.04
661,424.59
434,592.73
417,914.70
214,101.82
509,473.05
468,612.49
169,466.60
347,073.75
455,134.24
840,502.49
292,027.81
420,121.51
555,646.02
259,935.57
469,407.83
450,505.79
684,970.11
344,907.92
235,115.09
372,600.76
Page 117
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
448,021.65
599,419.00
309,121.08
1,291,717.71
593,094.05
146,237.55
382,422.02
423,990.29
430,026.35
425,926.79
345,793.10
1,693,366.81
361,142.67
1,000,861.28
632,046.17
448,367.31
466,919.54
244,994.10
424,734.68
445,438.47
213,037.07
341,240.29
344,005.27
656,016.22
242,052.76
354,708.94
536,904.83
330,163.56
363,070.56
445,680.41
522,198.98
303,771.66
209,471.89
442,191.69
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
94.85%
77.44%
151.32%
106.97%
89.18%
108.11%
71.51%
115.40%
93.72%
89.04%
107.27%
98.64%
99.54%
93.82%
95.56%
103.17%
111.73%
114.43%
83.37%
95.05%
125.71%
98.32%
75.58%
78.05%
82.89%
84.43%
96.63%
127.02%
77.35%
98.93%
76.24%
88.07%
89.09%
118.68%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
2311
1 CLEARBROOK-GONVI
2342
1 WEST CENTRAL ARE
2358
1 TRI-COUNTY
2364
1 BELGRADE-BROOTEN
2365
1 G.F.W.
2396
1 A.C.G.C.
2397
1 LESUEUR-HENDERSO
2448
1 MARTIN COUNTY WE
2527
1 NORMAN COUNTY WE
2534
1 BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
2536
1 GRANADA HUNTLEY2580
1 EAST CENTRAL
2609
1 WIN-E-MAC
2683
1 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
2687
1 HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
2689
1 PIPESTONE-JASPER
2711
1 MESABI EAST
2752
1 FAIRMONT AREA SC
2753
1 LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
2754
1 CEDAR MOUNTAIN
2759
1 EAGLE VALLEY
2805
1 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
2835
1 JANESVILLE-WALDO
2853
1 LAC QUI PARLE VA
2854
1 ADA-BORUP
2856
1 STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
2859
1 GLENCOE-SILVER L
2860
1 BLUE EARTH AREA
2884
1 RED ROCK CENTRAL
2886
1 GLENVILLE-EMMONS
2887
1 MCLEOD WEST SCHO
2888
1 CLINTON-GRACEVIL
2889
1 LAKE PARK AUDUBO
2890
1 D.R.S.H.
WADM00
635.94
1,166.18
423.03
1,054.21
1,305.50
1,364.33
1,777.13
1,052.77
397.04
1,182.48
427.39
1,175.14
668.29
607.10
1,383.39
1,887.33
1,383.03
2,491.71
1,797.74
522.34
672.53
1,490.45
943.88
1,565.05
614.39
539.77
2,206.70
1,914.00
795.64
601.03
679.51
729.03
866.24
1,073.46
Transportation
Costs FY 200
433,368.23
447,550.44
209,948.09
353,114.26
369,221.98
476,234.59
393,320.94
384,314.86
214,645.99
427,766.39
169,898.75
503,193.46
228,593.54
387,942.56
317,701.81
608,989.95
494,760.86
774,244.24
509,478.12
222,891.25
206,046.69
354,110.12
193,424.80
500,876.88
417,069.63
187,645.80
642,250.90
475,103.88
253,205.89
181,308.99
230,408.71
285,299.40
304,266.57
352,047.51
Page 118
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
239,453.44
408,885.67
191,683.75
351,388.11
412,759.98
427,051.37
473,288.15
332,570.49
147,846.04
348,396.52
156,326.17
444,831.75
241,085.26
283,774.79
360,632.87
568,302.37
445,984.78
637,608.20
501,771.01
179,614.32
197,121.93
395,560.93
281,789.06
578,317.56
235,681.39
223,155.47
590,383.58
564,347.37
285,237.83
186,556.16
208,822.98
285,419.13
269,601.80
347,025.50
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
55.25%
91.36%
91.30%
99.51%
111.79%
89.67%
120.33%
86.54%
68.88%
81.45%
92.01%
88.40%
105.46%
73.15%
113.51%
93.32%
90.14%
82.35%
98.49%
80.58%
95.67%
111.71%
145.68%
115.46%
56.51%
118.92%
91.92%
118.78%
112.65%
102.89%
90.63%
100.04%
88.61%
98.57%
Appendix C
of FY 2000
Dst.
Dst No. Type
2895
1 JACKSON C
2897
1 REDWOOD
2898
1 WESTBROOK
State Total
WADM00
1,775.32
1,916.40
528.82
977,263.59
Transportation
Costs FY 200
507,711.43
522,242.15
218,558.90
231,011,003.25
Page 119
Current
Revenue
FY 2000
550,911.56
537,018.07
196,107.16
224,197,394.43
Ratio Current
Revenue/
Transportation
Costs
108.51%
102.83%
89.73%
97.05%
Appendix C
OPTION 1
Regression Output: Option 1 Current Model using FY 2000 Data (Note: Based on review of the
unweighted and weighted results shown below, and to align the state total formula predicted cost
with the state total actual cost, the following formula was used to calculate predicted cost under
this model: LN(cost per pupil unit) = 6.40+.28*LN(sparsity index) + .14*LN(density index).
Results of Unweighted Analysis
Variables Entered/Removed(b)
Model
Variables Entered
1
Variables Removed Method
LNDENS, LNSPAR(a)
. Enter
a All requested variables entered.
b Dependent Variable: LNCST
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.722(a)
.521
.518
.25530
a Predictors: (Constant), LNDENS, LNSPAR
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of Squares df Mean Square
Regression
1 Residual
24.133
2
22.161 340
Total
F
Sig.
12.067 185.132 .000(a)
.065
46.294 342
Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
t
Beta
Model
(Constant)
B
Sig.
Std. Error
6.377
.039
163.720 .000
1 LNSPAR
.318
.028
.465
11.224 .000
LNDENS
.125
.013
.390
9.419 .000
a Dependent Variable: LNCST
120
Appendix D
Regression Output: Option 1 Current Model using FY 2000 Data Results of Analysis with
Districts Weighted Based on Pupil Units
Model
Variables Entered
1
LNDENS, LNSPAR(a)
. Enter
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.771(a)
.594
.594
.21199
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
df
64194.650
1 Residual
Mean Square
2
Sig.
32097.325 714230.270 .000(a)
43917.840 977261
Total
F
.045
108112.491 977263
Coefficients(a)
t
Beta
Model
(Constant)
B
Sig.
Std. Error
6.382
.001
5444.553 .000
1 LNSPAR
.262
.001
.225
311.661 .000
LNDENS
.147
.000
.643
892.824 .000
121
Appendix D
OPTION 2
Regression Output: Option 2 Current Model using FY 2000 Data, Excluding High Density
Districts (Note: Based on review of the unweighted and weighted results shown below, and to
align the state total formula predicted cost with the state total actual cost, the following formula
was used to calculate predicted cost under this model: For districts with 200 or more pupil units
per square mile, predicted cost was set equal to average cost for districts in this group ($177 / PU
for FY 2000). For districts with fewer than 200 pupil units per square mile: LN(cost per pupil
unit) = 6.36+.30*LN(sparsity index) + .11*LN(density index). Results of Unweighted Analysis.
Model
Variables Entered
1
LNDENS, LNSPAR(a)
. Enter
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.651(a)
.424
.421
.25446
ANOVA(b)
Model
Regression
14.837
1 Residual
2
20.138 311
Total
F
Sig.
7.418 114.567 .000(a)
.065
34.975 313
Coefficients(a)
t
Beta
Model
B
(Constant)
Sig.
Std. Error
6.302
.045
139.127 .000
1 LNSPAR
.339
.029
.560
11.694 .000
LNDENS
7.286E-02
.021
.167
3.479 .001
122
Appendix D
Regression Output: Option 2 Current Model using FY 2000 Data, Excluding High Density
Districts Results of Analysis with Districts Weighted Based on Pupil Units.
Model
Variables Entered
1
LNDENS, LNSPAR(a)
. Enter
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.660(a)
.435
.435
.20481
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
df
17982.472
1 Residual
Mean Square
2
23338.468 556355
Total
F
Sig.
8991.236 214337.780 .000(a)
.042
41320.940 556357
Coefficients(a)
t
Beta
Model
(Constant)
B
Sig.
Std. Error
6.322
.001
5409.310 .000
1 LNSPAR
.310
.001
.416
366.678 .000
LNDENS
9.446E-02
.000
.356
313.755 .000
123
Appendix D
OPTION 4
Regression Output: Option 4 Cost per Pupil Transported Predicted based on Density Index and
Sparsity Index, Using FY 2000 Data (Note: Based on review of the unweighted and weighted
results shown below, and to align the state total formula predicted cost with the state total actual
cost, the following formula was used to calculate predicted cost under this model: LN(cost per
pupil transported) = 6.63+.26*LN(sparsity index) + .14*LN(density index). Sparsity and density
indexes used in this analysis are based on square miles per pupil transported. Results of
Unweighted Analysis
Model
1
Variables Entered
LNDENSX, LNSPARX(a)
. Enter
b Dependent Variable: LNCSTX
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.794(a)
.631
.629
.21880
a Predictors: (Constant), LNDENSX, LNSPARX
ANOVA(b)
Model
Regression
27.840
1 Residual
2
Sig.
13.920 290.758 .000(a)
16.277 340
Total
F
.048
44.117 342
Coefficients(a)
t
Beta
Model
B
Sig.
Std. Error
(Constant)
6.594
.028
1 LNSPARX
232.013 .000
.277
.021
.494
13.334 .000
LNDENSX
.133
.011
.435
11.746 .000
a Dependent Variable: LNCSTX
124
Appendix D
Sparsity Index, Using FY 2000 Data Results of Analysis with Districts Weighted Based on Pupil
Units
Model
1
Variables Entered
LNDENSX, LNSPARX(a)
. Enter
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.821(a)
.675
.675
.18626
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
df
70361.463
1 Residual
Mean Square
2
Sig.
35180.731 1014095.485 .000(a)
33902.865 977261
Total
F
.035
104264.328 977263
Coefficients(a)
t
Beta
Model
B
Sig.
Std. Error
(Constant)
6.588
.001
8243.817 .000
1 LNSPARX
.253
.001
.281
424.989 .000
LNDENSX
.134
.000
.647
977.638 .000
125
Appendix D
OPTION 5
Sparsity Index, High Density Districts Excluded from Regression Analysis Using FY 2000 Data
(Note: Based on review of the unweighted and weighted results shown below, and to align the
state total formula predicted cost with the state total actual cost, the following formula was used
to calculate predicted cost under this model: LN(cost per pupil transported) =
6.56+.27*LN(sparsity index) + .11*LN(density index). Sparsity and density indexes used in this
analysis are based on square miles per pupil transported. Results of Unweighted Analysis.
Model
1
Variables Entered
LNDENSX, LNSPARX(a)
. Enter
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.749(a)
.561
.558
.21858
ANOVA(b)
Model
Regression
19.515
1 Residual
2
15.289 320
Total
F
Sig.
9.758 204.235 .000(a)
.048
34.804 322
Coefficients(a)
t
Beta
Model
B
Sig.
Std. Error
(Constant)
6.560
.032
202.439 .000
1 LNSPARX
.285
.021
.563
13.511 .000
LNDENSX
.111
.015
.300
7.204 .000
126
Appendix D
Sparsity Index, High Density Districts Excluded from Regression Analysis Using FY 2000 Data
Results of Analysis with Districts Weighted Based on Pupil Units.
Model
Variables Entered
1
LNDENSX, LNSPARX(a)
. Enter
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.811(a)
.657
.657
.16948
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
df
38090.555
1 Residual
Mean Square
2
Sig.
19045.278 663052.816 .000(a)
19870.726 691790
Total
F
.029
57961.282 691792
Coefficients(a)
t
Beta
Model
B
Sig.
Std. Error
(Constant)
6.563
.001
8866.162 .000
1 LNSPARX
.269
.001
.392
491.179 .000
LNDENSX
.114
.000
.548
685.203 .000
127
Appendix D
OPTION 6
Regression Output: Option 6 Cost per Pupil Transported Predicted based on Density Index,
Sparsity Index, and Eligible Mileage Using FY 2000 Data (Note: Based on review of the
unweighted and weighted results shown below, and to align the state total formula predicted cost
with the state total actual cost, the following formula was used to calculate predicted cost under
this model: LN(cost per pupil transported) = 4.61+.12*LN(sparsity index) + .07*LN(density
index) + .33*LN(miles perpupil transported) . Sparsity and density indexes used in this analysis
are based on square miles per pupil transported. Results of Unweighted Analysis.
Model
1
Variables Entered
LNDENSX, LNSPARX, LNELMILE(a)
. Enter
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.833(a)
.694
.691
.19954
a Predictors: (Constant), LNDENSX, LNSPARX, LNELMILE
ANOVA(b)
Model
Regression
30.620
1 Residual
3
13.498 339
Total
F
Sig.
10.207 256.345 .000(a)
.040
44.117 342
Coefficients(a)
t
Beta
Model
1
B
Sig.
Std. Error
(Constant)
4.593
.241
19.075 .000
LNSPARX
.129
.026
.231
4.985 .000
LNELMILE
.327
.039
.491
8.356 .000
LNDENSX
6.258E-02
.013
.205
4.708 .000
128
Appendix D
Regression Output: Option 6 Cost per Pupil Transported Predicted based on Density Index,
Sparsity Index, and Eligible Mileage Using FY 2000 Data Results of Analysis with Districts
Weighted Based on Pupil Units
Model
1
Variables Entered
LNDENSX, LNSPARX, LNELMILE(a)
. Enter
Model Summary
Model
1
R
.866(a)
.749
.749
.16359
ANOVA(b)
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
df
78111.530
1 Residual
Mean Square
3
Sig.
26037.177 972939.161 .000(a)
26152.797 977260
Total
F
.027
104264.328 977263
Coefficients(a)
t
Model
1
B
Sig.
Beta
Std. Error
(Constant)
4.610
.004
1231.634 .000
LNSPARX
.109
.001
.122
186.793 .000
LNELMILE
.329
.001
.472
538.144 .000
LNDENSX
7.564E-02
.000
.365
467.164 .000
129
Appendix D
Graph 1
Actual vs Predicted Transportation Cost / Pupil Unit
Current Law
1200
1000
800
Cost per Pupil Unit
600
400
Predicted - Curr Law
Log of Sq Mi / PU
200
Actual Cost / PU
0
Log of Sq Mi / PU
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Log of Sq Miles / Pupil Unit
Graph 2
Option 1: Current Model with Updated Data
1200
1000
800
Cost per Pupil Unit
600
400
Predicted - Option 1
Log of Sq Mi / PU
200
Actual Cost / PU
0
Log of Sq Mi / PU
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
130
Appendix D
Graph 3
Option 2: High Density Districts Excl From Regression
1200
1000
800
Cost per Pupil Unit
600
400
Log of Sq Mi / PU
200
Actual Cost / PU
0
Log of Sq Mi / PU
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Graph 4
Predicted Transportation Cost / Pupil Unit
Current Law vs Options 1 and 2
800
700
600
500
400
Cost per Pupil Unit
Log of Sq Mi / PU
300
Log of Sq Mi / PU
200
Predicted - Curr Law
100
Log of Sq Mi / PU
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Log of SQ Miles / Pupil Unit
131
Appendix D
Graph 5
Transportation Cost / Pupil Transported
Option 4: Per Pupil Transported based on Density / Sparsity
1400
1200
1000
Cost / Pupil Transported
800
600
400
Sq Mi/Pupils Trn
200
Act Cst/Pupil Trn
0
Sq Mi/Pupils Trn
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Log of Sq Miles / Pupil Transported
Graph 6
Option 5: Per Pupil Transp; Excl High Density Distr from Regression
1400
1200
1000
Cost per Pupil Transported
800
600
400
Sq Mi/Pupils Trn
200
Act Cst/Pupil Trn
0
Sq Mi/Pupils Trn
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Log of Sq Mi / Pupil Transported
132
Appendix D
Graph 7
Option 4 vs Option 5
1000
900
800
700
Cost / Pupil Transported
600
500
400
Sq Mi/Pupils Trn
300
200
Sq Mi/Pupils Trn
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
Graph 8
Option 6: Per Pupil Transported Based on Density / Sparsity and Mileage
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
LN (Sq Mi/Pupils Trn
200
Act Cst / Pup Trn
0
LN (Sq Mi/Pupils Trn
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
133
Appendix D
Graph 9
Option 6 vs Option 4
1000
800
600
400
200
LN (SqMi/Pupils Trn)
0
LN (SqMi/Pupils Trn)
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
134
Appendix D
OPTION 1:
IMPACT OF UPDATING TRANSPORTATION SPARSITY FORMULA FOR FY 2000 DATA
Districts sorted based on PU/Sq Mile
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
State Totals
84,282
977,264
11.6
MINNEAPOLIS
ST. PAUL
RICHFIELD
SOUTH ST. PAUL
BROOKLYN CENTER
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
EDINA
ROBBINSDALE
FRIDLEY
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
ST. LOUIS PARK
OSSEO
BURNSVILLE
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
ROSEVILLE
EDEN PRAIRIE
BLOOMINGTON
MOUNDS VIEW
HOPKINS
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
MINNETONKA
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
SPRING LAKE PARK
WAYZATA
WHITE BEAR LAKE
INVER GROVE
SOUTH WASHINGTON
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
MAHTOMEDI
LAKEVILLE
PRIOR LAKE
WESTONKA
CHASKA
58
56
8
6
3
6
13
30
5
3
11
65
36
37
22
34
38
43
29
107
32
172
28
19
44
46
22
81
27
28
86
49
28
84
58,742
55,844
4,899
3,741
1,641
3,704
7,480
16,592
2,691
1,270
5,026
25,563
13,493
13,368
7,581
11,686
12,895
13,901
9,589
32,261
9,065
47,907
7,540
4,609
10,396
10,852
5,057
17,800
5,712
3,528
10,312
5,425
3,044
7,992
1,005.9
994.6
612.4
612.3
610.1
597.5
566.6
561.3
501.0
490.4
474.6
392.6
370.2
364.2
350.2
342.7
337.5
326.4
325.3
300.4
286.9
278.1
266.7
246.6
239.0
235.4
234.1
220.9
212.4
125.4
120.5
111.1
108.9
95.0
District
1
625
280
6
286
13
273
281
14
282
283
279
191
622
623
272
271
621
270
196
276
11
12
16
284
624
199
833
197
832
194
719
277
112
236.39
237.23
128.08
122.24
128.74
124.87
91.31
162.61
198.76
173.22
146.39
210.46
169.23
167.58
168.71
194.58
234.06
128.06
179.37
212.92
154.23
208.00
185.95
206.70
199.38
188.57
153.03
150.93
154.51
162.99
192.34
234.25
217.52
232.19
248.82
229.41
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
192.91
193.93
195.98
196.49
200.02
Appendix E
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
235.59
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
194.98
196.09
198.32
198.88
202.73
Total
Change
FY 2000
Data
Due to
2000 Data
6.18
6,036,950
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
2.07
2.16
2.34
2.39
2.71
64,082
60,920
5,344
4,081
1,790
4,041
8,159
18,100
2,935
1,386
5,483
27,886
14,719
14,583
8,270
12,748
14,068
15,165
10,460
35,193
9,889
52,262
8,225
5,028
11,341
11,838
5,517
19,418
6,231
7,289
22,240
12,692
7,262
21,628
Note: Current transportation sparsity formula is based on FY 1994 data. This spreadsheet shows potential impact of updating formula coefficients based on FY 2000 data
135
OPTION 1:
District
535
720
885
834
192
748
728
77
278
742
883
882
831
727
709
15
877
200
492
152
879
47
94
99
2144
761
659
110
138
656
347
700
256
531
717
911
423
861
ROCHESTER
SHAKOPEE
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
STILLWATER
FARMINGTON
SARTELL
ELK RIVER
MANKATO
ORONO
ST. CLOUD
ROCKFORD
MONTICELLO
FOREST LAKE
BIG LAKE
DULUTH
ST. FRANCIS
BUFFALO
HASTINGS
AUSTIN
MOORHEAD
DELANO
SAUK RAPIDS
CLOQUET
ESKO
CHISAGO LAKES
OWATONNA
NORTHFIELD
WACONIA
NORTH BRANCH
FARIBAULT
WILLMAR
HERMANTOWN
RED WING
BYRON
JORDAN
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
HUTCHINSON
WINONA
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
18,870
4,292
2,890
10,863
5,060
2,919
10,330
8,091
2,763
12,867
2,045
4,114
9,293
2,731
15,357
6,795
5,611
6,143
4,861
6,705
2,065
4,086
2,795
1,125
4,218
5,757
4,296
2,325
4,104
5,148
5,087
2,109
3,934
1,583
1,617
5,330
3,533
5,616
per
Sq Mile
86.7
84.3
71.8
70.9
65.7
61.5
60.2
59.2
56.8
52.4
47.2
46.7
43.5
43.3
43.1
41.7
37.7
34.5
34.0
33.0
31.2
29.7
28.9
26.5
25.5
24.8
24.1
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.2
22.8
22.3
22.3
22.2
21.7
21.0
20.9
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
211.08
271.91
267.87
225.28
249.00
288.08
290.09
153.42
332.53
215.13
230.97
280.10
297.30
259.12
152.22
322.68
291.08
231.38
146.90
246.98
293.07
268.29
248.97
283.79
252.89
200.85
258.52
313.42
301.54
204.86
304.89
261.52
255.55
154.69
195.08
226.56
243.62
237.73
Formula
Cost/PU
202.42
203.14
207.43
207.77
209.85
211.66
212.23
212.68
213.84
216.10
219.08
219.37
221.41
221.54
221.63
222.61
225.58
228.20
228.57
229.51
231.14
232.62
233.51
236.10
237.27
238.16
239.11
240.00
240.01
240.08
240.29
240.78
241.45
241.54
241.63
242.34
243.40
243.59
218
51
40
153
77
47
172
137
49
246
43
88
214
63
356
163
149
178
143
203
66
137
97
42
165
232
179
99
176
221
220
92
176
71
73
246
168
269
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
205.34
206.13
210.82
211.19
213.48
215.45
216.09
216.58
217.85
220.33
223.61
223.92
226.17
226.31
226.40
227.49
230.76
233.65
234.06
235.08
236.89
238.52
239.50
242.37
243.65
244.65
245.70
246.68
246.70
246.77
247.00
247.54
248.28
248.39
248.48
249.28
250.45
250.66
FY 2000
Data
2.93
2.99
3.40
3.43
3.63
3.80
3.85
3.90
4.01
4.23
4.52
4.55
4.76
4.77
4.78
4.88
5.18
5.44
5.48
5.58
5.75
5.90
5.99
6.27
6.39
6.48
6.59
6.68
6.68
6.69
6.71
6.76
6.84
6.85
6.85
6.93
7.05
7.07
Appendix E
Total
Change
Due to
2000 Data
55,223
12,849
9,811
37,231
18,344
11,087
39,810
31,532
11,077
54,426
9,252
18,728
44,200
13,022
73,369
33,133
29,049
33,444
26,650
37,405
11,869
24,109
16,753
7,048
26,953
37,332
28,293
15,531
27,426
34,435
34,136
14,262
26,890
10,840
11,085
36,948
24,893
39,691
136
OPTION 1:
District
726
241
204
750
508
881
300
721
829
876
695
704
181
111
413
477
206
534
2752
255
424
25
466
252
745
716
2687
2154
108
345
706
595
518
392
544
2805
2397
465
BECKER
ALBERT LEA
KASSON-MANTORVIL
ROCORI
ST. PETER
MAPLE LAKE
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
NEW PRAGUE
WASECA
ANNANDALE
CHISHOLM
PROCTOR
BRAINERD
WATERTOWN-MAYER
MARSHALL
PRINCETON
ALEXANDRIA
STEWARTVILLE
FAIRMONT AREA SC
PINE ISLAND
LESTER PRAIRIE
PINE POINT
DASSEL-COKATO
CANNON FALLS
ALBANY
BELLE PLAINE
HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
EVELETH-GILBERT
NORWOOD
NEW LONDON-SPICE
VIRGINIA
EAST GRAND FORKS
WORTHINGTON
LECENTER
FERGUS FALLS
ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
LESUEUR-HENDERSO
LITCHFIELD
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
2,319
4,692
1,947
2,532
2,252
1,099
1,808
2,905
2,549
2,262
1,131
2,439
8,264
1,572
2,557
3,611
5,050
1,991
2,492
1,266
593
70
2,465
1,833
1,949
1,351
1,383
1,719
1,359
2,029
1,900
2,109
2,922
931
3,698
1,490
1,777
2,508
per
Sq Mile
20.6
20.5
20.4
19.9
19.0
19.0
18.6
18.6
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.3
16.0
15.9
15.7
15.3
14.7
14.7
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.2
14.0
13.8
12.9
12.6
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.2
12.1
12.1
11.1
11.0
10.8
10.8
10.5
10.4
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
279.98
228.76
284.87
325.66
220.13
282.20
296.88
207.08
245.60
328.35
186.04
282.28
283.52
277.48
214.49
326.98
242.31
230.67
310.73
244.51
240.38
117.48
324.78
292.55
251.99
263.63
229.65
252.80
154.11
341.02
249.31
204.48
268.07
170.05
244.78
237.59
221.32
297.71
Formula
Cost/PU
243.91
244.07
244.27
245.03
246.50
246.57
247.17
247.28
250.68
250.69
250.81
251.52
252.19
252.43
252.85
253.51
254.97
255.02
255.89
255.94
255.94
256.11
256.66
257.01
259.39
260.07
260.69
260.81
261.25
261.29
261.41
261.47
264.42
264.80
265.34
265.40
266.32
266.65
112
228
95
127
118
58
97
156
152
135
68
150
517
99
163
235
344
136
175
89
42
5
177
133
152
107
112
139
112
167
157
174
263
85
342
138
169
241
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
251.01
251.18
251.41
252.25
253.88
253.97
254.62
254.75
258.52
258.53
258.67
259.45
260.20
260.46
260.93
261.67
263.29
263.35
264.31
264.37
264.37
264.55
265.17
265.55
268.21
268.97
269.65
269.79
270.28
270.33
270.46
270.52
273.82
274.23
274.84
274.90
275.93
276.30
FY 2000
Data
7.10
7.12
7.14
7.22
7.38
7.39
7.46
7.47
7.84
7.84
7.86
7.93
8.01
8.04
8.08
8.16
8.32
8.33
8.42
8.43
8.43
8.45
8.51
8.55
8.82
8.90
8.97
8.98
9.03
9.03
9.05
9.05
9.39
9.44
9.50
9.51
9.61
9.65
Appendix E
Total
Change
Due to
2000 Data
16,464
33,394
13,903
18,289
16,624
8,121
13,477
21,692
19,991
17,739
8,886
19,354
66,190
12,631
20,667
29,456
42,014
16,574
20,988
10,672
4,998
594
20,975
15,671
17,192
12,018
12,403
15,438
12,275
18,335
17,192
19,097
27,448
8,785
35,128
14,169
17,084
24,202
137
OPTION 1:
District
482
394
463
738
2859
88
139
22
701
316
858
129
323
578
813
533
2155
93
2143
314
332
75
186
763
739
741
806
740
810
31
743
391
51
912
485
2753
487
195
LITTLE FALLS
MONTGOMERY-LONSD
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
HOLDINGFORD
GLENCOE-SILVER L
NEW ULM
RUSH CITY
DETROIT LAKES
HIBBING
GREENWAY
ST. CHARLES
MONTEVIDEO
FRANCONIA
PINE CITY
LAKE CITY
DOVER-EYOTA
WADENA-DEER CREE
CARLTON
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
BRAHAM
MORA
ST. CLAIR
PEQUOT LAKES
MEDFORD
KIMBALL
PAYNESVILLE
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
MELROSE
PLAINVIEW
BEMIDJI
SAUK CENTRE
CLEVELAND
FOLEY
MILACA
ROYALTON
LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
UPSALA
RANDOLPH
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
3,968
1,426
1,052
1,245
2,207
3,193
1,071
3,237
3,400
1,832
1,284
1,773
41
2,046
1,795
901
1,719
967
1,327
1,224
2,290
657
1,327
637
1,077
1,429
673
1,813
1,287
6,367
1,507
508
2,001
2,130
831
1,798
503
496
per
Sq Mile
10.4
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
282.87
228.39
308.70
226.62
291.05
250.18
295.22
306.42
226.13
319.77
237.77
231.58
347.43
333.69
258.24
295.01
243.12
362.77
273.45
284.19
258.66
153.64
331.04
201.86
346.45
290.79
292.86
332.21
321.11
401.85
267.13
202.31
283.62
312.20
235.41
283.40
278.98
309.71
Formula
Cost/PU
266.68
266.73
266.87
267.40
267.54
267.64
267.85
268.11
268.18
268.41
269.02
269.74
270.10
270.51
270.91
271.56
271.63
272.09
272.20
272.35
272.60
272.69
273.24
273.69
273.83
274.12
275.18
275.32
276.57
277.18
277.50
277.75
278.08
278.41
278.95
279.11
279.12
279.16
382
137
102
122
218
316
107
325
342
185
132
186
4
220
195
100
191
109
149
139
261
75
154
75
127
170
82
223
164
825
197
67
266
285
113
246
69
68
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
276.33
276.39
276.55
277.14
277.30
277.41
277.64
277.93
278.01
278.27
278.94
279.75
280.15
280.61
281.06
281.79
281.86
282.38
282.50
282.67
282.94
283.04
283.66
284.16
284.32
284.64
285.84
285.98
287.38
288.07
288.43
288.70
289.08
289.44
290.05
290.23
290.24
290.28
FY 2000
Data
9.65
9.66
9.68
9.74
9.75
9.77
9.79
9.82
9.83
9.86
9.93
10.01
10.05
10.10
10.15
10.22
10.23
10.29
10.30
10.32
10.35
10.36
10.42
10.47
10.49
10.53
10.65
10.67
10.82
10.89
10.93
10.96
11.00
11.04
11.10
11.12
11.12
11.13
Appendix E
Total
Change
Due to
2000 Data
38,309
13,778
10,181
12,124
21,526
31,182
10,487
31,790
33,416
18,056
12,744
17,744
416
20,666
18,219
9,212
17,588
9,952
13,665
12,631
23,691
6,807
13,829
6,674
11,300
15,046
7,166
19,336
13,925
69,327
16,467
5,567
22,008
23,510
9,220
19,991
5,595
5,523
138
OPTION 1:
District
811
2897
2125
840
150
2137
712
227
177
2310
549
203
182
2071
2184
333
756
857
2172
297
564
85
2164
97
253
299
116
769
2759
837
239
497
593
548
486
2168
2534
2860
WABASHA-KELLOGG
REDWOOD
TRITON
ST. JAMES
HAWLEY
KINGSLAND
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
CHATFIELD
WINDOM
SIBLEY EAST
PERHAM
HAYFIELD
CROSBY-IRONTON
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
LUVERNE
OGILVIE
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
LEWISTON
KENYON-WANAMINGO
SPRING GROVE
THIEF RIVER FALL
SPRINGFIELD
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
MOOSE LAKE
GOODHUE
CALEDONIA
PILLAGER
MORRIS
EAGLE VALLEY
MADELIA
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
LYLE
CROOKSTON
PELICAN RAPIDS
SWANVILLE
N.R.H.E.G.
BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
BLUE EARTH AREA
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
993
1,916
1,511
1,538
1,008
1,225
921
1,046
1,298
1,551
2,101
1,209
1,968
1,332
1,552
893
1,011
884
1,226
496
2,591
799
1,460
837
639
1,249
903
1,127
673
733
888
319
2,038
1,646
453
1,158
1,182
1,914
per
Sq Mile
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
316.02
272.51
243.08
260.04
212.19
263.25
397.41
257.90
241.82
240.17
317.23
285.28
301.44
401.57
290.36
312.16
274.21
260.17
342.61
246.18
294.31
184.36
349.06
350.36
372.60
243.43
264.14
242.02
306.38
254.39
349.78
225.91
151.83
281.40
237.02
299.63
361.75
248.23
Formula
Cost/PU
279.60
280.22
280.52
281.29
281.59
282.39
282.73
283.95
284.09
285.03
285.56
285.96
286.27
287.16
287.25
287.88
288.34
289.26
289.27
289.46
289.80
290.33
291.01
291.23
291.24
291.52
291.60
292.96
293.11
293.14
293.53
294.35
294.37
294.40
294.45
294.59
294.63
294.85
137
270
215
223
147
183
139
163
203
249
342
199
327
226
264
155
177
159
221
90
473
148
275
158
121
238
173
223
134
146
178
65
413
334
92
236
241
391
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
290.78
291.48
291.80
292.68
293.00
293.91
294.28
295.65
295.82
296.86
297.46
297.91
298.25
299.25
299.35
300.06
300.58
301.61
301.62
301.83
302.22
302.81
303.57
303.82
303.84
304.16
304.24
305.77
305.93
305.97
306.40
307.34
307.35
307.39
307.45
307.61
307.65
307.90
FY 2000
Data
11.18
11.25
11.29
11.38
11.42
11.51
11.56
11.70
11.72
11.83
11.90
11.95
11.99
12.09
12.11
12.18
12.24
12.35
12.35
12.38
12.42
12.48
12.57
12.59
12.60
12.63
12.64
12.81
12.83
12.83
12.88
12.98
12.98
12.99
12.99
13.01
13.02
13.04
Appendix E
Total
Change
Due to
2000 Data
11,100
21,566
17,062
17,507
11,509
14,100
10,646
12,247
15,218
18,360
25,000
14,448
23,590
16,106
18,782
10,885
12,379
10,914
15,147
6,142
32,175
9,972
18,342
10,536
8,054
15,771
11,410
14,433
8,626
9,404
11,432
4,143
26,462
21,377
5,881
15,072
15,392
24,966
139
OPTION 1:
District
2198
484
2135
2835
23
553
2149
2170
495
2689
213
173
242
818
786
361
787
238
207
2887
499
2134
294
2895
2886
2190
2889
91
309
2396
671
821
417
409
500
550
511
2167
FILLMORE CENTRAL
PIERZ
MAPLE RIVER
JANESVILLE-WALDO
FRAZEE
NEW YORK MILLS
MINNEWASKA
STAPLES-MOTLEY
GRAND MEADOW
PIPESTONE-JASPER
OSAKIS
MOUNTAIN LAKE
ALDEN
VERNDALE
BERTHA-HEWITT
INTERNATIONAL FA
BROWERVILLE
MABEL-CANTON
BRANDON
MCLEOD WEST SCHO
LEROY
UNITED SOUTH CEN
HOUSTON
JACKSON C
GLENVILLE-EMMONS
YELLOW MEDICINE
LAKE PARK AUDUBO
BARNUM
PARK RAPIDS
A.C.G.C.
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
MENAHGA
TRACY
TYLER
SOUTHLAND
UNDERWOOD
ADRIAN
LAKEVIEW
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
1,027
1,140
1,431
944
1,515
850
2,106
2,182
436
1,887
695
613
371
452
591
2,007
501
491
390
680
497
1,388
616
1,775
601
1,679
866
773
2,293
1,364
453
822
920
435
760
465
665
675
per
Sq Mile
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
335.77
349.08
334.21
204.93
371.60
341.04
314.10
385.20
207.54
322.67
258.77
176.57
248.68
184.95
414.78
275.33
368.91
240.19
389.91
339.08
284.58
330.68
235.48
285.98
301.66
407.98
351.25
363.40
344.54
349.06
260.66
411.94
286.31
340.18
414.11
323.06
350.51
251.25
Formula
Cost/PU
295.73
296.24
297.58
298.54
298.60
299.24
300.15
300.65
300.95
301.11
301.62
303.17
304.87
305.26
305.65
305.84
305.98
306.57
307.27
307.31
307.91
309.92
310.12
310.32
310.39
311.03
311.23
311.77
312.67
313.01
313.25
313.76
314.09
314.88
315.07
315.18
315.42
315.84
212
237
303
202
325
184
460
480
96
418
155
139
86
105
138
472
118
116
93
163
120
343
153
441
149
421
218
195
587
350
117
213
240
114
200
123
176
179
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
308.88
309.46
310.97
312.05
312.12
312.84
313.86
314.42
314.76
314.94
315.51
317.26
319.18
319.61
320.06
320.27
320.43
321.09
321.88
321.93
322.60
324.87
325.10
325.32
325.41
326.13
326.36
326.96
327.98
328.37
328.63
329.21
329.58
330.48
330.69
330.81
331.09
331.57
FY 2000
Data
13.15
13.22
13.38
13.51
13.51
13.59
13.71
13.77
13.81
13.83
13.89
14.09
14.31
14.36
14.41
14.43
14.45
14.52
14.61
14.62
14.70
14.95
14.98
15.00
15.01
15.10
15.12
15.19
15.31
15.35
15.38
15.45
15.49
15.60
15.62
15.64
15.67
15.72
Appendix E
Total
Change
Due to
2000 Data
13,511
15,072
19,158
12,748
20,473
11,548
28,866
30,049
6,023
26,101
9,662
8,636
5,305
6,483
8,509
28,963
7,239
7,130
5,697
9,934
7,307
20,749
9,223
26,638
9,024
25,347
13,100
11,736
35,111
20,947
6,965
12,699
14,261
6,790
11,865
7,267
10,412
10,605
140
OPTION 1:
District
2448
2365
84
542
2180
62
2711
777
768
2890
458
2169
308
696
229
801
547
414
507
2159
261
2165
100
846
378
513
514
415
545
505
2364
319
2174
208
836
775
113
640
MARTIN COUNTY WE
G.F.W.
SLEEPY EYE
BATTLE LAKE
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
ORTONVILLE
MESABI EAST
BENSON
HANCOCK
D.R.S.H.
TRUMAN
MURRAY COUNTY CE
NEVIS
ELY
LANESBORO
BROWNS VALLEY
PARKERS PRAIRIE
MINNEOTA
NICOLLET
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
ASHBY
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
WRENSHALL
BRECKENRIDGE
DAWSON-BOYD
BREWSTER
ELLSWORTH
LYND
HENNING
FULDA
BELGRADE-BROOTEN
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
PINE RIVER-BACKU
EVANSVILLE
BUTTERFIELD
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
WALKER-HACKENSAC
WABASSO
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
1,053
1,306
774
700
1,134
664
1,383
1,395
308
1,073
510
1,060
426
841
354
179
669
577
454
747
318
1,358
403
1,090
780
242
254
219
532
664
1,054
834
1,598
362
277
729
1,329
609
per
Sq Mile
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
365.05
282.82
179.52
335.43
413.94
247.77
357.74
286.41
205.66
327.96
290.54
429.47
571.69
253.66
544.79
313.04
439.19
194.92
318.32
286.55
356.48
345.12
435.27
224.18
253.91
491.67
222.85
277.66
331.63
320.78
334.96
401.10
347.65
258.42
283.55
405.01
415.74
230.34
Formula
Cost/PU
315.90
316.17
316.23
319.35
320.17
321.12
322.47
322.56
323.02
323.28
323.94
324.60
324.62
324.88
325.22
325.58
325.81
327.13
327.81
327.89
327.99
328.05
329.21
330.15
330.58
330.69
331.15
331.18
332.06
332.55
333.32
333.56
335.92
336.70
336.79
337.13
337.47
339.06
280
349
207
194
318
188
398
402
89
312
150
313
126
249
105
54
200
176
139
229
98
418
126
344
247
77
81
70
171
215
345
274
539
123
94
249
456
213
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
331.63
331.93
332.00
335.53
336.46
337.53
339.06
339.16
339.68
339.98
340.72
341.48
341.50
341.80
342.18
342.59
342.84
344.35
345.11
345.21
345.32
345.39
346.70
347.77
348.25
348.38
348.90
348.93
349.93
350.49
351.36
351.64
354.32
355.20
355.30
355.69
356.07
357.88
FY 2000
Data
15.73
15.76
15.77
16.18
16.29
16.41
16.59
16.60
16.67
16.70
16.79
16.88
16.88
16.91
16.96
17.01
17.04
17.21
17.30
17.31
17.33
17.34
17.49
17.62
17.67
17.69
17.75
17.76
17.87
17.94
18.04
18.08
18.40
18.50
18.52
18.56
18.61
18.82
Appendix E
Total
Change
Due to
2000 Data
16,559
20,581
12,204
11,319
18,472
10,892
22,948
23,162
5,128
17,927
8,569
17,885
7,187
14,230
5,999
3,044
11,390
9,931
7,848
12,937
5,502
23,539
7,055
19,200
13,791
4,286
4,507
3,884
9,506
11,908
19,023
15,079
29,405
6,707
5,124
13,530
24,721
11,460
141
OPTION 1:
District
418
115
2754
630
432
318
820
516
891
577
402
601
146
473
480
2342
330
682
317
635
162
2884
2609
411
32
2536
404
403
2853
2898
2527
581
2215
435
306
2311
1
611
RUSSELL
CASS LAKE
CEDAR MOUNTAIN
RED LAKE FALLS
MAHNOMEN
GRAND RAPIDS
SEBEKA
ROUND LAKE
CANBY
WILLOW RIVER
HENDRICKS
FOSSTON
BARNESVILLE
ISLE
ONAMIA
WEST CENTRAL ARE
HERON LAKE-OKABE
ROSEAU
DEER RIVER
MILROY
BAGLEY
RED ROCK CENTRAL
WIN-E-MAC
BALATON
BLACKDUCK
GRANADA HUNTLEYLAKE BENTON
IVANHOE
LAC QUI PARLE VA
WESTBROOK
NORMAN COUNTY WE
EDGERTON
NORMAN COUNTY EA
WAUBUN
LAPORTE
CLEARBROOK-GONVI
AITKIN
CYRUS
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
222
1,163
522
513
929
5,263
677
165
889
580
229
784
879
568
950
1,166
383
1,761
1,322
209
1,329
796
668
241
926
427
306
309
1,565
529
397
282
561
788
318
636
1,557
152
per
Sq Mile
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
331.73
483.86
426.72
413.55
461.61
391.78
478.77
40.36
229.83
522.08
329.70
301.26
311.38
398.55
475.43
383.77
328.67
362.92
480.90
415.34
386.11
318.24
342.06
471.35
429.42
397.53
306.59
329.83
320.04
413.30
540.62
345.03
419.14
444.17
506.89
681.46
395.08
516.14
Formula
Cost/PU
342.90
342.94
343.86
344.29
344.43
344.58
346.98
347.52
347.78
347.86
348.12
348.39
349.01
349.99
350.05
350.62
351.94
352.44
353.34
355.40
358.14
358.50
360.75
361.71
364.13
365.77
366.17
368.12
369.52
370.84
372.37
372.64
373.42
373.59
374.47
376.53
377.49
378.14
81
424
193
190
345
1,956
259
63
342
224
89
304
343
224
375
463
154
714
541
88
573
344
296
108
426
200
144
148
761
261
199
142
284
400
163
333
822
81
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
362.25
362.30
363.35
363.83
363.99
364.17
366.90
367.51
367.81
367.90
368.19
368.50
369.21
370.32
370.39
371.04
372.55
373.12
374.14
376.49
379.62
380.03
382.60
383.70
386.46
388.34
388.80
391.03
392.63
394.14
395.89
396.19
397.09
397.28
398.29
400.66
401.75
402.49
FY 2000
Data
19.35
19.36
19.48
19.54
19.56
19.58
19.92
19.99
20.03
20.04
20.07
20.11
20.20
20.33
20.34
20.42
20.61
20.68
20.80
21.09
21.48
21.53
21.85
21.99
22.33
22.57
22.62
22.90
23.11
23.30
23.52
23.56
23.67
23.69
23.82
24.12
24.26
24.36
Appendix E
Total
Change
Due to
2000 Data
4,296
22,510
10,178
10,022
18,175
103,066
13,488
3,300
17,801
11,631
4,601
15,767
17,744
11,552
19,322
23,816
7,885
36,403
27,504
4,415
28,553
17,131
14,602
5,309
20,682
9,645
6,922
7,085
36,162
12,320
9,338
6,649
13,278
18,670
7,567
15,341
37,776
3,698
142
OPTION 1:
District
2580
803
584
81
914
2854
599
690
38
95
371
2176
592
600
2888
628
2
850
771
676
441
2856
815
698
2171
627
264
381
2358
4
118
852
2142
707
2683
390
561
356
EAST CENTRAL
WHEATON AREA SCH
RUTHTON
COMFREY
ULEN-HITTERDAL
ADA-BORUP
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
WARROAD
RED LAKE
CROMWELL
BELLINGHAM
WARREN-ALVARADOCLIMAX
FISHER
CLINTON-GRACEVIL
PLUMMER
HILL CITY
ROTHSAY
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
BADGER
MARSHALL COUNTY
STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
PRINSBURG
FLOODWOOD
KITTSON CENTRAL
OKLEE
HERMAN-NORCROSS
LAKE SUPERIOR
TRI-COUNTY
MCGREGOR
REMER-LONGVILLE
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
NETT LAKE
GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
LAKE OF THE WOOD
GOODRIDGE
LANCASTER
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
1,175
537
196
224
382
614
628
1,646
1,725
359
183
847
202
244
729
181
393
265
333
256
423
540
34
387
571
258
234
2,508
423
740
734
233
3,668
94
607
944
212
213
per
Sq Mile
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
428.20
272.80
366.97
297.54
353.69
678.84
577.50
388.56
310.67
413.94
474.14
306.77
478.70
670.56
391.34
456.91
456.13
317.44
409.40
354.94
456.72
347.64
398.30
465.41
511.11
442.68
253.11
408.95
496.30
543.03
620.96
437.53
468.07
634.62
639.01
475.31
712.02
515.26
Formula
Cost/PU
378.54
379.65
381.22
381.31
382.39
383.60
384.92
386.03
388.20
388.37
389.28
389.65
390.19
390.97
391.51
393.67
399.93
399.99
403.03
408.49
410.10
413.43
421.55
423.04
423.64
428.17
430.22
449.53
453.12
455.80
460.96
461.14
461.71
462.39
467.43
468.35
480.66
497.06
627
290
108
123
212
345
357
947
1,014
211
109
505
121
147
443
112
259
175
226
183
307
404
28
317
470
221
204
2,592
451
806
836
265
4,201
108
729
1,143
284
323
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
402.95
404.23
406.03
406.14
407.37
408.76
410.28
411.55
414.04
414.24
415.28
415.71
416.33
417.22
417.84
420.33
427.53
427.60
431.10
437.39
439.25
443.09
452.47
454.19
454.89
460.13
462.51
484.89
489.07
492.18
498.18
498.40
499.06
499.85
505.72
506.79
521.15
540.33
FY 2000
Data
24.42
24.58
24.81
24.82
24.98
25.16
25.36
25.52
25.84
25.87
26.00
26.06
26.14
26.25
26.33
26.66
27.60
27.61
28.07
28.90
29.15
29.66
30.92
31.15
31.25
31.96
32.28
35.36
35.95
36.38
37.23
37.25
37.35
37.46
38.29
38.44
40.49
43.27
Appendix E
Total
Change
Due to
2000 Data
28,692
13,205
4,867
5,567
9,554
15,458
15,928
41,994
44,578
9,276
4,751
22,079
5,293
6,400
19,198
4,831
10,855
7,305
9,360
7,405
12,318
16,010
1,059
12,063
17,854
8,232
7,561
88,681
15,206
26,914
27,323
8,665
136,979
3,515
23,245
36,308
8,589
9,197
143
OPTION 1:
District
166
36
362
447
363
COOK COUNTY
KELLIHER
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
GRYGLA
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
845
277
366
230
344
per
Sq Mile
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
483.26
551.94
405.69
909.25
1050.81
Formula
Cost/PU
527.43
551.21
559.37
618.23
657.26
1,616
627
876
809
1,532
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Cost/PU
New Data
575.96
603.97
613.61
683.42
729.99
FY 2000
Data
48.53
52.76
54.24
65.19
72.73
Appendix E
Total
Change
Due to
2000 Data
41,025
14,617
19,827
14,987
25,014
144
OPTION #2:
Update for FY 2000 Data; Use Average Cost for High Density Districts and
Exclude High Density from Regression Analysis
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
Option 2
State Totals
84,282
977,264
11.6
229.41
234.89
MINNEAPOLIS
ST. PAUL
RICHFIELD
SOUTH ST. PAUL
BROOKLYN CENTER
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
EDINA
ROBBINSDALE
FRIDLEY
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
ST. LOUIS PARK
OSSEO
BURNSVILLE
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
ROSEVILLE
EDEN PRAIRIE
BLOOMINGTON
MOUNDS VIEW
HOPKINS
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
MINNETONKA
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
SPRING LAKE PARK
WAYZATA
WHITE BEAR LAKE
INVER GROVE
SOUTH WASHINGTON
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
MAHTOMEDI
LAKEVILLE
PRIOR LAKE
WESTONKA
58
56
8
6
3
6
13
30
5
3
11
65
36
37
22
34
38
43
29
107
32
172
28
19
44
46
22
81
27
28
86
49
28
58,742
55,844
4,899
3,741
1,641
3,704
7,480
16,592
2,691
1,270
5,026
25,563
13,493
13,368
7,581
11,686
12,895
13,901
9,589
32,261
9,065
47,907
7,540
4,609
10,396
10,852
5,057
17,800
5,712
3,528
10,312
5,425
3,044
1,005.9
994.6
612.4
612.3
610.1
597.5
566.6
561.3
501.0
490.4
474.6
392.6
370.2
364.2
350.2
342.7
337.5
326.4
325.3
300.4
286.9
278.1
266.7
246.6
239.0
235.4
234.1
220.9
212.4
125.4
120.5
111.1
108.9
District
1
625
280
6
286
13
273
281
14
282
283
279
191
622
623
272
271
621
270
196
276
11
12
16
284
624
199
833
197
832
194
719
277
Appendix E
236.39
237.23
128.08
122.24
128.74
124.87
91.31
162.61
198.76
173.22
146.39
210.46
169.23
167.58
168.71
194.58
234.06
128.06
179.37
212.92
154.23
208.00
185.95
206.70
199.38
188.57
153.03
150.93
154.51
162.99
192.34
234.25
217.52
232.19
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
192.91
193.93
195.98
196.49
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
177.00
209.70
210.63
212.51
212.98
Total
Option 2
Changes
Change
Option 2
5.48
5,354,010
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
-4.56
16.78
16.70
16.53
16.49
(268,040)
(254,815)
(22,354)
(17,072)
(7,489)
(16,903)
(34,129)
(75,709)
(12,277)
(5,796)
(22,935)
(116,642)
(61,568)
(60,999)
(34,592)
(53,324)
(58,842)
(63,432)
(43,752)
(147,204)
(41,362)
(218,600)
(34,403)
(21,031)
(47,437)
(49,517)
(23,075)
(81,221)
(26,065)
59,205
172,226
89,694
50,203
Spreadsheet shows the impact of funding high density districts based on average cost/pu for high density group and excluding high density districts from regression analysis used to determine
145
funding for other districts.
OPTION #2:
District
112
535
720
885
834
192
748
728
77
278
742
883
882
831
727
709
15
877
200
492
152
879
47
94
99
2144
761
659
110
138
656
347
700
256
531
717
911
CHASKA
ROCHESTER
SHAKOPEE
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
STILLWATER
FARMINGTON
SARTELL
ELK RIVER
MANKATO
ORONO
ST. CLOUD
ROCKFORD
MONTICELLO
FOREST LAKE
BIG LAKE
DULUTH
ST. FRANCIS
BUFFALO
HASTINGS
AUSTIN
MOORHEAD
DELANO
SAUK RAPIDS
CLOQUET
ESKO
CHISAGO LAKES
OWATONNA
NORTHFIELD
WACONIA
NORTH BRANCH
FARIBAULT
WILLMAR
HERMANTOWN
RED WING
BYRON
JORDAN
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
Appendix E
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
7,992
18,870
4,292
2,890
10,863
5,060
2,919
10,330
8,091
2,763
12,867
2,045
4,114
9,293
2,731
15,357
6,795
5,611
6,143
4,861
6,705
2,065
4,086
2,795
1,125
4,218
5,757
4,296
2,325
4,104
5,148
5,087
2,109
3,934
1,583
1,617
5,330
per
Sq Mile
95.0
86.7
84.3
71.8
70.9
65.7
61.5
60.2
59.2
56.8
52.4
47.2
46.7
43.5
43.3
43.1
41.7
37.7
34.5
34.0
33.0
31.2
29.7
28.9
26.5
25.5
24.8
24.1
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.2
22.8
22.3
22.3
22.2
21.7
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
248.82
211.08
271.91
267.87
225.28
249.00
288.08
290.09
153.42
332.53
215.13
230.97
280.10
297.30
259.12
152.22
322.68
291.08
231.38
146.90
246.98
293.07
268.29
248.97
283.79
252.89
200.85
258.52
313.42
301.54
204.86
304.89
261.52
255.55
154.69
195.08
226.56
Formula
Cost/PU
200.02
202.42
203.14
207.43
207.77
209.85
211.66
212.23
212.68
213.84
216.10
219.08
219.37
221.41
221.54
221.63
222.61
225.58
228.20
228.57
229.51
231.14
232.62
233.51
236.10
237.27
238.16
239.11
240.00
240.01
240.08
240.29
240.78
241.45
241.54
241.63
242.34
Cost/PU
Option 2
216.22
218.41
219.07
222.97
223.28
225.17
226.81
227.33
227.74
228.79
230.83
233.53
233.79
235.63
235.74
235.82
236.71
239.38
241.73
242.06
242.89
244.36
245.68
246.47
248.79
249.83
250.62
251.47
252.26
252.27
252.33
252.51
252.95
253.55
253.63
253.71
254.34
84
218
51
40
153
77
47
172
137
49
246
43
88
214
63
356
163
149
178
143
203
66
137
97
42
165
232
179
99
176
221
220
92
176
71
73
246
Option 2
Changes
16.19
15.99
15.93
15.54
15.51
15.32
15.16
15.10
15.06
14.95
14.73
14.45
14.42
14.21
14.20
14.19
14.10
13.79
13.52
13.49
13.39
13.22
13.06
12.97
12.69
12.56
12.46
12.36
12.26
12.26
12.25
12.23
12.17
12.10
12.09
12.08
12.00
Total
Change
Option 2
129,432
301,705
68,358
44,918
168,522
77,530
44,237
155,998
121,842
41,304
189,597
29,540
59,306
132,092
38,783
217,970
95,769
77,405
83,084
65,558
89,780
27,295
53,364
36,240
14,269
52,985
71,748
53,094
28,506
50,316
63,067
62,203
25,669
47,598
19,142
19,534
63,957
146
OPTION #2:
District
423
861
726
241
204
750
508
881
300
721
829
876
695
704
181
111
413
477
206
534
2752
255
424
25
466
252
745
716
2687
2154
108
345
706
595
518
392
544
HUTCHINSON
WINONA
BECKER
ALBERT LEA
KASSON-MANTORVIL
ROCORI
ST. PETER
MAPLE LAKE
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
NEW PRAGUE
WASECA
ANNANDALE
CHISHOLM
PROCTOR
BRAINERD
WATERTOWN-MAYER
MARSHALL
PRINCETON
ALEXANDRIA
STEWARTVILLE
FAIRMONT AREA SC
PINE ISLAND
LESTER PRAIRIE
PINE POINT
DASSEL-COKATO
CANNON FALLS
ALBANY
BELLE PLAINE
HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
EVELETH-GILBERT
NORWOOD
NEW LONDON-SPICE
VIRGINIA
EAST GRAND FORKS
WORTHINGTON
LECENTER
FERGUS FALLS
Appendix E
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
3,533
5,616
2,319
4,692
1,947
2,532
2,252
1,099
1,808
2,905
2,549
2,262
1,131
2,439
8,264
1,572
2,557
3,611
5,050
1,991
2,492
1,266
593
70
2,465
1,833
1,949
1,351
1,383
1,719
1,359
2,029
1,900
2,109
2,922
931
3,698
per
Sq Mile
21.0
20.9
20.6
20.5
20.4
19.9
19.0
19.0
18.6
18.6
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.3
16.0
15.9
15.7
15.3
14.7
14.7
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.2
14.0
13.8
12.9
12.6
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.2
12.1
12.1
11.1
11.0
10.8
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
243.62
237.73
279.98
228.76
284.87
325.66
220.13
282.20
296.88
207.08
245.60
328.35
186.04
282.28
283.52
277.48
214.49
326.98
242.31
230.67
310.73
244.51
240.38
117.48
324.78
292.55
251.99
263.63
229.65
252.80
154.11
341.02
249.31
204.48
268.07
170.05
244.78
Formula
Cost/PU
243.40
243.59
243.91
244.07
244.27
245.03
246.50
246.57
247.17
247.28
250.68
250.69
250.81
251.52
252.19
252.43
252.85
253.51
254.97
255.02
255.89
255.94
255.94
256.11
256.66
257.01
259.39
260.07
260.69
260.81
261.25
261.29
261.41
261.47
264.42
264.80
265.34
Cost/PU
Option 2
255.28
255.45
255.73
255.87
256.05
256.73
258.03
258.10
258.62
258.72
261.73
261.73
261.84
262.47
263.06
263.27
263.64
264.23
265.51
265.56
266.32
266.36
266.37
266.51
267.00
267.30
269.40
270.00
270.54
270.65
271.03
271.07
271.18
271.23
273.82
274.15
274.62
168
269
112
228
95
127
118
58
97
156
152
135
68
150
517
99
163
235
344
136
175
89
42
5
177
133
152
107
112
139
112
167
157
174
263
85
342
Option 2
Changes
11.88
11.86
11.82
11.81
11.78
11.70
11.53
11.52
11.45
11.44
11.05
11.05
11.03
10.95
10.87
10.84
10.79
10.71
10.54
10.54
10.43
10.43
10.43
10.41
10.34
10.30
10.01
9.93
9.85
9.84
9.79
9.78
9.77
9.76
9.40
9.35
9.28
Total
Change
Option 2
41,975
66,606
27,414
55,388
22,944
29,618
25,960
12,660
20,702
33,228
28,161
24,984
12,477
26,707
89,837
17,043
27,597
38,692
53,234
20,974
25,994
13,203
6,182
732
25,486
18,880
19,516
13,413
13,631
16,914
13,303
19,847
18,554
20,582
27,452
8,703
34,321
147
OPTION #2:
District
2805
2397
465
482
394
463
738
2859
88
139
22
701
316
858
129
323
578
813
533
2155
93
2143
314
332
75
186
763
739
741
806
740
810
31
743
391
51
912
ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
LESUEUR-HENDERSO
LITCHFIELD
LITTLE FALLS
MONTGOMERY-LONSD
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
HOLDINGFORD
GLENCOE-SILVER L
NEW ULM
RUSH CITY
DETROIT LAKES
HIBBING
GREENWAY
ST. CHARLES
MONTEVIDEO
FRANCONIA
PINE CITY
LAKE CITY
DOVER-EYOTA
WADENA-DEER CREE
CARLTON
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
BRAHAM
MORA
ST. CLAIR
PEQUOT LAKES
MEDFORD
KIMBALL
PAYNESVILLE
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
MELROSE
PLAINVIEW
BEMIDJI
SAUK CENTRE
CLEVELAND
FOLEY
MILACA
Appendix E
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
1,490
1,777
2,508
3,968
1,426
1,052
1,245
2,207
3,193
1,071
3,237
3,400
1,832
1,284
1,773
41
2,046
1,795
901
1,719
967
1,327
1,224
2,290
657
1,327
637
1,077
1,429
673
1,813
1,287
6,367
1,507
508
2,001
2,130
per
Sq Mile
10.8
10.5
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.5
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
237.59
221.32
297.71
282.87
228.39
308.70
226.62
291.05
250.18
295.22
306.42
226.13
319.77
237.77
231.58
347.43
333.69
258.24
295.01
243.12
362.77
273.45
284.19
258.66
153.64
331.04
201.86
346.45
290.79
292.86
332.21
321.11
401.85
267.13
202.31
283.62
312.20
Formula
Cost/PU
265.40
266.32
266.65
266.68
266.73
266.87
267.40
267.54
267.64
267.85
268.11
268.18
268.41
269.02
269.74
270.10
270.51
270.91
271.56
271.63
272.09
272.20
272.35
272.60
272.69
273.24
273.69
273.83
274.12
275.18
275.32
276.57
277.18
277.50
277.75
278.08
278.41
Cost/PU
Option 2
274.67
275.48
275.77
275.79
275.83
275.96
276.42
276.55
276.64
276.82
277.04
277.11
277.31
277.84
278.47
278.78
279.14
279.49
280.06
280.12
280.52
280.62
280.75
280.96
281.04
281.53
281.91
282.04
282.29
283.22
283.33
284.42
284.95
285.24
285.45
285.74
286.02
138
169
241
382
137
102
122
218
316
107
325
342
185
132
186
4
220
195
100
191
109
149
139
261
75
154
75
127
170
82
223
164
825
197
67
266
285
Option 2
Changes
9.27
9.16
9.12
9.11
9.11
9.09
9.02
9.01
8.99
8.97
8.94
8.93
8.90
8.82
8.73
8.68
8.63
8.58
8.50
8.49
8.43
8.42
8.40
8.37
8.35
8.28
8.23
8.21
8.17
8.03
8.02
7.85
7.78
7.73
7.70
7.66
7.61
Total
Change
Option 2
13,823
16,277
22,864
36,169
12,992
9,564
11,235
19,874
28,714
9,606
28,926
30,345
16,299
11,324
15,473
359
17,659
15,405
7,657
14,594
8,156
11,167
10,282
19,157
5,491
10,992
5,242
8,841
11,681
5,405
14,531
10,112
49,503
11,652
3,913
15,326
16,222
148
OPTION #2:
District
485
2753
487
195
811
2897
2125
840
150
2137
712
227
177
2310
549
203
182
2071
2184
333
756
857
2172
297
564
85
2164
97
253
299
116
769
2759
837
239
497
593
ROYALTON
LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
UPSALA
RANDOLPH
WABASHA-KELLOGG
REDWOOD
TRITON
ST. JAMES
HAWLEY
KINGSLAND
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
CHATFIELD
WINDOM
SIBLEY EAST
PERHAM
HAYFIELD
CROSBY-IRONTON
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
LUVERNE
OGILVIE
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
LEWISTON
KENYON-WANAMINGO
SPRING GROVE
THIEF RIVER FALL
SPRINGFIELD
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
MOOSE LAKE
GOODHUE
CALEDONIA
PILLAGER
MORRIS
EAGLE VALLEY
MADELIA
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
LYLE
CROOKSTON
Appendix E
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
831
1,798
503
496
993
1,916
1,511
1,538
1,008
1,225
921
1,046
1,298
1,551
2,101
1,209
1,968
1,332
1,552
893
1,011
884
1,226
496
2,591
799
1,460
837
639
1,249
903
1,127
673
733
888
319
2,038
per
Sq Mile
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
235.41
283.40
278.98
309.71
316.02
272.51
243.08
260.04
212.19
263.25
397.41
257.90
241.82
240.17
317.23
285.28
301.44
401.57
290.36
312.16
274.21
260.17
342.61
246.18
294.31
184.36
349.06
350.36
372.60
243.43
264.14
242.02
306.38
254.39
349.78
225.91
151.83
Formula
Cost/PU
278.95
279.11
279.12
279.16
279.60
280.22
280.52
281.29
281.59
282.39
282.73
283.95
284.09
285.03
285.56
285.96
286.27
287.16
287.25
287.88
288.34
289.26
289.27
289.46
289.80
290.33
291.01
291.23
291.24
291.52
291.60
292.96
293.11
293.14
293.53
294.35
294.37
Cost/PU
Option 2
286.49
286.63
286.64
286.68
287.06
287.60
287.85
288.53
288.78
289.48
289.77
290.83
290.96
291.77
292.23
292.57
292.84
293.61
293.69
294.23
294.63
295.43
295.44
295.60
295.90
296.35
296.94
297.13
297.14
297.38
297.45
298.62
298.75
298.78
299.18
300.16
300.18
113
246
69
68
137
270
215
223
147
183
139
163
203
249
342
199
327
226
264
155
177
159
221
90
473
148
275
158
121
238
173
223
134
146
178
65
413
Option 2
Changes
7.54
7.52
7.52
7.52
7.46
7.38
7.34
7.24
7.20
7.09
7.05
6.88
6.86
6.74
6.67
6.61
6.57
6.45
6.44
6.36
6.29
6.17
6.17
6.14
6.09
6.02
5.93
5.90
5.90
5.86
5.85
5.66
5.64
5.64
5.66
5.81
5.81
Total
Change
Option 2
6,266
13,524
3,784
3,731
7,407
14,137
11,092
11,129
7,254
8,683
6,492
7,203
8,912
10,456
14,007
7,998
12,937
8,594
9,993
5,679
6,365
5,451
7,563
3,048
15,790
4,811
8,656
4,936
3,771
7,317
5,281
6,381
3,795
4,132
5,024
1,853
11,838
149
OPTION #2:
District
548
486
2168
2534
2860
2198
484
2135
2835
23
553
2149
2170
495
2689
213
173
242
818
786
361
787
238
207
2887
499
2134
294
2895
2886
2190
2889
91
309
2396
671
821
PELICAN RAPIDS
SWANVILLE
N.R.H.E.G.
BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
BLUE EARTH AREA
FILLMORE CENTRAL
PIERZ
MAPLE RIVER
JANESVILLE-WALDO
FRAZEE
NEW YORK MILLS
MINNEWASKA
STAPLES-MOTLEY
GRAND MEADOW
PIPESTONE-JASPER
OSAKIS
MOUNTAIN LAKE
ALDEN
VERNDALE
BERTHA-HEWITT
INTERNATIONAL FA
BROWERVILLE
MABEL-CANTON
BRANDON
MCLEOD WEST SCHO
LEROY
UNITED SOUTH CEN
HOUSTON
JACKSON C
GLENVILLE-EMMONS
YELLOW MEDICINE
LAKE PARK AUDUBO
BARNUM
PARK RAPIDS
A.C.G.C.
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
MENAHGA
Appendix E
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
1,646
453
1,158
1,182
1,914
1,027
1,140
1,431
944
1,515
850
2,106
2,182
436
1,887
695
613
371
452
591
2,007
501
491
390
680
497
1,388
616
1,775
601
1,679
866
773
2,293
1,364
453
822
per
Sq Mile
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
281.40
237.02
299.63
361.75
248.23
335.77
349.08
334.21
204.93
371.60
341.04
314.10
385.20
207.54
322.67
258.77
176.57
248.68
184.95
414.78
275.33
368.91
240.19
389.91
339.08
284.58
330.68
235.48
285.98
301.66
407.98
351.25
363.40
344.54
349.06
260.66
411.94
Formula
Cost/PU
294.40
294.45
294.59
294.63
294.85
295.73
296.24
297.58
298.54
298.60
299.24
300.15
300.65
300.95
301.11
301.62
303.17
304.87
305.26
305.65
305.84
305.98
306.57
307.27
307.31
307.91
309.92
310.12
310.32
310.39
311.03
311.23
311.77
312.67
313.01
313.25
313.76
Cost/PU
Option 2
300.21
300.27
300.44
300.49
300.75
301.78
302.38
303.96
305.09
305.16
305.92
306.99
307.58
307.93
308.13
308.73
310.55
312.57
313.03
313.49
313.72
313.89
314.58
315.41
315.46
316.16
318.55
318.79
319.02
319.11
319.87
320.10
320.74
321.81
322.22
322.50
323.10
334
92
236
241
391
212
237
303
202
325
184
460
480
96
418
155
139
86
105
138
472
118
116
93
163
120
343
153
441
149
421
218
195
587
350
117
213
Option 2
Changes
5.81
5.82
5.85
5.85
5.89
6.05
6.14
6.38
6.55
6.56
6.68
6.84
6.93
6.98
7.01
7.11
7.39
7.70
7.77
7.84
7.87
7.90
8.01
8.14
8.15
8.26
8.63
8.67
8.70
8.72
8.84
8.87
8.97
9.14
9.21
9.25
9.35
Total
Change
Option 2
9,569
2,635
6,774
6,923
11,281
6,213
7,002
9,130
6,183
9,941
5,672
14,403
15,122
3,046
13,237
4,941
4,527
2,854
3,508
4,631
15,805
3,958
3,931
3,172
5,535
4,105
11,972
5,336
15,449
5,239
14,834
7,686
6,931
20,966
12,560
4,188
7,682
150
OPTION #2:
District
417
409
500
550
511
2167
2448
2365
84
542
2180
62
2711
777
768
2890
458
2169
308
696
229
801
547
414
507
2159
261
2165
100
846
378
513
514
415
545
505
2364
TRACY
TYLER
SOUTHLAND
UNDERWOOD
ADRIAN
LAKEVIEW
MARTIN COUNTY WE
G.F.W.
SLEEPY EYE
BATTLE LAKE
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
ORTONVILLE
MESABI EAST
BENSON
HANCOCK
D.R.S.H.
TRUMAN
MURRAY COUNTY CE
NEVIS
ELY
LANESBORO
BROWNS VALLEY
PARKERS PRAIRIE
MINNEOTA
NICOLLET
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
ASHBY
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
WRENSHALL
BRECKENRIDGE
DAWSON-BOYD
BREWSTER
ELLSWORTH
LYND
HENNING
FULDA
BELGRADE-BROOTEN
Appendix E
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
920
435
760
465
665
675
1,053
1,306
774
700
1,134
664
1,383
1,395
308
1,073
510
1,060
426
841
354
179
669
577
454
747
318
1,358
403
1,090
780
242
254
219
532
664
1,054
per
Sq Mile
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
286.31
340.18
414.11
323.06
350.51
251.25
365.05
282.82
179.52
335.43
413.94
247.77
357.74
286.41
205.66
327.96
290.54
429.47
571.69
253.66
544.79
313.04
439.19
194.92
318.32
286.55
356.48
345.12
435.27
224.18
253.91
491.67
222.85
277.66
331.63
320.78
334.96
Formula
Cost/PU
314.09
314.88
315.07
315.18
315.42
315.84
315.90
316.17
316.23
319.35
320.17
321.12
322.47
322.56
323.02
323.28
323.94
324.60
324.62
324.88
325.22
325.58
325.81
327.13
327.81
327.89
327.99
328.05
329.21
330.15
330.58
330.69
331.15
331.18
332.06
332.55
333.32
Cost/PU
Option 2
323.50
324.44
324.66
324.79
325.08
325.58
325.65
325.97
326.04
329.76
330.74
331.86
333.48
333.59
334.13
334.44
335.23
336.03
336.05
336.36
336.76
337.20
337.46
339.05
339.86
339.96
340.07
340.15
341.53
342.66
343.17
343.31
343.85
343.89
344.94
345.53
346.46
240
114
200
123
176
179
280
349
207
194
318
188
398
402
89
312
150
313
126
249
105
54
200
176
139
229
98
418
126
344
247
77
81
70
171
215
345
Option 2
Changes
9.41
9.56
9.59
9.61
9.66
9.74
9.75
9.80
9.81
10.41
10.57
10.75
11.01
11.03
11.11
11.16
11.29
11.42
11.43
11.48
11.54
11.61
11.66
11.92
12.05
12.06
12.08
12.10
12.32
12.51
12.59
12.62
12.71
12.71
12.89
12.98
13.14
Total
Change
Option 2
8,660
4,161
7,287
4,469
6,420
6,570
10,265
12,796
7,593
7,280
11,981
7,131
15,224
15,379
3,420
11,984
5,764
12,104
4,865
9,655
4,083
2,079
7,793
6,874
5,464
9,014
3,837
16,424
4,971
13,633
9,826
3,057
3,226
2,781
6,853
8,619
13,850
151
OPTION #2:
District
319
2174
208
836
775
113
640
418
115
2754
630
432
318
820
516
891
577
402
601
146
473
480
2342
330
682
317
635
162
2884
2609
411
32
2536
404
403
2853
2898
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
PINE RIVER-BACKU
EVANSVILLE
BUTTERFIELD
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
WALKER-HACKENSAC
WABASSO
RUSSELL
CASS LAKE
CEDAR MOUNTAIN
RED LAKE FALLS
MAHNOMEN
GRAND RAPIDS
SEBEKA
ROUND LAKE
CANBY
WILLOW RIVER
HENDRICKS
FOSSTON
BARNESVILLE
ISLE
ONAMIA
WEST CENTRAL ARE
HERON LAKE-OKABE
ROSEAU
DEER RIVER
MILROY
BAGLEY
RED ROCK CENTRAL
WIN-E-MAC
BALATON
BLACKDUCK
IVANHOE
LAC QUI PARLE VA
WESTBROOK
Appendix E
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
834
1,598
362
277
729
1,329
609
222
1,163
522
513
929
5,263
677
165
889
580
229
784
879
568
950
1,166
383
1,761
1,322
209
1,329
796
668
241
926
427
306
309
1,565
529
per
Sq Mile
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
401.10
347.65
258.42
283.55
405.01
415.74
230.34
331.73
483.86
426.72
413.55
461.61
391.78
478.77
40.36
229.83
522.08
329.70
301.26
311.38
398.55
475.43
383.77
328.67
362.92
480.90
415.34
386.11
318.24
342.06
471.35
429.42
397.53
306.59
329.83
320.04
413.30
Formula
Cost/PU
333.56
335.92
336.70
336.79
337.13
337.47
339.06
342.90
342.94
343.86
344.29
344.43
344.58
346.98
347.52
347.78
347.86
348.12
348.39
349.01
349.99
350.05
350.62
351.94
352.44
353.34
355.40
358.14
358.50
360.75
361.71
364.13
365.77
366.17
368.12
369.52
370.84
Cost/PU
Option 2
346.75
349.58
350.51
350.62
351.03
351.43
353.35
357.97
358.02
359.13
359.64
359.82
360.00
362.89
363.54
363.86
363.96
364.27
364.59
365.35
366.52
366.59
367.29
368.89
369.49
370.58
373.07
376.40
376.83
379.56
380.72
383.66
385.66
386.15
388.52
390.23
391.83
274
539
123
94
249
456
213
81
424
193
190
345
1,956
259
63
342
224
89
304
343
224
375
463
154
714
541
88
573
344
296
108
426
200
144
148
761
261
Option 2
Changes
13.19
13.66
13.81
13.83
13.90
13.97
14.29
15.07
15.08
15.27
15.36
15.39
15.42
15.91
16.02
16.08
16.09
16.15
16.20
16.33
16.54
16.55
16.67
16.94
17.05
17.24
17.67
18.25
18.33
18.81
19.01
19.53
19.89
19.98
20.40
20.71
20.99
Total
Change
Option 2
10,999
21,830
5,008
3,828
10,133
18,558
8,700
3,346
17,536
7,976
7,875
14,295
81,139
10,776
2,645
14,291
9,341
3,701
12,703
14,348
9,394
15,718
19,437
6,483
30,015
22,790
3,699
24,263
14,583
12,570
4,591
18,092
8,501
6,112
6,311
32,405
11,102
152
OPTION #2:
District
2527
581
2215
435
306
2311
1
611
2580
803
584
81
914
2854
599
690
38
95
371
2176
592
600
2888
628
2
850
771
676
441
2856
815
698
2171
627
264
381
2358
NORMAN COUNTY WE
EDGERTON
NORMAN COUNTY EA
WAUBUN
LAPORTE
CLEARBROOK-GONVI
AITKIN
CYRUS
EAST CENTRAL
WHEATON AREA SCH
RUTHTON
COMFREY
ULEN-HITTERDAL
ADA-BORUP
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
WARROAD
RED LAKE
CROMWELL
BELLINGHAM
FISHER
CLINTON-GRACEVIL
PLUMMER
HILL CITY
ROTHSAY
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
BADGER
MARSHALL COUNTY
STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
PRINSBURG
FLOODWOOD
KITTSON CENTRAL
OKLEE
HERMAN-NORCROSS
LAKE SUPERIOR
TRI-COUNTY
Appendix E
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
397
282
561
788
318
636
1,557
152
1,175
537
196
224
382
614
628
1,646
1,725
359
183
847
202
244
729
181
393
265
333
256
423
540
34
387
571
258
234
2,508
423
per
Sq Mile
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
540.62
345.03
419.14
444.17
506.89
681.46
395.08
516.14
428.20
272.80
366.97
297.54
353.69
678.84
577.50
388.56
310.67
413.94
474.14
306.77
478.70
670.56
391.34
456.91
456.13
317.44
409.40
354.94
456.72
347.64
398.30
465.41
511.11
442.68
253.11
408.95
496.30
Formula
Cost/PU
372.37
372.64
373.42
373.59
374.47
376.53
377.49
378.14
378.54
379.65
381.22
381.31
382.39
383.60
384.92
386.03
388.20
388.37
389.28
389.65
390.19
390.97
391.51
393.67
399.93
399.99
403.03
408.49
410.10
413.43
421.55
423.04
423.64
428.17
430.22
449.53
453.12
Cost/PU
Option 2
393.70
394.03
394.99
395.19
396.26
398.79
399.95
400.74
401.23
402.60
404.51
404.63
405.95
407.43
409.05
410.41
413.07
413.28
414.40
414.86
415.52
416.48
417.14
419.80
427.51
427.58
431.34
438.08
440.08
444.20
454.28
456.13
456.89
462.53
465.09
489.25
493.76
199
142
284
400
163
333
822
81
627
290
108
123
212
345
357
947
1,014
211
109
505
121
147
443
112
259
175
226
183
307
404
28
317
470
221
204
2,592
451
Option 2
Changes
21.33
21.39
21.56
21.60
21.79
22.25
22.46
22.61
22.70
22.94
23.30
23.32
23.56
23.83
24.13
24.38
24.87
24.91
25.12
25.21
25.33
25.51
25.63
26.13
27.58
27.59
28.31
29.59
29.98
30.77
32.73
33.10
33.25
34.36
34.86
39.72
40.64
Total
Change
Option 2
8,469
6,037
12,095
17,019
6,923
14,150
34,973
3,432
26,670
12,326
4,570
5,229
9,010
14,642
15,158
40,120
42,908
8,934
4,590
21,357
5,129
6,218
18,685
4,735
10,846
7,301
9,438
7,583
12,667
16,610
1,121
12,816
18,995
8,850
8,166
99,604
17,193
153
OPTION #2:
District
4
118
852
2142
707
2683
390
561
356
166
36
362
447
363
MCGREGOR
REMER-LONGVILLE
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
NETT LAKE
GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
LAKE OF THE WOOD
GOODRIDGE
LANCASTER
COOK COUNTY
KELLIHER
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
GRYGLA
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
Appendix E
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000 Change/PU
Formula
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
740
734
233
3,668
94
607
944
212
213
845
277
366
230
344
per
Sq Mile
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
543.03
620.96
437.53
468.07
634.62
639.01
475.31
712.02
515.26
483.26
551.94
405.69
909.25
1050.81
Formula
Cost/PU
455.80
460.96
461.14
461.71
462.39
467.43
468.35
480.66
497.06
527.43
551.21
559.37
618.23
657.26
Cost/PU
Option 2
497.13
503.63
503.86
504.58
505.44
511.79
512.96
528.55
549.42
588.32
619.03
629.62
706.67
758.38
806
836
265
4,201
108
729
1,143
284
323
1,616
627
876
809
1,532
Option 2
Changes
41.33
42.67
42.72
42.87
43.05
44.37
44.61
47.89
52.35
60.89
67.82
70.25
88.44
101.13
Total
Change
Option 2
30,577
31,322
9,937
157,226
4,039
26,935
42,134
10,159
11,128
51,476
18,789
25,680
20,333
34,781
154
OPTION # 4:
Update for FY 2000 Data; Transportation Sparsity Based
on Cost per Pupil Transported; Includes Nonpublic Regular
Square
Miles
1
625
282
273
280
281
283
14
13
286
6
623
272
622
271
270
621
191
276
196
279
284
197
11
12
16
624
199
833
832
719
277
112
194
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
Due to
Option 4
Changes
7.13
893.8
743.7
548.6
516.6
501.9
500.6
451.8
432.8
392.1
380.7
363.3
355.9
340.3
324.7
319.1
310.8
302.6
279.1
273.1
258.0
249.3
244.9
237.8
236.2
225.5
214.0
205.3
171.3
159.4
121.7
108.5
99.9
92.0
84.2
State Totals
84,282
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
806,738
MINNEAPOLIS
ST. PAUL
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
EDINA
RICHFIELD
ROBBINSDALE
ST. LOUIS PARK
FRIDLEY
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
BROOKLYN CENTER
SOUTH ST. PAUL
ROSEVILLE
EDEN PRAIRIE
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
BLOOMINGTON
HOPKINS
MOUNDS VIEW
BURNSVILLE
MINNETONKA
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
OSSEO
WAYZATA
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
SPRING LAKE PARK
WHITE BEAR LAKE
INVER GROVE
SOUTH WASHINGTON
MAHTOMEDI
PRIOR LAKE
WESTONKA
CHASKA
LAKEVILLE
58
56
3
13
8
30
11
5
6
3
6
22
34
37
38
29
43
36
32
107
65
44
27
172
28
19
46
22
81
28
49
28
84
86
52,197
41,761
1,421
6,819
4,015
14,797
4,785
2,324
2,431
1,024
2,220
7,705
11,605
11,918
12,191
9,161
12,889
10,172
8,630
27,710
16,229
10,653
6,395
40,691
6,376
4,000
9,466
3,701
12,841
3,423
5,299
2,791
7,745
7,204
District
Appendix E
9.6
309.09
310.88
188.17
149.63
203.56
159.13
243.14
247.09
213.35
144.34
204.26
230.14
211.97
254.60
211.72
153.34
246.22
211.42
240.47
245.27
188.81
292.58
208.84
198.91
231.40
250.97
243.82
191.94
231.96
233.22
216.51
251.05
288.74
296.63
345.38
301.20
248.55
255.35
192.19
221.11
236.19
227.26
221.32
223.14
285.00
299.17
323.53
199.12
201.40
226.80
220.88
211.19
214.94
257.16
217.44
221.29
309.81
205.27
225.65
226.51
222.27
221.17
226.30
272.38
272.74
217.04
229.82
253.00
243.51
286.90
308.33
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.11
230.20
230.77
231.72
231.94
233.45
235.17
236.53
242.60
245.08
254.50
258.62
261.65
264.66
267.99
-18.45
-25.25
37.91
9.00
-6.08
2.85
8.79
6.97
-54.89
-69.06
-93.42
30.99
28.71
3.30
9.23
18.92
15.16
-27.06
12.67
8.82
-79.60
25.50
6.07
5.44
11.18
14.00
10.24
-29.77
-27.66
37.46
28.80
8.65
21.15
-18.90
Total
Change
Option 4
5,753,205
(962,801)
(1,054,291)
53,874
61,374
(24,406)
42,132
42,047
16,190
(133,436)
(70,721)
(207,398)
238,775
333,169
39,379
112,506
173,301
195,428
(275,216)
109,333
244,335
(1,291,895)
271,692
38,842
221,275
71,256
55,988
96,914
(110,188)
(355,173)
128,213
152,608
24,149
163,804
(136,172)
Note: Actual cost includes nonpublic-regular costs excluded from analysis of options 1 and 2. Under this option, nonpublic-regular funding would be rolled into transportation sparsity revenue.
155
OPTION # 4:
Square
District
885
720
278
834
535
728
748
192
742
77
882
831
883
727
15
877
200
709
879
47
110
99
492
152
2144
700
347
138
94
750
423
656
721
256
911
204
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
SHAKOPEE
ORONO
STILLWATER
ROCHESTER
ELK RIVER
SARTELL
FARMINGTON
ST. CLOUD
MANKATO
MONTICELLO
FOREST LAKE
ROCKFORD
BIG LAKE
ST. FRANCIS
BUFFALO
HASTINGS
DULUTH
DELANO
SAUK RAPIDS
WACONIA
ESKO
AUSTIN
MOORHEAD
CHISAGO LAKES
HERMANTOWN
WILLMAR
NORTH BRANCH
CLOQUET
ROCORI
HUTCHINSON
FARIBAULT
NEW PRAGUE
RED WING
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
KASSON-MANTORVIL
Miles
40
51
49
153
218
172
47
77
246
137
88
214
43
63
163
149
178
356
66
137
99
42
143
203
165
92
220
176
97
127
168
221
156
176
246
95
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
2,873
3,467
3,043
9,015
12,307
9,677
2,650
4,250
11,140
5,724
3,685
8,847
1,782
2,416
6,028
4,642
5,405
10,377
1,807
3,464
2,471
1,048
3,255
4,581
3,678
1,948
4,606
3,561
1,962
2,543
3,359
4,162
2,933
3,302
4,510
1,733
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
71.4
68.1
62.6
58.8
56.5
56.4
55.8
55.2
45.4
41.9
41.8
41.4
41.1
38.3
37.0
31.1
30.3
29.2
27.3
25.2
24.9
24.7
22.8
22.5
22.3
21.1
21.0
20.3
20.3
20.0
19.9
18.9
18.8
18.7
18.4
18.2
295.39
393.83
344.12
295.42
382.91
329.70
338.44
305.81
299.76
252.89
314.00
327.93
271.06
295.42
375.09
377.47
284.69
251.47
365.13
355.90
360.63
309.11
241.81
386.28
293.58
283.07
352.35
351.38
372.81
372.59
281.58
301.03
233.99
323.41
273.42
320.09
239.76
306.89
237.86
274.76
369.63
247.29
251.92
259.95
299.33
338.37
246.32
248.44
257.63
252.98
262.02
298.19
279.94
356.93
294.58
314.17
288.39
258.17
367.58
361.76
275.21
260.62
281.31
280.12
352.38
293.99
282.17
349.28
280.05
306.88
292.20
274.46
274.25
276.06
279.35
281.77
283.36
283.44
283.86
284.33
292.21
295.48
295.57
296.00
296.29
299.23
300.68
308.01
309.18
310.87
313.71
317.26
317.90
318.15
321.79
322.30
322.83
325.34
325.53
327.09
327.11
327.68
327.83
330.44
330.67
330.72
331.67
332.15
Due to
Option 4
Changes
34.49
-30.83
41.49
7.00
-86.27
36.15
31.94
24.38
-7.11
-42.90
49.25
47.56
38.66
46.25
38.66
9.82
29.24
-46.06
19.13
3.09
29.51
59.98
-45.80
-39.46
47.63
64.71
44.23
46.97
-25.27
33.68
45.67
-18.84
50.62
23.84
39.47
57.68
Total
Change
Option 4
99,078
(106,896)
126,246
63,147
(1,061,747)
349,789
84,641
103,629
(79,259)
(245,544)
181,487
420,794
68,892
111,744
233,061
45,564
158,019
(477,913)
34,564
10,704
72,915
62,863
(149,063)
(180,775)
175,170
126,064
203,702
167,258
(49,579)
85,649
153,395
(78,410)
148,466
78,711
178,017
99,968
156
OPTION # 4:
Square
District
761
881
300
861
659
531
717
111
726
876
508
413
829
477
181
25
241
704
206
466
108
252
345
88
745
2752
323
695
706
255
2687
534
595
2859
518
716
OWATONNA
MAPLE LAKE
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
WINONA
NORTHFIELD
BYRON
JORDAN
WATERTOWN-MAYER
BECKER
ANNANDALE
ST. PETER
MARSHALL
WASECA
PRINCETON
BRAINERD
PINE POINT
ALBERT LEA
PROCTOR
ALEXANDRIA
DASSEL-COKATO
NORWOOD
CANNON FALLS
NEW LONDON-SPICE
NEW ULM
ALBANY
FAIRMONT AREA SC
FRANCONIA
CHISHOLM
VIRGINIA
PINE ISLAND
HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
STEWARTVILLE
EAST GRAND FORKS
GLENCOE-SILVER L
WORTHINGTON
BELLE PLAINE
Miles
232
58
97
269
179
71
73
99
112
135
118
163
152
235
517
5
228
150
344
177
112
133
167
316
152
175
4
68
157
89
112
136
174
218
263
107
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
4,104
1,007
1,687
4,630
3,028
1,203
1,180
1,558
1,726
1,986
1,612
2,220
2,048
3,146
6,793
64
2,942
1,916
4,379
2,222
1,366
1,612
1,942
3,578
1,715
1,929
46
702
1,593
901
1,122
1,344
1,671
2,070
2,476
1,006
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
17.7
17.4
17.4
17.2
17.0
16.9
16.2
15.7
15.4
14.7
13.6
13.6
13.4
13.4
13.1
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.7
12.6
12.2
12.1
11.6
11.3
11.3
11.1
10.5
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.0
9.9
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.4
319.22
327.36
346.99
373.84
398.53
203.61
300.78
317.74
377.27
376.73
333.07
294.90
323.57
388.93
355.69
129.15
380.67
379.11
304.31
362.53
195.11
337.87
359.89
314.95
310.79
466.63
331.02
299.73
309.69
343.63
342.74
341.67
276.71
352.03
337.97
388.44
376.49
287.31
303.31
387.33
375.53
317.93
365.37
293.41
328.99
288.16
372.03
342.45
330.43
304.76
317.76
281.56
405.75
339.48
316.91
287.16
315.46
297.02
276.96
341.45
321.03
387.30
265.92
404.09
323.24
359.69
383.85
377.74
356.58
328.58
334.27
382.52
333.42
334.16
334.17
334.73
335.38
335.51
337.54
338.96
340.02
342.20
345.80
345.93
346.48
346.74
347.61
348.45
348.52
348.82
349.12
349.70
351.06
351.43
353.54
354.87
354.93
356.08
358.76
359.42
360.32
360.38
360.92
361.64
363.27
363.66
364.25
364.33
Due to
Option 4
Changes
-43.07
46.85
30.86
-52.60
-40.15
17.58
-27.83
45.55
11.03
54.04
-26.23
3.47
16.05
41.98
29.84
66.89
-57.22
9.34
32.21
62.55
35.60
54.41
76.58
13.42
33.90
-31.22
92.83
-44.67
37.08
.69
-22.94
-16.10
6.69
35.08
29.97
-18.19
Total
Change
Option 4
(176,769)
47,177
52,060
(243,533)
(121,573)
21,153
(32,841)
70,971
19,030
107,330
(42,286)
7,712
32,876
132,072
202,730
4,281
(168,354)
17,898
141,026
138,976
48,635
87,708
148,716
48,007
58,136
(60,221)
4,270
(31,356)
59,069
624
(25,736)
(21,634)
11,173
72,625
74,208
(18,302)
157
OPTION # 4:
Square
District
22
738
463
186
482
424
465
533
701
75
2805
544
578
139
2154
316
740
129
51
31
394
741
2397
332
811
739
93
743
2897
2143
813
314
810
485
912
487
DETROIT LAKES
HOLDINGFORD
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
PEQUOT LAKES
LITTLE FALLS
LESTER PRAIRIE
LITCHFIELD
DOVER-EYOTA
HIBBING
ST. CLAIR
ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
FERGUS FALLS
PINE CITY
RUSH CITY
EVELETH-GILBERT
GREENWAY
MELROSE
MONTEVIDEO
FOLEY
BEMIDJI
MONTGOMERY-LONSD
PAYNESVILLE
LESUEUR-HENDERSO
MORA
WABASHA-KELLOGG
KIMBALL
CARLTON
SAUK CENTRE
REDWOOD
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
LAKE CITY
BRAHAM
PLAINVIEW
ROYALTON
MILACA
UPSALA
Miles
325
122
102
154
382
42
241
100
342
75
138
342
220
107
139
185
223
186
266
825
137
170
169
261
137
127
109
197
270
149
195
139
164
113
285
69
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
2,951
1,082
895
1,337
3,308
354
2,026
827
2,833
618
1,121
2,754
1,761
844
1,067
1,408
1,692
1,380
1,966
5,992
985
1,218
1,203
1,849
950
877
725
1,287
1,764
973
1,251
873
1,021
703
1,772
407
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
9.1
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.7
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.2
5.9
348.28
260.76
367.64
330.76
365.97
452.42
381.12
322.12
292.34
163.39
324.03
376.01
399.90
374.68
407.30
416.34
422.19
297.44
311.52
454.78
377.59
342.33
344.35
320.65
389.74
440.49
484.64
376.41
306.55
394.78
387.68
402.68
415.86
278.13
399.76
344.83
310.88
307.68
318.40
273.38
348.13
478.29
342.34
296.52
346.17
289.99
362.17
404.16
326.68
339.94
420.21
349.53
364.01
346.46
304.74
317.92
436.41
322.79
410.44
337.90
349.63
351.34
363.60
388.41
317.53
391.50
405.19
385.89
361.06
329.58
360.38
345.01
365.95
367.36
367.68
368.31
368.43
369.35
370.02
370.68
370.69
371.07
371.85
372.28
372.47
373.12
374.88
375.26
375.31
376.58
376.67
377.61
378.35
378.35
378.79
378.94
380.29
380.34
382.16
383.27
383.27
383.48
384.27
385.22
385.86
385.91
386.04
388.61
Due to
Option 4
Changes
55.08
59.68
49.28
94.92
20.30
-108.94
27.68
74.15
24.53
81.08
9.68
-31.89
45.79
33.17
-45.33
25.73
11.31
30.12
71.93
59.69
-58.06
55.56
-31.65
41.04
30.66
29.00
18.56
-5.14
65.74
-8.02
-20.93
-.67
24.80
56.33
25.66
43.60
Total
Change
Option 4
162,528
64,576
44,109
126,914
67,148
(38,566)
56,070
61,325
69,489
50,109
10,853
(87,816)
80,640
27,998
(48,369)
36,232
19,131
41,567
141,415
357,667
(57,192)
67,674
(38,071)
75,879
29,129
25,429
13,454
(6,614)
115,962
(7,806)
(26,179)
(589)
25,321
39,599
45,471
17,744
158
OPTION # 4:
Square
District
195
840
2137
763
2125
2155
177
549
769
2310
333
806
391
182
857
593
2753
858
2534
97
2172
712
818
564
308
392
484
227
553
116
486
203
787
253
150
239
RANDOLPH
ST. JAMES
KINGSLAND
MEDFORD
TRITON
WADENA-DEER CREE
WINDOM
PERHAM
MORRIS
SIBLEY EAST
OGILVIE
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
CLEVELAND
CROSBY-IRONTON
LEWISTON
CROOKSTON
LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
ST. CHARLES
BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
MOOSE LAKE
KENYON-WANAMINGO
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
VERNDALE
THIEF RIVER FALL
NEVIS
LECENTER
PIERZ
CHATFIELD
NEW YORK MILLS
PILLAGER
SWANVILLE
HAYFIELD
BROWERVILLE
GOODHUE
HAWLEY
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
Miles
68
223
183
75
215
191
203
342
223
249
155
82
67
327
159
413
246
132
241
158
221
139
105
473
126
85
237
163
184
173
92
199
118
121
147
178
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
400
1,285
1,048
422
1,196
1,059
1,128
1,887
1,198
1,311
809
427
342
1,601
764
1,965
1,163
622
1,128
738
994
613
451
2,012
535
357
991
675
752
693
368
796
471
478
575
693
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
393.38
327.31
318.16
304.78
316.35
418.02
284.64
375.92
246.94
317.21
344.76
461.42
309.29
372.40
342.54
169.65
490.40
490.76
440.95
397.15
423.07
597.27
185.19
396.73
455.03
443.44
460.14
402.78
385.27
344.08
291.52
433.38
443.82
521.08
371.97
448.05
353.59
352.46
344.05
413.23
364.02
464.28
334.31
341.01
299.21
375.67
317.93
433.57
424.97
353.72
382.37
319.52
487.40
555.26
376.24
330.11
357.42
424.91
305.66
390.19
258.38
690.50
400.23
443.41
338.05
379.84
362.15
434.41
373.49
411.99
493.63
375.99
388.89
390.11
390.43
391.28
391.91
392.06
392.14
392.49
394.04
395.05
395.47
395.94
396.63
400.00
401.97
403.19
403.58
404.19
404.66
405.33
408.79
411.08
414.29
414.91
415.05
416.15
416.85
418.00
419.07
421.32
421.57
421.72
421.85
423.20
424.43
424.71
Due to
Option 4
Changes
35.30
37.65
46.38
-21.95
27.89
-72.22
57.83
51.48
94.83
19.38
77.54
-37.63
-28.34
46.28
19.59
83.67
-83.82
-151.07
28.43
75.22
51.37
-13.83
108.63
24.72
156.67
-274.35
16.62
-25.41
81.01
41.48
59.42
-12.70
48.37
11.21
-69.20
48.72
Total
Change
Option 4
14,120
48,381
48,605
(9,264)
33,358
(76,485)
65,238
97,141
113,603
25,408
62,728
(16,068)
(9,691)
74,098
14,970
164,407
(97,486)
(93,969)
32,064
55,510
51,063
(8,479)
48,993
49,731
83,816
(97,944)
16,470
(17,149)
60,922
28,746
21,866
(10,108)
22,780
5,357
(39,791)
33,764
159
OPTION # 4:
Square
District
23
242
2711
500
2149
786
2135
213
2168
299
2184
756
417
2170
2071
361
2198
84
815
91
2860
309
548
2448
550
821
2895
507
2180
2887
409
2164
2365
207
513
581
FRAZEE
ALDEN
MESABI EAST
SOUTHLAND
MINNEWASKA
BERTHA-HEWITT
MAPLE RIVER
OSAKIS
N.R.H.E.G.
CALEDONIA
LUVERNE
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
TRACY
STAPLES-MOTLEY
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
INTERNATIONAL FA
FILLMORE CENTRAL
SLEEPY EYE
PRINSBURG
BARNUM
BLUE EARTH AREA
PARK RAPIDS
PELICAN RAPIDS
MARTIN COUNTY WE
UNDERWOOD
MENAHGA
JACKSON C
NICOLLET
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
MCLEOD WEST SCHO
TYLER
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
G.F.W.
BRANDON
BREWSTER
EDGERTON
Miles
325
86
398
200
460
138
303
155
236
238
264
177
240
480
226
472
212
207
28
195
391
587
334
280
123
213
441
139
318
163
114
275
349
93
77
142
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
1,221
323
1,486
730
1,679
504
1,095
557
847
856
947
635
857
1,717
807
1,640
730
709
94
664
1,320
1,964
1,113
923
398
688
1,419
442
999
499
350
834
1,044
278
228
420
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
461.10
285.51
333.35
495.87
396.68
486.08
448.82
357.24
409.77
470.97
498.50
453.10
324.35
519.65
704.57
356.09
475.48
414.87
454.60
423.94
363.29
404.63
416.91
421.22
377.28
492.13
374.88
428.22
510.60
461.74
423.14
611.58
395.11
546.78
522.48
494.99
370.52
350.02
300.60
391.31
379.38
358.19
400.65
412.99
402.88
557.76
491.53
476.20
354.93
412.99
509.98
391.73
418.87
556.50
429.81
363.72
431.18
367.25
436.26
365.31
368.07
374.83
409.94
438.48
404.98
418.48
391.68
509.92
438.05
430.88
351.42
576.04
428.50
428.74
429.41
431.89
431.92
432.14
432.85
433.53
433.57
433.68
433.97
434.08
434.12
434.13
434.51
437.32
438.48
438.90
439.85
439.96
440.61
441.66
442.19
443.50
445.21
445.83
446.26
447.74
448.93
451.79
452.15
453.10
454.62
455.18
455.81
455.92
Due to
Option 4
Changes
57.98
78.72
128.81
40.59
52.54
73.95
32.20
20.54
30.69
-124.08
-57.56
-42.12
79.19
21.14
-75.47
45.59
19.60
-117.60
10.04
76.24
9.42
74.41
5.93
78.19
77.14
71.00
36.32
9.27
43.95
33.31
60.47
-56.82
16.57
24.30
104.39
-120.12
Total
Change
Option 4
70,793
25,427
191,407
29,629
88,209
37,273
35,255
11,440
25,995
(106,208)
(54,510)
(26,745)
67,862
36,294
(60,907)
74,766
14,311
(83,377)
944
50,625
12,440
146,138
6,603
72,172
30,701
48,845
51,541
4,096
43,908
16,620
21,165
(47,391)
17,299
6,755
23,800
(50,450)
160
OPTION # 4:
Square
District
2759
837
2890
2889
238
2396
85
229
261
2190
414
2159
846
115
100
547
542
511
473
2165
2835
2886
671
775
2134
297
2169
2364
499
2167
458
630
306
432
318
173
EAGLE VALLEY
MADELIA
D.R.S.H.
LAKE PARK AUDUBO
MABEL-CANTON
A.C.G.C.
SPRINGFIELD
LANESBORO
ASHBY
YELLOW MEDICINE
MINNEOTA
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
BRECKENRIDGE
CASS LAKE
WRENSHALL
PARKERS PRAIRIE
BATTLE LAKE
ADRIAN
ISLE
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
JANESVILLE-WALDO
GLENVILLE-EMMONS
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
UNITED SOUTH CEN
SPRING GROVE
MURRAY COUNTY CE
BELGRADE-BROOTEN
LEROY
LAKEVIEW
TRUMAN
RED LAKE FALLS
LAPORTE
MAHNOMEN
GRAND RAPIDS
MOUNTAIN LAKE
Miles
134
146
312
218
116
350
148
105
98
421
176
229
344
424
126
200
194
176
224
418
202
149
117
249
343
90
313
345
120
179
150
190
163
345
1,956
139
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
396
431
921
641
339
1,007
420
299
274
1,181
489
635
939
1,157
341
542
523
472
594
1,095
528
386
301
635
873
226
786
846
292
436
362
456
387
811
4,530
322
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
520.32
432.58
419.54
474.67
347.84
490.01
388.14
644.60
413.10
579.99
277.19
340.51
296.78
525.13
514.87
542.73
450.27
493.52
381.16
430.66
451.91
469.71
408.49
470.86
589.16
540.61
612.95
417.39
484.60
393.60
499.09
532.08
416.07
560.88
475.52
396.78
497.78
498.47
376.79
420.60
443.97
440.35
593.81
384.80
380.08
442.17
437.90
391.05
419.07
386.00
389.41
402.88
428.72
444.13
334.72
409.20
617.55
483.31
484.55
393.32
555.75
635.65
474.58
415.35
524.33
493.78
552.92
439.44
307.37
427.20
418.84
637.03
456.08
456.34
456.42
456.64
457.96
459.56
460.85
460.96
462.37
462.40
463.32
464.08
465.61
465.88
466.58
466.82
467.30
467.76
469.36
470.68
471.08
472.50
472.57
474.10
474.31
475.54
475.98
478.84
479.75
479.99
480.56
481.59
482.63
484.10
486.09
486.24
Due to
Option 4
Changes
-41.70
-42.12
79.62
36.05
13.99
19.21
-132.95
76.16
82.29
20.23
25.43
73.03
46.54
79.88
77.17
63.94
38.58
23.63
134.64
61.48
-146.48
-10.80
-11.98
80.78
-81.45
-160.11
1.40
63.49
-44.58
-13.79
-72.36
42.14
175.25
56.90
67.25
-150.79
Total
Change
Option 4
(16,513)
(18,156)
73,334
23,106
4,743
19,340
(55,841)
22,771
22,548
23,896
12,434
46,372
43,698
92,423
26,314
34,655
20,176
11,155
79,976
67,323
(77,340)
(4,171)
(3,605)
51,294
(71,102)
(36,185)
1,099
53,714
(13,016)
(6,011)
(26,193)
19,217
67,822
46,146
304,636
(48,554)
161
OPTION # 4:
Square
District
495
820
317
2174
640
330
2689
113
319
777
294
497
577
418
505
545
402
601
480
2609
162
2342
682
415
635
32
768
2527
2754
2580
435
2311
62
378
514
600
GRAND MEADOW
SEBEKA
DEER RIVER
PINE RIVER-BACKU
WABASSO
HERON LAKE-OKABE
PIPESTONE-JASPER
WALKER-HACKENSAC
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
BENSON
HOUSTON
LYLE
WILLOW RIVER
RUSSELL
FULDA
HENNING
HENDRICKS
FOSSTON
ONAMIA
WIN-E-MAC
BAGLEY
WEST CENTRAL ARE
ROSEAU
LYND
MILROY
BLACKDUCK
HANCOCK
NORMAN COUNTY WE
CEDAR MOUNTAIN
EAST CENTRAL
WAUBUN
CLEARBROOK-GONVI
ORTONVILLE
DAWSON-BOYD
ELLSWORTH
FISHER
Miles
96
259
541
539
213
154
418
456
274
402
153
65
224
81
215
171
89
304
375
296
573
463
714
70
88
426
89
199
193
627
400
333
188
247
81
147
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
222
595
1,241
1,230
484
351
950
1,035
613
897
338
142
490
176
450
347
178
603
739
579
1,118
900
1,380
132
163
780
158
350
338
1,098
699
570
322
421
137
247
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
407.76
548.79
541.66
456.20
365.72
389.04
667.32
533.66
545.80
445.85
428.97
507.70
618.42
429.38
517.82
509.61
426.65
391.70
611.08
394.81
459.08
497.28
462.98
549.23
538.96
509.88
400.55
613.27
712.10
459.37
500.70
760.30
510.59
470.60
412.96
661.76
591.29
398.86
405.43
440.92
496.62
414.30
623.55
433.18
453.89
502.00
564.94
661.51
412.05
443.64
536.05
510.18
450.46
452.97
449.92
416.38
425.83
454.32
449.62
617.29
462.26
432.36
629.12
422.42
569.04
406.20
421.13
420.09
661.74
612.70
613.64
385.84
486.68
486.87
487.34
487.87
488.28
488.32
488.35
488.55
490.28
490.86
491.75
492.94
493.20
494.15
499.16
503.40
504.37
506.05
506.94
508.03
508.27
508.84
509.42
512.37
514.58
516.58
521.18
522.04
522.43
522.71
522.89
525.60
525.77
526.55
527.43
528.62
Due to
Option 4
Changes
-104.61
88.02
81.91
46.96
-8.34
74.02
-135.20
55.37
36.39
-11.14
-73.19
-168.57
81.14
50.52
-36.89
-6.78
53.92
53.08
57.02
91.65
82.44
54.52
59.80
-104.92
52.31
84.22
-107.95
99.62
-46.61
116.51
101.76
105.51
-135.97
-86.15
-86.21
142.78
Total
Change
Option 4
(23,223)
52,369
101,651
57,757
(4,039)
25,982
(128,436)
57,311
22,307
(9,991)
(24,740)
(23,937)
39,759
8,891
(16,601)
(2,351)
9,597
32,006
42,138
53,064
92,167
49,071
82,522
(13,849)
8,527
65,694
(17,055)
34,868
(15,755)
127,926
71,127
60,138
(43,781)
(36,271)
(11,811)
35,266
162
OPTION # 4:
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
148
1,014
249
200
123
211
344
947
108
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
245
1,655
405
322
196
334
530
1,455
165
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
416.46
338.38
526.94
536.85
477.94
444.44
492.77
439.45
459.72
464.81
423.30
674.91
493.48
622.71
416.99
552.09
436.59
486.42
530.66
532.38
533.05
534.16
536.00
536.74
540.57
540.76
541.02
Due to
Option 4
Changes
65.85
109.08
-141.85
40.67
-86.71
119.75
-11.51
104.18
54.59
822
81
342
261
345
284
357
112
761
123
54
94
121
343
175
108
259
212
144
109
307
443
290
317
226
183
1,249
119
503
382
502
412
517
161
1,089
176
76
131
168
470
232
136
317
258
172
129
356
495
302
324
230
186
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
492.50
658.54
431.74
599.94
830.82
570.67
701.67
514.30
459.94
393.44
737.26
626.82
576.97
582.02
362.04
911.94
565.87
524.28
545.32
671.62
542.11
590.24
485.27
556.23
593.52
488.95
470.57
482.46
637.12
542.42
469.48
508.43
467.69
443.11
531.05
499.16
766.79
745.68
470.30
652.36
456.19
692.45
496.16
566.81
651.30
551.42
486.77
576.60
675.35
505.58
584.29
562.70
542.35
546.57
547.12
547.52
548.51
548.96
549.36
550.78
550.91
550.98
551.92
555.00
555.71
557.13
561.54
569.72
573.88
574.70
577.04
578.19
581.75
587.41
598.29
601.16
602.23
602.33
71.78
64.12
-89.99
5.10
79.02
40.53
81.67
107.67
19.85
51.82
-214.87
-190.68
85.42
-95.22
105.35
-122.72
77.72
7.88
-74.27
26.77
94.97
10.81
-77.06
95.58
17.94
39.63
Square
District
403
38
696
2536
208
95
2884
690
584
IVANHOE
RED LAKE
ELY
GRANADA HUNTLEYEVANSVILLE
CROMWELL
RED ROCK CENTRAL
WARROAD
RUTHTON
1
611
891
2898
2854
2215
599
628
2853
81
801
836
592
146
850
411
2
914
404
371
441
2888
803
698
771
676
AITKIN
CYRUS
CANBY
WESTBROOK
ADA-BORUP
NORMAN COUNTY EA
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
PLUMMER
LAC QUI PARLE VA
COMFREY
BROWNS VALLEY
BUTTERFIELD
CLIMAX
BARNESVILLE
ROTHSAY
BALATON
HILL CITY
ULEN-HITTERDAL
LAKE BENTON
BELLINGHAM
MARSHALL COUNTY
CLINTON-GRACEVIL
WHEATON AREA SCH
FLOODWOOD
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
BADGER
Appendix E
Miles
Total
Change
Option 4
16,133
180,531
(57,451)
13,097
(16,995)
39,997
(6,102)
151,575
9,008
89,654
7,630
(45,267)
1,948
39,670
16,698
42,224
17,335
21,619
9,120
(16,330)
(24,979)
14,350
(44,756)
24,441
(16,690)
24,638
2,034
(12,774)
3,453
33,810
5,350
(23,273)
30,970
4,127
7,371
163
OPTION # 4:
Square
District
516
118
2358
2176
627
390
2856
4
561
381
2683
2171
2142
852
356
707
264
166
36
363
362
447
ROUND LAKE
REMER-LONGVILLE
TRI-COUNTY
WARREN-ALVARADOOKLEE
LAKE OF THE WOOD
STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
MCGREGOR
GOODRIDGE
LAKE SUPERIOR
GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
KITTSON CENTRAL
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
LANCASTER
NETT LAKE
HERMAN-NORCROSS
COOK COUNTY
KELLIHER
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
GRYGLA
Miles
63
836
451
505
221
1,143
404
806
284
2,592
729
470
4,201
265
323
108
204
1,616
627
1,532
876
809
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
57
685
356
383
161
828
284
556
185
1,653
460
287
2,455
136
153
51
95
645
242
477
270
172
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 4
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
116.90
697.69
636.00
678.68
708.24
542.18
660.72
722.52
816.44
634.44
843.35
1017.52
699.25
748.31
715.88
1167.70
624.07
633.38
631.83
757.66
549.26
1215.44
1006.58
530.26
584.33
862.05
685.02
534.24
785.76
606.45
551.15
693.96
616.90
843.39
689.76
788.69
690.59
850.80
1060.75
691.26
630.99
473.90
757.32
826.42
621.66
636.73
642.96
649.87
656.40
657.54
662.83
666.05
675.74
679.68
681.61
687.44
695.32
719.32
734.57
735.11
738.05
767.71
774.58
819.02
821.11
904.51
Due to
Option 4
Changes
-384.92
106.47
58.63
-212.17
-28.62
123.30
-122.93
59.60
124.59
-14.28
64.70
-155.95
5.56
-69.37
43.97
-115.69
-322.71
76.45
143.59
345.12
63.78
78.09
Total
Change
Option 4
(21,940)
72,934
20,873
(81,263)
(4,608)
102,093
(34,913)
33,139
23,049
(23,612)
29,764
(44,757)
13,656
(9,434)
6,728
(5,900)
(30,657)
49,311
34,749
164,620
17,221
13,432
164
OPTION # 5:
Update for FY 2000 Data;
Transp Sparsity Based on Cost per Pupil Transported; Includes Nonpublic Reg;
Use Avg Cost for High Density Dist and Exclude from Regression Analysis
Square
Miles
1
625
282
273
280
281
283
14
13
286
6
623
272
622
271
270
621
191
276
196
279
284
197
11
12
16
624
199
833
832
719
277
112
194
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
Due to
Option 5
Changes
8.05
893.8
743.7
548.6
516.6
501.9
500.6
451.8
432.8
392.1
380.7
363.3
355.9
340.3
324.7
319.1
310.8
302.6
279.1
273.1
258.0
249.3
244.9
237.8
236.2
225.5
214.0
205.3
171.3
159.4
121.7
108.5
99.9
92.0
84.2
State Totals
84,282
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
806,738
MINNEAPOLIS
ST. PAUL
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
EDINA
RICHFIELD
ROBBINSDALE
ST. LOUIS PARK
FRIDLEY
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
BROOKLYN CENTER
SOUTH ST. PAUL
ROSEVILLE
EDEN PRAIRIE
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
BLOOMINGTON
HOPKINS
MOUNDS VIEW
BURNSVILLE
MINNETONKA
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
OSSEO
WAYZATA
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
SPRING LAKE PARK
WHITE BEAR LAKE
INVER GROVE
SOUTH WASHINGTON
MAHTOMEDI
PRIOR LAKE
WESTONKA
CHASKA
LAKEVILLE
58
56
3
13
8
30
11
5
6
3
6
22
34
37
38
29
43
36
32
107
65
44
27
172
28
19
46
22
81
28
49
28
84
86
52,197
41,761
1,421
6,819
4,015
14,797
4,785
2,324
2,431
1,024
2,220
7,705
11,605
11,918
12,191
9,161
12,889
10,172
8,630
27,710
16,229
10,653
6,395
40,691
6,376
4,000
9,466
3,701
12,841
3,423
5,299
2,791
7,745
7,204
District
Appendix E
9.6
309.09
310.88
188.17
149.63
203.56
159.13
243.14
247.09
213.35
144.34
204.26
230.14
211.97
254.60
211.72
153.34
246.22
211.42
240.47
245.27
188.81
292.58
208.84
198.91
231.40
250.97
243.82
191.94
231.96
233.22
216.51
251.05
288.74
296.63
345.38
301.20
248.55
255.35
192.19
221.11
236.19
227.26
221.32
223.14
285.00
299.17
323.53
199.12
201.40
226.80
220.88
211.19
214.94
257.16
217.44
221.29
309.81
205.27
225.65
226.51
222.27
221.17
226.30
272.38
272.74
217.04
229.82
253.00
243.51
286.90
309.24
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
230.00
249.24
249.72
250.53
250.72
252.00
253.45
254.61
259.73
261.81
269.69
273.11
275.62
278.11
280.86
-18.55
-25.35
37.81
8.89
-6.19
2.74
8.68
6.86
-55.00
-69.17
-93.53
30.88
28.60
3.20
9.12
18.81
15.06
-27.16
12.56
8.71
-60.57
44.46
24.88
24.21
29.73
32.28
28.32
-12.65
-10.93
52.64
43.29
22.62
34.60
-6.04
Total
Change
Option 5
6,492,394
(968,353)
(1,058,733)
53,722
60,649
(24,833)
40,558
41,538
15,943
(133,695)
(70,830)
(207,634)
237,956
331,935
38,111
111,209
172,327
194,058
(276,297)
108,415
241,388
(982,924)
473,600
159,136
985,331
189,529
129,137
268,032
(46,801)
(140,324)
180,196
229,397
63,142
267,969
(43,495)
165
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 5:
Square
District
885
720
278
834
535
728
748
192
742
77
882
831
883
727
15
877
200
709
879
47
110
99
492
152
2144
700
347
138
94
750
423
656
721
256
911
204
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
SHAKOPEE
ORONO
STILLWATER
ROCHESTER
ELK RIVER
SARTELL
FARMINGTON
ST. CLOUD
MANKATO
MONTICELLO
FOREST LAKE
ROCKFORD
BIG LAKE
ST. FRANCIS
BUFFALO
HASTINGS
DULUTH
DELANO
SAUK RAPIDS
WACONIA
ESKO
AUSTIN
MOORHEAD
CHISAGO LAKES
HERMANTOWN
WILLMAR
NORTH BRANCH
CLOQUET
ROCORI
HUTCHINSON
FARIBAULT
NEW PRAGUE
RED WING
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
KASSON-MANTORVIL
Miles
40
51
49
153
218
172
47
77
246
137
88
214
43
63
163
149
178
356
66
137
99
42
143
203
165
92
220
176
97
127
168
221
156
176
246
95
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
2,873
3,467
3,043
9,015
12,307
9,677
2,650
4,250
11,140
5,724
3,685
8,847
1,782
2,416
6,028
4,642
5,405
10,377
1,807
3,464
2,471
1,048
3,255
4,581
3,678
1,948
4,606
3,561
1,962
2,543
3,359
4,162
2,933
3,302
4,510
1,733
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
71.4
68.1
62.6
58.8
56.5
56.4
55.8
55.2
45.4
41.9
41.8
41.4
41.1
38.3
37.0
31.1
30.3
29.2
27.3
25.2
24.9
24.7
22.8
22.5
22.3
21.1
21.0
20.3
20.3
20.0
19.9
18.9
18.8
18.7
18.4
18.2
295.39
393.83
344.12
295.42
382.91
329.70
338.44
305.81
299.76
252.89
314.00
327.93
271.06
295.42
375.09
377.47
284.69
251.47
365.13
355.90
360.63
309.11
241.81
386.28
293.58
283.07
352.35
351.38
372.81
372.59
281.58
301.03
233.99
323.41
273.42
320.09
239.76
306.89
237.86
274.76
369.63
247.29
251.92
259.95
299.33
338.37
246.32
248.44
257.63
252.98
262.02
298.19
279.94
356.93
294.58
314.17
288.39
258.17
367.58
361.76
275.21
260.62
281.31
280.12
352.38
293.99
282.17
349.28
280.05
306.88
292.20
274.46
285.99
287.48
290.17
292.14
293.43
293.50
293.84
294.22
300.61
303.25
303.32
303.67
303.91
306.28
307.44
313.31
314.24
315.60
317.86
320.68
321.19
321.39
324.27
324.67
325.10
327.08
327.23
328.46
328.48
328.92
329.05
331.10
331.28
331.32
332.07
332.45
Due to
Option 5
Changes
46.23
-19.41
52.31
17.38
-76.20
46.21
41.92
34.28
1.29
-35.12
57.01
55.24
46.28
53.29
45.42
15.12
34.30
-41.33
23.28
6.51
32.80
63.22
-43.31
-37.08
49.89
66.46
45.93
48.34
-23.90
34.93
46.88
-18.18
51.23
24.44
39.87
57.98
Total
Change
Option 5
132,831
(67,303)
159,166
156,649
(937,742)
447,146
111,096
145,681
14,342
(201,048)
210,067
488,666
82,463
128,757
273,799
70,177
185,406
(428,887)
42,059
22,551
81,043
66,255
(140,979)
(169,882)
183,504
129,457
211,535
172,147
(46,894)
88,824
157,478
(75,649)
150,268
80,703
179,822
100,485
166
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 5:
Square
District
761
881
300
861
659
531
717
111
726
876
508
413
829
477
181
25
241
704
206
466
108
252
345
88
745
2752
323
695
706
255
2687
534
595
2859
518
716
OWATONNA
MAPLE LAKE
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
WINONA
NORTHFIELD
BYRON
JORDAN
WATERTOWN-MAYER
BECKER
ANNANDALE
ST. PETER
MARSHALL
WASECA
PRINCETON
BRAINERD
PINE POINT
ALBERT LEA
PROCTOR
ALEXANDRIA
DASSEL-COKATO
NORWOOD
CANNON FALLS
NEW LONDON-SPICE
NEW ULM
ALBANY
FAIRMONT AREA SC
FRANCONIA
CHISHOLM
VIRGINIA
PINE ISLAND
HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
STEWARTVILLE
EAST GRAND FORKS
GLENCOE-SILVER L
WORTHINGTON
BELLE PLAINE
Miles
232
58
97
269
179
71
73
99
112
135
118
163
152
235
517
5
228
150
344
177
112
133
167
316
152
175
4
68
157
89
112
136
174
218
263
107
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
4,104
1,007
1,687
4,630
3,028
1,203
1,180
1,558
1,726
1,986
1,612
2,220
2,048
3,146
6,793
64
2,942
1,916
4,379
2,222
1,366
1,612
1,942
3,578
1,715
1,929
46
702
1,593
901
1,122
1,344
1,671
2,070
2,476
1,006
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
17.7
17.4
17.4
17.2
17.0
16.9
16.2
15.7
15.4
14.7
13.6
13.6
13.4
13.4
13.1
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.7
12.6
12.2
12.1
11.6
11.3
11.3
11.1
10.5
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.0
9.9
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.4
319.22
327.36
346.99
373.84
398.53
203.61
300.78
317.74
377.27
376.73
333.07
294.90
323.57
388.93
355.69
129.15
380.67
379.11
304.31
362.53
195.11
337.87
359.89
314.95
310.79
466.63
331.02
299.73
309.69
343.63
342.74
341.67
276.71
352.03
337.97
388.44
376.49
287.31
303.31
387.33
375.53
317.93
365.37
293.41
328.99
288.16
372.03
342.45
330.43
304.76
317.76
281.56
405.75
339.48
316.91
287.16
315.46
297.02
276.96
341.45
321.03
387.30
265.92
404.09
323.24
359.69
383.85
377.74
356.58
328.58
334.27
382.52
333.44
334.02
334.04
334.48
334.99
335.09
336.68
337.79
338.62
340.33
343.13
343.23
343.66
343.87
344.54
345.20
345.26
345.49
345.72
346.18
347.23
347.52
349.15
350.18
350.23
351.13
353.20
353.71
354.41
354.45
354.87
355.43
356.68
356.99
357.44
357.50
Due to
Option 5
Changes
-43.04
46.72
30.73
-52.85
-40.54
17.16
-28.69
44.38
9.63
52.17
-28.90
.78
13.24
39.11
26.78
63.64
-60.49
6.01
28.81
59.02
31.77
50.50
72.20
8.74
29.20
-36.17
87.28
-50.38
31.17
-5.24
-28.99
-22.31
.10
28.41
23.16
-25.02
Total
Change
Option 5
(176,656)
47,045
51,833
(244,714)
(122,768)
20,644
(33,856)
69,151
16,617
103,608
(46,579)
1,736
27,114
123,038
181,925
4,073
(177,962)
11,514
126,149
131,138
43,404
81,402
140,205
31,258
50,085
(69,779)
4,015
(35,364)
49,649
(4,717)
(32,523)
(29,986)
170
58,807
57,350
(25,170)
167
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 5:
Square
District
22
738
463
186
482
424
465
533
701
75
2805
544
578
139
2154
316
740
129
51
31
394
741
2397
332
811
739
93
743
2897
2143
813
314
810
485
912
487
DETROIT LAKES
HOLDINGFORD
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
PEQUOT LAKES
LITTLE FALLS
LESTER PRAIRIE
LITCHFIELD
DOVER-EYOTA
HIBBING
ST. CLAIR
ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
FERGUS FALLS
PINE CITY
RUSH CITY
EVELETH-GILBERT
GREENWAY
MELROSE
MONTEVIDEO
FOLEY
BEMIDJI
MONTGOMERY-LONSD
PAYNESVILLE
LESUEUR-HENDERSO
MORA
WABASHA-KELLOGG
KIMBALL
CARLTON
SAUK CENTRE
REDWOOD
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
LAKE CITY
BRAHAM
PLAINVIEW
ROYALTON
MILACA
UPSALA
Miles
325
122
102
154
382
42
241
100
342
75
138
342
220
107
139
185
223
186
266
825
137
170
169
261
137
127
109
197
270
149
195
139
164
113
285
69
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
2,951
1,082
895
1,337
3,308
354
2,026
827
2,833
618
1,121
2,754
1,761
844
1,067
1,408
1,692
1,380
1,966
5,992
985
1,218
1,203
1,849
950
877
725
1,287
1,764
973
1,251
873
1,021
703
1,772
407
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
9.1
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.7
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.2
5.9
348.28
260.76
367.64
330.76
365.97
452.42
381.12
322.12
292.34
163.39
324.03
376.01
399.90
374.68
407.30
416.34
422.19
297.44
311.52
454.78
377.59
342.33
344.35
320.65
389.74
440.49
484.64
376.41
306.55
394.78
387.68
402.68
415.86
278.13
399.76
344.83
310.88
307.68
318.40
273.38
348.13
478.29
342.34
296.52
346.17
289.99
362.17
404.16
326.68
339.94
420.21
349.53
364.01
346.46
304.74
317.92
436.41
322.79
410.44
337.90
349.63
351.34
363.60
388.41
317.53
391.50
405.19
385.89
361.06
329.58
360.38
345.01
358.75
359.84
360.08
360.57
360.66
361.37
361.88
362.39
362.40
362.69
363.29
363.61
363.76
364.26
365.61
365.90
365.94
366.91
366.98
367.70
368.27
368.27
368.60
368.72
369.75
369.79
371.18
372.02
372.03
372.18
372.78
373.51
374.00
374.03
374.13
376.09
Due to
Option 5
Changes
47.88
52.16
41.69
87.18
12.53
-116.93
19.54
65.86
16.23
72.70
1.12
-40.55
37.08
24.32
-54.60
16.37
1.94
20.45
62.24
49.78
-68.14
45.48
-41.83
30.82
20.12
18.44
7.58
-16.38
54.49
-19.32
-32.41
-12.38
12.94
44.46
13.76
31.08
Total
Change
Option 5
141,280
56,435
37,309
116,562
41,441
(41,392)
39,584
54,469
45,990
44,928
1,254
(111,670)
65,306
20,523
(58,259)
23,055
3,276
28,226
122,368
298,289
(67,123)
55,392
(50,325)
56,981
19,116
16,175
5,492
(21,085)
96,125
(18,794)
(40,542)
(10,810)
13,212
31,253
24,378
12,649
168
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 5:
Square
District
195
840
2137
763
2125
2155
177
549
769
2310
333
806
391
182
857
593
2753
858
2534
97
2172
712
818
564
308
392
484
227
553
116
486
203
787
253
150
239
RANDOLPH
ST. JAMES
KINGSLAND
MEDFORD
TRITON
WADENA-DEER CREE
WINDOM
PERHAM
MORRIS
SIBLEY EAST
OGILVIE
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
CLEVELAND
CROSBY-IRONTON
LEWISTON
CROOKSTON
LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
ST. CHARLES
BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
MOOSE LAKE
KENYON-WANAMINGO
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
VERNDALE
THIEF RIVER FALL
NEVIS
LECENTER
PIERZ
CHATFIELD
NEW YORK MILLS
PILLAGER
SWANVILLE
HAYFIELD
BROWERVILLE
GOODHUE
HAWLEY
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
Miles
68
223
183
75
215
191
203
342
223
249
155
82
67
327
159
413
246
132
241
158
221
139
105
473
126
85
237
163
184
173
92
199
118
121
147
178
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
400
1,285
1,048
422
1,196
1,059
1,128
1,887
1,198
1,311
809
427
342
1,601
764
1,965
1,163
622
1,128
738
994
613
451
2,012
535
357
991
675
752
693
368
796
471
478
575
693
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
393.38
327.31
318.16
304.78
316.35
418.02
284.64
375.92
246.94
317.21
344.76
461.42
309.29
372.40
342.54
169.65
490.40
490.76
440.95
397.15
423.07
597.27
185.19
396.73
455.03
443.44
460.14
402.78
385.27
344.08
291.52
433.38
443.82
521.08
371.97
448.05
353.59
352.46
344.05
413.23
364.02
464.28
334.31
341.01
299.21
375.67
317.93
433.57
424.97
353.72
382.37
319.52
487.40
555.26
376.24
330.11
357.42
424.91
305.66
390.19
258.38
690.50
400.23
443.41
338.05
379.84
362.15
434.41
373.49
411.99
493.63
375.99
376.30
377.23
377.47
378.12
378.60
378.71
378.77
379.04
380.21
380.98
381.30
381.65
382.18
385.23
387.20
388.42
388.82
389.42
389.90
390.57
394.03
396.32
399.54
400.16
400.30
401.40
402.10
403.25
404.32
406.58
406.83
406.98
407.12
408.47
409.70
409.98
Due to
Option 5
Changes
22.71
24.77
33.42
-35.11
14.58
-85.57
44.47
38.03
81.00
5.31
63.37
-51.92
-42.79
31.52
4.83
68.90
-98.59
-165.84
13.66
60.45
36.61
-28.59
93.88
9.97
141.91
-289.10
1.87
-40.15
66.27
26.74
44.68
-27.44
33.63
-3.53
-83.93
33.99
Total
Change
Option 5
9,086
31,833
35,029
(14,817)
17,436
(90,620)
50,160
71,758
97,041
6,961
51,263
(22,168)
(14,634)
50,460
3,690
135,397
(114,656)
(103,151)
15,411
44,616
36,392
(17,525)
42,340
20,050
75,924
(103,209)
1,854
(27,104)
49,834
18,531
16,442
(21,840)
15,838
(1,687)
(48,262)
23,555
169
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 5:
Square
District
23
242
2711
500
2149
786
2135
213
2168
299
2184
756
417
2170
2071
361
2198
84
815
91
2860
309
548
2448
550
821
2895
507
2180
2887
409
2164
2365
207
513
581
FRAZEE
ALDEN
MESABI EAST
SOUTHLAND
MINNEWASKA
BERTHA-HEWITT
MAPLE RIVER
OSAKIS
N.R.H.E.G.
CALEDONIA
LUVERNE
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
TRACY
STAPLES-MOTLEY
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
INTERNATIONAL FA
FILLMORE CENTRAL
SLEEPY EYE
PRINSBURG
BARNUM
BLUE EARTH AREA
PARK RAPIDS
PELICAN RAPIDS
MARTIN COUNTY WE
UNDERWOOD
MENAHGA
JACKSON C
NICOLLET
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
MCLEOD WEST SCHO
TYLER
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
G.F.W.
BRANDON
BREWSTER
EDGERTON
Miles
325
86
398
200
460
138
303
155
236
238
264
177
240
480
226
472
212
207
28
195
391
587
334
280
123
213
441
139
318
163
114
275
349
93
77
142
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
1,221
323
1,486
730
1,679
504
1,095
557
847
856
947
635
857
1,717
807
1,640
730
709
94
664
1,320
1,964
1,113
923
398
688
1,419
442
999
499
350
834
1,044
278
228
420
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
461.10
285.51
333.35
495.87
396.68
486.08
448.82
357.24
409.77
470.97
498.50
453.10
324.35
519.65
704.57
356.09
475.48
414.87
454.60
423.94
363.29
404.63
416.91
421.22
377.28
492.13
374.88
428.22
510.60
461.74
423.14
611.58
395.11
546.78
522.48
494.99
370.52
350.02
300.60
391.31
379.38
358.19
400.65
412.99
402.88
557.76
491.53
476.20
354.93
412.99
509.98
391.73
418.87
556.50
429.81
363.72
431.18
367.25
436.26
365.31
368.07
374.83
409.94
438.48
404.98
418.48
391.68
509.92
438.05
430.88
351.42
576.04
413.78
414.02
414.69
417.18
417.21
417.43
418.14
418.82
418.86
418.98
419.26
419.37
419.41
419.42
419.80
422.62
423.79
424.21
425.16
425.27
425.92
426.98
427.51
428.83
430.55
431.16
431.60
433.09
434.29
437.16
437.51
438.47
440.00
440.57
441.19
441.31
Due to
Option 5
Changes
43.26
64.00
114.09
25.87
37.82
59.24
17.49
5.83
15.98
-138.78
-72.27
-56.82
64.48
6.43
-90.18
30.89
4.91
-132.29
-4.64
61.56
-5.26
59.73
-8.74
63.52
62.47
56.33
21.66
-5.39
29.30
18.67
45.84
-71.45
1.95
9.68
89.77
-134.73
Total
Change
Option 5
52,817
20,672
169,533
18,888
63,506
29,858
19,148
3,247
13,538
(118,797)
(68,437)
(36,083)
55,259
11,045
(72,773)
50,667
3,587
(93,792)
(437)
40,874
(6,941)
117,309
(9,732)
58,631
24,865
38,758
30,740
(2,381)
29,276
9,318
16,043
(59,590)
2,036
2,692
20,468
(56,588)
170
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 5:
Square
District
2759
837
2890
2889
238
2396
85
229
261
2190
414
2159
846
115
100
547
542
511
473
2165
2835
2886
671
775
2134
297
2169
2364
499
2167
458
630
306
432
318
173
EAGLE VALLEY
MADELIA
D.R.S.H.
LAKE PARK AUDUBO
MABEL-CANTON
A.C.G.C.
SPRINGFIELD
LANESBORO
ASHBY
YELLOW MEDICINE
MINNEOTA
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
BRECKENRIDGE
CASS LAKE
WRENSHALL
PARKERS PRAIRIE
BATTLE LAKE
ADRIAN
ISLE
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
JANESVILLE-WALDO
GLENVILLE-EMMONS
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
UNITED SOUTH CEN
SPRING GROVE
MURRAY COUNTY CE
BELGRADE-BROOTEN
LEROY
LAKEVIEW
TRUMAN
RED LAKE FALLS
LAPORTE
MAHNOMEN
GRAND RAPIDS
MOUNTAIN LAKE
Miles
134
146
312
218
116
350
148
105
98
421
176
229
344
424
126
200
194
176
224
418
202
149
117
249
343
90
313
345
120
179
150
190
163
345
1,956
139
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
396
431
921
641
339
1,007
420
299
274
1,181
489
635
939
1,157
341
542
523
472
594
1,095
528
386
301
635
873
226
786
846
292
436
362
456
387
811
4,530
322
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
520.32
432.58
419.54
474.67
347.84
490.01
388.14
644.60
413.10
579.99
277.19
340.51
296.78
525.13
514.87
542.73
450.27
493.52
381.16
430.66
451.91
469.71
408.49
470.86
589.16
540.61
612.95
417.39
484.60
393.60
499.09
532.08
416.07
560.88
475.52
396.78
497.78
498.47
376.79
420.60
443.97
440.35
593.81
384.80
380.08
442.17
437.90
391.05
419.07
386.00
389.41
402.88
428.72
444.13
334.72
409.20
617.55
483.31
484.55
393.32
555.75
635.65
474.58
415.35
524.33
493.78
552.92
439.44
307.37
427.20
418.84
637.03
441.47
441.73
441.81
442.03
443.36
444.97
446.27
446.37
447.80
447.82
448.75
449.51
451.05
451.33
452.03
452.27
452.75
453.21
454.83
456.15
456.55
457.99
458.06
459.59
459.80
461.04
461.49
464.37
465.29
465.52
466.10
467.13
468.18
469.67
471.67
471.82
Due to
Option 5
Changes
-56.31
-56.74
65.01
21.44
-.61
4.61
-147.54
61.57
67.71
5.66
10.85
58.46
31.98
65.32
62.61
49.39
24.03
9.09
120.10
46.96
-161.00
-25.32
-26.49
66.27
-95.95
-174.61
-13.09
49.02
-59.04
-28.25
-86.82
27.69
160.81
42.47
52.83
-165.21
Total
Change
Option 5
(22,299)
(24,453)
59,878
13,742
(207)
4,644
(61,967)
18,409
18,553
6,679
5,308
37,122
30,027
75,580
21,351
26,768
12,567
4,289
71,341
51,416
(85,009)
(9,774)
(7,974)
42,083
(83,764)
(39,461)
(10,293)
41,470
(17,240)
(12,317)
(31,428)
12,627
62,232
34,440
239,317
(53,197)
171
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 5:
Square
District
495
820
317
2174
640
330
2689
113
319
777
294
497
577
418
505
545
402
601
480
2609
162
2342
682
415
635
32
768
2527
2754
2580
435
2311
62
378
514
600
GRAND MEADOW
SEBEKA
DEER RIVER
PINE RIVER-BACKU
WABASSO
HERON LAKE-OKABE
PIPESTONE-JASPER
WALKER-HACKENSAC
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
BENSON
HOUSTON
LYLE
WILLOW RIVER
RUSSELL
FULDA
HENNING
HENDRICKS
FOSSTON
ONAMIA
WIN-E-MAC
BAGLEY
WEST CENTRAL ARE
ROSEAU
LYND
MILROY
BLACKDUCK
HANCOCK
NORMAN COUNTY WE
CEDAR MOUNTAIN
EAST CENTRAL
WAUBUN
CLEARBROOK-GONVI
ORTONVILLE
DAWSON-BOYD
ELLSWORTH
FISHER
Miles
96
259
541
539
213
154
418
456
274
402
153
65
224
81
215
171
89
304
375
296
573
463
714
70
88
426
89
199
193
627
400
333
188
247
81
147
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
222
595
1,241
1,230
484
351
950
1,035
613
897
338
142
490
176
450
347
178
603
739
579
1,118
900
1,380
132
163
780
158
350
338
1,098
699
570
322
421
137
247
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
407.76
548.79
541.66
456.20
365.72
389.04
667.32
533.66
545.80
445.85
428.97
507.70
618.42
429.38
517.82
509.61
426.65
391.70
611.08
394.81
459.08
497.28
462.98
549.23
538.96
509.88
400.55
613.27
712.10
459.37
500.70
760.30
510.59
470.60
412.96
661.76
591.29
398.86
405.43
440.92
496.62
414.30
623.55
433.18
453.89
502.00
564.94
661.51
412.05
443.64
536.05
510.18
450.46
452.97
449.92
416.38
425.83
454.32
449.62
617.29
462.26
432.36
629.12
422.42
569.04
406.20
421.13
420.09
661.74
612.70
613.64
385.84
472.26
472.46
472.93
473.47
473.87
473.92
473.95
474.15
475.90
476.48
477.38
478.57
478.83
479.80
484.84
489.13
490.11
491.80
492.70
493.80
494.04
494.62
495.20
498.18
500.41
502.43
507.08
507.95
508.34
508.63
508.80
511.54
511.72
512.50
513.39
514.59
Due to
Option 5
Changes
-119.02
73.60
67.50
32.55
-22.75
59.62
-149.60
40.97
22.00
-25.52
-87.57
-182.94
66.78
36.16
-51.20
-21.05
39.65
38.83
42.78
77.42
68.21
40.30
45.58
-119.11
38.14
70.07
-122.05
85.53
-60.70
102.42
87.67
91.45
-150.02
-100.20
-100.25
128.75
Total
Change
Option 5
(26,423)
43,793
83,769
40,039
(11,009)
20,927
(142,118)
42,407
13,488
(22,891)
(29,598)
(25,977)
32,722
6,365
(23,041)
(7,304)
7,058
23,413
31,613
44,824
76,258
36,269
62,900
(15,722)
6,218
54,657
(19,284)
29,935
(20,517)
112,459
61,282
52,126
(48,306)
(42,184)
(13,734)
31,802
172
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 5:
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
148
1,014
249
200
123
211
344
947
108
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
245
1,655
405
322
196
334
530
1,455
165
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
416.46
338.38
526.94
536.85
477.94
444.44
492.77
439.45
459.72
464.81
423.30
674.91
493.48
622.71
416.99
552.09
436.59
486.42
516.66
518.40
519.08
520.19
522.06
522.81
526.69
526.88
527.13
Due to
Option 5
Changes
51.85
95.10
-155.83
26.71
-100.65
105.82
-25.40
90.29
40.71
822
81
342
261
345
284
357
112
761
123
54
94
121
343
175
108
259
212
144
109
307
443
290
317
226
183
1,249
119
503
382
502
412
517
161
1,089
176
76
131
168
470
232
136
317
258
172
129
356
495
302
324
230
186
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
492.50
658.54
431.74
599.94
830.82
570.67
701.67
514.30
459.94
393.44
737.26
626.82
576.97
582.02
362.04
911.94
565.87
524.28
545.32
671.62
542.11
590.24
485.27
556.23
593.52
488.95
470.57
482.46
637.12
542.42
469.48
508.43
467.69
443.11
531.05
499.16
766.79
745.68
470.30
652.36
456.19
692.45
496.16
566.81
651.30
551.42
486.77
576.60
675.35
505.58
584.29
562.70
528.48
532.76
533.31
533.71
534.72
535.17
535.58
537.02
537.14
537.21
538.17
541.29
542.01
543.45
547.92
556.21
560.42
561.25
563.62
564.79
568.40
574.15
585.20
588.12
589.20
589.30
57.91
50.30
-103.80
-8.70
65.23
26.74
67.89
93.91
6.09
38.06
-228.62
-204.39
71.72
-108.91
91.72
-136.24
64.27
-5.56
-87.68
13.37
81.63
-2.45
-90.15
82.54
4.91
26.60
Square
District
403
38
696
2536
208
95
2884
690
584
IVANHOE
RED LAKE
ELY
CROMWELL
RED ROCK CENTRAL
WARROAD
RUTHTON
1
611
891
2898
2854
2215
599
628
2853
81
801
836
592
146
850
411
2
914
404
371
441
2888
803
698
771
676
AITKIN
CYRUS
CANBY
WESTBROOK
ADA-BORUP
NORMAN COUNTY EA
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
PLUMMER
LAC QUI PARLE VA
COMFREY
BROWNS VALLEY
BUTTERFIELD
CLIMAX
BARNESVILLE
ROTHSAY
BALATON
HILL CITY
ULEN-HITTERDAL
LAKE BENTON
BELLINGHAM
MARSHALL COUNTY
CLINTON-GRACEVIL
WHEATON AREA SCH
FLOODWOOD
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
BADGER
Appendix E
Miles
Total
Change
Option 5
12,703
157,391
(63,110)
8,601
(19,727)
35,344
(13,463)
131,372
6,717
72,334
5,986
(52,213)
(3,325)
32,746
11,018
35,099
15,119
6,632
6,698
(17,375)
(26,775)
12,048
(51,187)
21,280
(18,528)
20,373
(1,435)
(15,081)
1,725
29,059
(1,213)
(27,226)
26,743
1,130
4,948
173
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 5:
Square
District
516
118
2358
2176
627
390
2856
4
561
381
2683
2171
2142
852
356
707
264
166
36
363
362
447
ROUND LAKE
REMER-LONGVILLE
TRI-COUNTY
LAKE OF THE WOOD
STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
MCGREGOR
GOODRIDGE
LAKE SUPERIOR
GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
KITTSON CENTRAL
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
LANCASTER
NETT LAKE
HERMAN-NORCROSS
COOK COUNTY
KELLIHER
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
GRYGLA
Miles
63
836
451
505
221
1,143
404
806
284
2,592
729
470
4,201
265
323
108
204
1,616
627
1,532
876
809
Appendix E
Pupils
Transp:
Pupils
Transp
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Reg+Exs+
Dsg
FY 2000
57
685
356
383
161
828
284
556
185
1,653
460
287
2,455
136
153
51
95
645
242
477
270
172
per
Sq Mile
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 5
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
116.90
697.69
636.00
678.68
708.24
542.18
660.72
722.52
816.44
634.44
843.35
1017.52
699.25
748.31
715.88
1167.70
624.07
633.38
631.83
757.66
549.26
1215.44
1006.58
530.26
584.33
862.05
685.02
534.24
785.76
606.45
551.15
693.96
616.90
843.39
689.76
788.69
690.59
850.80
1060.75
691.26
630.99
473.90
757.32
826.42
608.95
624.29
630.63
637.68
644.33
645.50
650.88
654.17
664.06
668.07
670.04
676.00
684.05
708.58
724.19
724.74
727.75
758.15
765.20
810.83
812.98
898.90
Due to
Option 5
Changes
-397.63
94.03
46.31
-224.37
-40.69
111.25
-134.88
47.72
112.91
-25.89
53.14
-167.39
-5.71
-80.10
33.59
-126.06
-333.00
66.89
134.20
336.93
55.65
72.48
Total
Change
Option 5
(22,665)
64,413
16,486
(85,933)
(6,551)
92,117
(38,305)
26,533
20,888
(42,792)
24,445
(48,040)
(14,016)
(10,894)
5,140
(6,429)
(31,635)
43,143
32,477
160,715
15,027
12,466
174
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Transportation Sparsity Based on Cost per Pupil Transported;
Density, Sparsity, Mileage included in Formula; Includes Nonpublic Regular
Pupils
Transp
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
State Totals
9.6
95,563,865
MINNEAPOLIS
ST. PAUL
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
EDINA
RICHFIELD
ROBBINSDALE
ST. LOUIS PARK
FRIDLEY
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
BROOKLYN CENTER
SOUTH ST. PAUL
ROSEVILLE
EDEN PRAIRIE
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
BLOOMINGTON
HOPKINS
MOUNDS VIEW
BURNSVILLE
MINNETONKA
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
OSSEO
WAYZATA
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
SPRING LAKE PARK
WHITE BEAR LAKE
INVER GROVE
SOUTH WASHINGTON
MAHTOMEDI
PRIOR LAKE
WESTONKA
CHASKA
LAKEVILLE
893.8
743.7
548.6
516.6
501.9
500.6
451.8
432.8
392.1
380.7
363.3
355.9
340.3
324.7
319.1
310.8
302.6
279.1
273.1
258.0
249.3
244.9
237.8
236.2
225.5
214.0
205.3
171.3
159.4
121.7
108.5
99.9
92.0
84.2
4,501,647
2,143,971
49,514
1,036,122
186,474
1,615,019
342,499
87,081
102,440
29,737
128,718
441,875
837,941
875,523
849,463
578,391
1,566,915
717,614
721,902
1,949,893
1,290,607
702,331
410,573
4,083,232
549,064
252,181
638,334
228,489
1,130,105
290,633
354,363
289,686
787,307
647,110
District
1
625
282
273
280
281
283
14
13
286
6
623
272
622
271
270
621
191
276
196
279
284
197
11
12
16
624
199
833
832
719
277
112
194
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
Due to
Option 6
Changes
7.73
118.46
86.24
51.34
34.84
151.95
46.44
109.15
71.58
37.47
42.14
29.04
57.98
57.35
72.21
73.46
69.68
63.14
121.57
70.55
83.65
70.37
79.52
65.93
64.20
100.35
86.11
63.05
67.43
61.74
88.01
84.91
66.87
103.79
101.65
89.83
309.09
310.88
188.17
149.63
203.56
159.13
243.14
247.09
213.35
144.34
204.26
230.14
211.97
254.60
211.72
153.34
246.22
211.42
240.47
245.27
188.81
292.58
208.84
198.91
231.40
250.97
243.82
191.94
231.96
233.22
216.51
251.05
288.74
296.63
345.38
301.20
248.55
255.35
192.19
221.11
236.19
227.26
221.32
223.14
285.00
299.17
323.53
199.12
201.40
226.80
220.88
211.19
214.94
257.16
217.44
221.29
309.81
205.27
225.65
226.51
222.27
221.17
226.30
272.38
272.74
217.04
229.82
253.00
243.51
286.90
308.92
244.99
206.45
181.66
295.34
199.73
264.79
230.38
186.07
193.42
171.06
214.91
214.13
231.04
232.36
228.34
221.03
274.38
229.28
242.54
229.09
238.57
224.54
223.04
258.58
246.64
223.34
229.02
225.28
254.53
256.33
238.82
277.72
277.39
267.97
-3.56
-48.90
-10.53
74.23
-36.45
37.53
9.06
-37.07
-91.57
-128.11
-108.62
15.01
29.65
5.56
7.47
9.84
59.44
-27.88
25.10
7.80
-71.23
19.27
-2.61
32.07
24.37
2.17
2.73
-47.09
-18.20
39.28
9.00
24.71
33.88
-18.93
Total
Change
Option 6
6,234,711
(185,727)
(2,042,238)
(14,963)
506,206
(146,349)
555,391
43,349
(86,145)
(222,610)
(131,182)
(241,141)
115,683
344,039
66,270
91,024
90,181
766,117
(283,626)
216,617
216,065
(1,156,046)
205,260
(16,698)
1,304,988
155,396
8,696
25,809
(174,291)
(233,770)
134,470
47,684
68,977
262,413
(136,344)
175
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Pupils
Transp
District
885
720
278
834
535
728
748
192
742
77
882
831
883
727
15
877
200
709
879
47
110
99
492
152
2144
700
347
138
94
750
423
656
721
256
911
204
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
SHAKOPEE
ORONO
STILLWATER
ROCHESTER
ELK RIVER
SARTELL
FARMINGTON
ST. CLOUD
MANKATO
MONTICELLO
FOREST LAKE
ROCKFORD
BIG LAKE
ST. FRANCIS
BUFFALO
HASTINGS
DULUTH
DELANO
SAUK RAPIDS
WACONIA
ESKO
AUSTIN
MOORHEAD
CHISAGO LAKES
HERMANTOWN
WILLMAR
NORTH BRANCH
CLOQUET
ROCORI
HUTCHINSON
FARIBAULT
NEW PRAGUE
RED WING
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
KASSON-MANTORVIL
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Due to
Option 6
Changes
46.24
-25.45
46.78
43.17
-35.55
31.42
32.05
16.29
-9.12
-67.26
48.23
104.17
29.26
32.35
69.88
60.84
39.88
-45.06
-.86
62.55
-6.54
44.73
-85.01
-30.55
58.33
43.22
49.05
38.18
-70.84
71.39
31.52
-42.37
52.06
-14.83
40.85
-11.57
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
71.4
68.1
62.6
58.8
56.5
56.4
55.8
55.2
45.4
41.9
41.8
41.4
41.1
38.3
37.0
31.1
30.3
29.2
27.3
25.2
24.9
24.7
22.8
22.5
22.3
21.1
21.0
20.3
20.3
20.0
19.9
18.9
18.8
18.7
18.4
18.2
303,573
345,450
308,211
1,260,020
1,981,755
899,538
260,092
382,704
1,117,612
459,403
380,054
1,570,393
169,063
222,101
869,774
819,459
668,233
1,178,814
168,837
676,434
199,697
105,229
260,266
591,287
483,671
190,872
581,003
398,453
151,343
431,060
358,350
410,592
367,129
279,920
566,825
106,128
105.66
99.64
101.29
139.77
161.03
92.96
98.15
90.05
100.32
80.26
103.14
177.51
94.87
91.93
144.29
176.53
123.63
113.60
93.43
195.28
80.82
100.41
79.96
129.07
131.50
97.98
126.14
111.89
77.14
169.51
106.68
98.65
125.17
84.77
125.68
61.24
295.39
393.83
344.12
295.42
382.91
329.70
338.44
305.81
299.76
252.89
314.00
327.93
271.06
295.42
375.09
377.47
284.69
251.47
365.13
355.90
360.63
309.11
241.81
386.28
293.58
283.07
352.35
351.38
372.81
372.59
281.58
301.03
233.99
323.41
273.42
320.09
239.76
306.89
237.86
274.76
369.63
247.29
251.92
259.95
299.33
338.37
246.32
248.44
257.63
252.98
262.02
298.19
279.94
356.93
294.58
314.17
288.39
258.17
367.58
361.76
275.21
260.62
281.31
280.12
352.38
293.99
282.17
349.28
280.05
306.88
292.20
274.46
286.00
281.44
284.65
317.93
334.08
278.72
283.97
276.24
290.21
271.11
294.55
352.60
286.89
285.33
331.89
359.03
319.82
311.86
293.72
376.73
281.85
302.90
282.57
331.21
333.53
303.84
330.35
318.30
281.54
365.39
313.69
306.90
332.10
292.05
333.05
262.90
Total
Change
Option 6
132,850
(88,240)
142,367
389,162
(437,564)
304,083
84,941
69,254
(101,551)
(385,014)
177,725
921,565
52,141
78,150
421,224
282,421
215,556
(467,625)
(1,560)
216,678
(16,160)
46,882
(276,706)
(139,933)
214,529
84,195
225,916
135,971
(138,979)
181,556
105,887
(176,356)
152,681
(48,978)
184,255
(20,043)
176
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Pupils
Transp
District
761
881
300
861
659
531
717
111
726
876
508
413
829
477
181
25
241
704
206
466
108
252
345
88
745
2752
323
695
706
255
2687
534
595
2859
518
716
OWATONNA
MAPLE LAKE
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
WINONA
NORTHFIELD
BYRON
JORDAN
WATERTOWN-MAYER
BECKER
ANNANDALE
ST. PETER
MARSHALL
WASECA
PRINCETON
BRAINERD
PINE POINT
ALBERT LEA
PROCTOR
ALEXANDRIA
DASSEL-COKATO
NORWOOD
CANNON FALLS
NEW LONDON-SPICE
NEW ULM
ALBANY
FAIRMONT AREA SC
FRANCONIA
CHISHOLM
VIRGINIA
PINE ISLAND
HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
STEWARTVILLE
EAST GRAND FORKS
GLENCOE-SILVER L
WORTHINGTON
BELLE PLAINE
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Due to
Option 6
Changes
-26.70
16.45
-12.29
-63.65
-52.69
-27.19
-54.35
21.44
-6.64
53.07
-45.20
-57.14
-57.59
38.45
-5.70
-25.78
-63.27
41.64
17.00
36.81
-14.37
28.93
94.71
30.44
41.88
-91.01
131.74
-108.36
20.63
-19.16
-2.75
-59.03
-9.43
25.90
19.69
-8.67
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
17.7
17.4
17.4
17.2
17.0
16.9
16.2
15.7
15.4
14.7
13.6
13.6
13.4
13.4
13.1
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.7
12.6
12.2
12.1
11.6
11.3
11.3
11.1
10.5
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.0
9.9
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.4
593,666
94,666
139,282
526,326
340,501
98,432
117,367
159,789
189,220
256,205
179,627
163,800
131,643
404,864
652,788
3,354
373,275
335,678
513,214
237,026
116,025
173,852
308,933
567,000
252,300
152,740
8,784
54,487
194,545
106,806
186,642
129,664
207,450
273,329
324,722
155,650
144.66
94.01
82.56
113.68
112.45
81.82
99.46
102.56
109.63
129.01
111.43
73.78
64.28
128.69
96.10
52.41
126.88
175.20
117.20
106.67
84.94
107.85
159.08
158.47
147.11
79.18
190.96
77.62
122.12
118.54
166.35
96.48
124.15
132.04
131.15
154.72
319.22
327.36
346.99
373.84
398.53
203.61
300.78
317.74
377.27
376.73
333.07
294.90
323.57
388.93
355.69
129.15
380.67
379.11
304.31
362.53
195.11
337.87
359.89
314.95
310.79
466.63
331.02
299.73
309.69
343.63
342.74
341.67
276.71
352.03
337.97
388.44
376.49
287.31
303.31
387.33
375.53
317.93
365.37
293.41
328.99
288.16
372.03
342.45
330.43
304.76
317.76
281.56
405.75
339.48
316.91
287.16
315.46
297.02
276.96
341.45
321.03
387.30
265.92
404.09
323.24
359.69
383.85
377.74
356.58
328.58
334.27
382.52
349.79
303.75
291.02
323.68
322.84
290.74
311.02
314.85
322.35
341.23
326.83
285.31
272.84
343.21
312.06
255.78
342.48
381.12
333.91
323.97
301.09
325.95
371.66
371.89
362.91
296.29
397.66
295.73
343.87
340.53
381.10
318.71
347.15
354.48
353.96
373.85
Total
Change
Option 6
(109,578)
16,561
(20,735)
(294,681)
(159,546)
(32,710)
(64,131)
33,401
(11,465)
105,393
(72,859)
(126,852)
(117,943)
120,950
(38,732)
(1,650)
(186,135)
79,790
74,441
81,803
(19,626)
46,633
183,922
108,919
71,824
(175,556)
6,060
(76,072)
32,861
(17,260)
(3,089)
(79,331)
(15,764)
53,607
48,752
(8,721)
177
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Pupils
Transp
District
22
738
463
186
482
424
465
533
701
75
2805
544
578
139
2154
316
740
129
51
31
394
741
2397
332
811
739
93
743
2897
2143
813
314
810
485
912
487
DETROIT LAKES
HOLDINGFORD
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
PEQUOT LAKES
LITTLE FALLS
LESTER PRAIRIE
LITCHFIELD
DOVER-EYOTA
HIBBING
ST. CLAIR
ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
FERGUS FALLS
PINE CITY
RUSH CITY
EVELETH-GILBERT
GREENWAY
MELROSE
MONTEVIDEO
FOLEY
BEMIDJI
MONTGOMERY-LONSD
PAYNESVILLE
LESUEUR-HENDERSO
MORA
WABASHA-KELLOGG
KIMBALL
CARLTON
SAUK CENTRE
REDWOOD
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
LAKE CITY
BRAHAM
PLAINVIEW
ROYALTON
MILACA
UPSALA
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Due to
Option 6
Changes
21.52
42.94
27.66
85.74
17.71
-54.14
-12.38
52.15
-42.28
17.22
-17.93
-48.15
-19.20
23.53
-47.72
36.48
43.00
-29.07
43.96
81.05
-67.79
-4.19
-69.88
44.54
27.84
12.67
52.54
-18.73
-.16
11.89
-32.74
12.09
27.33
64.54
44.75
40.19
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
9.1
8.8
8.8
8.7
8.7
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
6.2
6.2
5.9
317,631
136,114
108,058
180,159
471,262
78,646
209,713
100,906
227,888
51,300
130,948
355,603
145,725
115,649
156,358
229,509
323,758
123,653
234,178
1,069,373
137,912
109,617
132,259
288,748
141,815
117,259
144,368
178,238
153,873
175,402
176,524
150,038
162,556
116,983
320,381
62,527
107.64
125.80
120.74
134.75
142.46
222.16
103.51
122.01
80.44
83.01
116.81
129.12
82.75
137.02
146.54
163.00
191.35
89.60
119.11
178.47
140.01
90.00
109.94
156.16
149.28
133.70
199.13
138.49
87.23
180.27
141.11
171.86
159.21
166.41
180.80
153.63
348.28
260.76
367.64
330.76
365.97
452.42
381.12
322.12
292.34
163.39
324.03
376.01
399.90
374.68
407.30
416.34
422.19
297.44
311.52
454.78
377.59
342.33
344.35
320.65
389.74
440.49
484.64
376.41
306.55
394.78
387.68
402.68
415.86
278.13
399.76
344.83
310.88
307.68
318.40
273.38
348.13
478.29
342.34
296.52
346.17
289.99
362.17
404.16
326.68
339.94
420.21
349.53
364.01
346.46
304.74
317.92
436.41
322.79
410.44
337.90
349.63
351.34
363.60
388.41
317.53
391.50
405.19
385.89
361.06
329.58
360.38
345.01
332.40
350.62
346.05
359.13
365.85
424.15
329.96
348.67
303.89
307.22
344.24
356.01
307.48
363.47
372.49
386.01
407.00
317.39
348.70
398.97
368.62
318.60
340.55
382.44
377.47
364.01
416.14
369.68
317.38
403.39
372.45
397.98
388.39
394.12
405.13
385.21
Total
Change
Option 6
63,506
46,465
24,752
114,641
58,597
(19,166)
(25,091)
43,125
(119,770)
10,645
(20,101)
(132,607)
(33,815)
19,856
(50,922)
51,358
72,751
(40,112)
86,420
485,625
(66,771)
(5,106)
(84,071)
82,360
26,445
11,109
38,089
(24,105)
(280)
11,570
(40,961)
10,557
27,907
45,372
79,300
16,359
178
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Pupils
Transp
District
195
840
2137
763
2125
2155
177
549
769
2310
333
806
391
182
857
593
2753
858
2534
97
2172
712
818
564
308
392
484
227
553
116
486
203
787
253
150
239
RANDOLPH
ST. JAMES
KINGSLAND
MEDFORD
TRITON
WADENA-DEER CREE
WINDOM
PERHAM
MORRIS
SIBLEY EAST
OGILVIE
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
CLEVELAND
CROSBY-IRONTON
LEWISTON
CROOKSTON
LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
ST. CHARLES
BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
MOOSE LAKE
KENYON-WANAMINGO
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
VERNDALE
THIEF RIVER FALL
NEVIS
LECENTER
PIERZ
CHATFIELD
NEW YORK MILLS
PILLAGER
SWANVILLE
HAYFIELD
BROWERVILLE
GOODHUE
HAWLEY
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Due to
Option 6
Changes
50.62
16.73
26.30
-50.96
7.75
-78.67
46.93
102.55
46.29
19.87
45.75
-39.14
-21.67
43.28
32.02
4.18
-43.56
-160.46
70.05
48.28
10.16
2.29
118.74
-19.06
197.15
-282.81
4.04
-57.51
45.53
20.51
43.18
-7.53
70.59
26.19
-89.38
97.47
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
71,026
172,555
141,905
53,269
162,894
161,046
165,646
437,860
129,607
212,869
101,681
68,507
58,541
258,096
139,300
168,784
259,632
97,178
255,090
100,988
123,102
118,790
84,742
251,278
124,262
59,021
159,331
93,895
102,355
106,575
58,706
148,501
98,992
96,050
90,132
175,194
177.57
134.28
135.41
126.23
136.20
152.07
146.85
232.04
108.19
162.37
125.69
160.44
171.17
161.21
182.33
85.90
223.24
156.23
226.14
136.84
123.85
193.78
187.90
124.89
232.27
165.32
160.78
139.10
136.11
153.79
159.53
186.56
210.17
200.94
156.75
252.81
393.38
327.31
318.16
304.78
316.35
418.02
284.64
375.92
246.94
317.21
344.76
461.42
309.29
372.40
342.54
169.65
490.40
490.76
440.95
397.15
423.07
597.27
185.19
396.73
455.03
443.44
460.14
402.78
385.27
344.08
291.52
433.38
443.82
521.08
371.97
448.05
353.59
352.46
344.05
413.23
364.02
464.28
334.31
341.01
299.21
375.67
317.93
433.57
424.97
353.72
382.37
319.52
487.40
555.26
376.24
330.11
357.42
424.91
305.66
390.19
258.38
690.50
400.23
443.41
338.05
379.84
362.15
434.41
373.49
411.99
493.63
375.99
404.20
369.18
370.35
362.26
371.77
385.61
381.23
443.56
345.50
395.55
363.68
394.43
403.30
396.99
414.39
323.70
443.84
394.80
446.29
378.40
367.58
427.21
424.40
371.14
455.53
407.69
404.27
385.89
383.58
400.35
405.33
426.88
444.08
438.19
404.25
473.45
Total
Change
Option 6
20,247
21,493
27,564
(21,507)
9,265
(83,308)
52,933
193,508
55,454
26,054
37,012
(16,713)
(7,411)
69,285
24,462
8,216
(50,664)
(99,807)
79,014
35,634
10,098
1,404
53,552
(38,343)
105,476
(100,963)
4,000
(38,821)
34,240
14,210
15,889
(5,994)
33,247
12,520
(51,396)
67,544
179
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Pupils
Transp
District
23
242
2711
500
2149
786
2135
213
2168
299
2184
756
417
2170
2071
361
2198
84
815
91
2860
309
548
2448
550
821
2895
507
2180
2887
409
2164
2365
207
513
581
FRAZEE
ALDEN
MESABI EAST
SOUTHLAND
MINNEWASKA
BERTHA-HEWITT
MAPLE RIVER
OSAKIS
N.R.H.E.G.
CALEDONIA
LUVERNE
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
TRACY
STAPLES-MOTLEY
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
INTERNATIONAL FA
FILLMORE CENTRAL
SLEEPY EYE
PRINSBURG
BARNUM
BLUE EARTH AREA
PARK RAPIDS
PELICAN RAPIDS
MARTIN COUNTY WE
UNDERWOOD
MENAHGA
JACKSON C
NICOLLET
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
MCLEOD WEST SCHO
TYLER
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
G.F.W.
BRANDON
BREWSTER
EDGERTON
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Due to
Option 6
Changes
82.58
19.93
84.50
32.97
61.74
72.03
72.13
12.55
64.52
-83.77
-27.03
-3.58
24.83
61.92
-8.34
-55.17
3.76
-135.93
-46.11
66.50
8.57
76.40
-14.76
99.81
76.01
92.22
37.28
-30.26
107.09
46.88
43.60
-55.73
37.57
66.97
107.44
-119.03
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
266,846
38,160
197,824
129,299
334,604
93,040
268,417
99,027
200,070
210,888
219,240
154,874
107,712
424,891
235,456
141,490
125,112
119,563
11,968
119,538
253,428
385,997
186,990
208,118
77,581
155,948
281,636
66,222
296,388
109,812
62,832
169,815
243,309
74,280
47,490
86,388
218.55
118.14
133.13
177.12
199.29
184.60
245.13
177.79
236.21
246.36
231.51
243.90
125.68
247.46
291.77
86.27
171.39
168.64
127.32
180.03
191.99
196.54
168.01
225.48
194.93
226.67
198.47
149.82
296.68
220.06
179.52
203.62
233.05
267.19
208.29
205.69
461.10
285.51
333.35
495.87
396.68
486.08
448.82
357.24
409.77
470.97
498.50
453.10
324.35
519.65
704.57
356.09
475.48
414.87
454.60
423.94
363.29
404.63
416.91
421.22
377.28
492.13
374.88
428.22
510.60
461.74
423.14
611.58
395.11
546.78
522.48
494.99
370.52
350.02
300.60
391.31
379.38
358.19
400.65
412.99
402.88
557.76
491.53
476.20
354.93
412.99
509.98
391.73
418.87
556.50
429.81
363.72
431.18
367.25
436.26
365.31
368.07
374.83
409.94
438.48
404.98
418.48
391.68
509.92
438.05
430.88
351.42
576.04
453.09
369.95
385.10
424.28
441.12
430.23
472.79
425.54
467.40
473.99
464.50
472.62
379.76
474.91
501.64
336.56
422.63
420.57
383.70
430.22
439.75
443.65
421.50
465.12
444.08
467.05
447.22
408.21
512.08
465.36
435.27
454.19
475.62
497.85
458.86
457.02
Total
Change
Option 6
100,824
6,437
125,561
24,069
103,663
36,305
78,985
6,993
54,645
(71,705)
(25,593)
(2,273)
21,280
106,320
(6,731)
(90,474)
2,746
(96,372)
(4,334)
44,158
11,311
150,044
(16,423)
92,124
30,253
63,448
52,903
(13,377)
106,987
23,392
15,259
(46,482)
39,223
18,618
24,497
(49,991)
180
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Pupils
Transp
District
2759
837
2890
2889
238
2396
85
229
261
2190
414
2159
846
115
100
547
542
511
473
2165
2835
2886
671
775
2134
297
2169
2364
499
2167
458
630
306
432
318
173
EAGLE VALLEY
MADELIA
D.R.S.H.
LAKE PARK AUDUBO
MABEL-CANTON
A.C.G.C.
SPRINGFIELD
LANESBORO
ASHBY
YELLOW MEDICINE
MINNEOTA
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
BRECKENRIDGE
CASS LAKE
WRENSHALL
PARKERS PRAIRIE
BATTLE LAKE
ADRIAN
ISLE
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
JANESVILLE-WALDO
GLENVILLE-EMMONS
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
UNITED SOUTH CEN
SPRING GROVE
MURRAY COUNTY CE
BELGRADE-BROOTEN
LEROY
LAKEVIEW
TRUMAN
RED LAKE FALLS
LAPORTE
MAHNOMEN
GRAND RAPIDS
MOUNTAIN LAKE
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Due to
Option 6
Changes
-35.08
-51.63
181.88
36.84
.27
39.84
-79.36
132.55
135.58
84.08
-13.19
92.01
3.66
115.75
51.82
47.51
64.07
23.08
121.63
55.49
-168.40
32.97
-44.64
72.98
-17.59
-123.64
51.51
47.44
-100.40
14.53
-46.05
18.04
162.05
81.90
47.05
-202.27
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
84,518
82,693
347,634
131,918
63,590
237,960
121,816
88,187
79,675
365,185
78,751
150,717
148,072
306,414
61,048
103,191
130,591
100,139
116,798
226,563
98,432
109,285
52,455
131,433
278,809
61,840
233,193
168,774
44,540
115,192
94,668
87,147
79,726
212,731
903,046
52,029
213.43
191.86
377.45
205.80
187.58
236.31
290.04
294.94
290.78
309.22
161.04
237.35
157.69
264.83
179.03
190.39
249.70
212.16
196.63
206.91
186.42
283.12
174.27
206.98
319.37
273.63
296.68
199.50
152.53
264.20
261.51
191.11
206.01
262.31
199.35
161.58
520.32
432.58
419.54
474.67
347.84
490.01
388.14
644.60
413.10
579.99
277.19
340.51
296.78
525.13
514.87
542.73
450.27
493.52
381.16
430.66
451.91
469.71
408.49
470.86
589.16
540.61
612.95
417.39
484.60
393.60
499.09
532.08
416.07
560.88
475.52
396.78
497.78
498.47
376.79
420.60
443.97
440.35
593.81
384.80
380.08
442.17
437.90
391.05
419.07
386.00
389.41
402.88
428.72
444.13
334.72
409.20
617.55
483.31
484.55
393.32
555.75
635.65
474.58
415.35
524.33
493.78
552.92
439.44
307.37
427.20
418.84
637.03
462.70
446.83
558.67
457.43
444.24
480.19
514.45
517.35
515.67
526.24
424.71
483.06
422.73
501.75
441.23
450.39
492.79
467.21
456.35
464.69
449.15
516.28
439.91
466.30
538.16
512.01
526.09
462.79
423.93
508.30
506.87
457.48
469.42
509.10
465.89
434.76
Total
Change
Option 6
(13,893)
(22,255)
167,509
23,612
92
40,114
(33,332)
39,632
37,150
99,296
(6,448)
58,429
3,434
133,921
17,670
25,751
33,506
10,894
72,248
60,765
(88,916)
12,727
(13,436)
46,343
(15,356)
(27,943)
40,485
40,132
(29,316)
6,334
(16,670)
8,226
62,713
66,418
213,158
(65,132)
181
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Pupils
Transp
District
495
820
317
2174
640
330
2689
113
319
777
294
497
577
418
505
545
402
601
480
2609
162
2342
682
415
635
32
768
2527
2754
2580
435
2311
62
378
514
600
GRAND MEADOW
SEBEKA
DEER RIVER
PINE RIVER-BACKU
WABASSO
HERON LAKE-OKABE
PIPESTONE-JASPER
WALKER-HACKENSAC
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
BENSON
HOUSTON
LYLE
WILLOW RIVER
RUSSELL
FULDA
HENNING
HENDRICKS
FOSSTON
ONAMIA
WIN-E-MAC
BAGLEY
WEST CENTRAL ARE
ROSEAU
LYND
MILROY
BLACKDUCK
HANCOCK
NORMAN COUNTY WE
CEDAR MOUNTAIN
EAST CENTRAL
WAUBUN
CLEARBROOK-GONVI
ORTONVILLE
DAWSON-BOYD
ELLSWORTH
FISHER
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Due to
Option 6
Changes
-137.63
177.49
106.70
56.90
-9.76
69.66
-70.20
70.60
127.71
-19.26
-6.79
-173.93
28.39
50.88
-83.76
-9.68
42.62
41.71
55.23
94.09
64.06
46.34
29.19
-60.92
161.27
141.46
-194.61
96.28
-12.95
108.27
71.11
97.68
-149.61
-108.80
-45.99
214.90
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
40,755
225,500
328,353
298,206
109,563
78,017
316,886
259,643
236,479
196,425
114,625
31,861
80,737
41,077
79,013
81,838
40,017
136,270
177,504
143,127
243,810
209,306
279,900
41,856
72,569
268,502
23,129
87,426
104,144
267,064
148,653
140,273
76,617
95,179
44,333
94,603
183.58
378.99
264.59
242.44
226.37
222.27
333.56
250.86
385.77
218.98
339.13
224.37
164.77
233.39
175.58
235.84
224.81
225.99
240.19
247.20
218.08
232.56
202.83
317.09
445.21
344.23
146.39
249.79
308.12
243.23
212.67
246.09
237.94
226.08
323.60
383.01
407.76
548.79
541.66
456.20
365.72
389.04
667.32
533.66
545.80
445.85
428.97
507.70
618.42
429.38
517.82
509.61
426.65
391.70
611.08
394.81
459.08
497.28
462.98
549.23
538.96
509.88
400.55
613.27
712.10
459.37
500.70
760.30
510.59
470.60
412.96
661.76
591.29
398.86
405.43
440.92
496.62
414.30
623.55
433.18
453.89
502.00
564.94
661.51
412.05
443.64
536.05
510.18
450.46
452.97
449.92
416.38
425.83
454.32
449.62
617.29
462.26
432.36
629.12
422.42
569.04
406.20
421.13
420.09
661.74
612.70
613.64
385.84
453.65
576.35
512.13
497.82
486.86
483.95
553.34
503.78
581.60
482.73
558.16
487.57
440.45
494.52
452.29
500.49
493.08
494.69
505.15
510.47
489.89
500.66
478.81
556.37
623.53
573.81
434.51
518.70
556.09
514.47
492.25
517.78
512.13
503.90
567.65
600.74
Total
Change
Option 6
(30,555)
105,608
132,413
69,991
(4,723)
24,450
(66,693)
73,072
78,286
(17,281)
(2,294)
(24,699)
13,913
8,955
(37,692)
(3,361)
7,587
25,154
40,815
54,476
71,622
41,708
40,280
(8,042)
26,287
110,337
(30,749)
33,699
(4,378)
118,876
49,708
55,679
(48,174)
(45,804)
(6,301)
53,080
182
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Pupils
Transp
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
17,745
(8,036)
(106,916)
22,924
(21,590)
31,162
16,789
(15,043)
9,767
39,995
2,539
(47,539)
8,307
62,770
24,352
79,695
21,493
4,612
10,854
(11,640)
(14,692)
11,437
(44,731)
29,667
(27,268)
11,527
10,428
(27,041)
9,470
31,564
7,494
(41,656)
19,688
6,105
(2,613)
403
38
696
2536
208
95
2884
690
584
IVANHOE
RED LAKE
ELY
CROMWELL
RED ROCK CENTRAL
WARROAD
RUTHTON
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
66,529
209,793
48,506
100,752
45,511
76,371
180,374
190,848
45,703
271.55
126.76
119.77
312.89
232.20
228.66
340.33
131.17
276.99
416.46
338.38
526.94
536.85
477.94
444.44
492.77
439.45
459.72
464.81
423.30
674.91
493.48
622.71
416.99
552.09
436.59
486.42
537.24
418.44
410.92
564.67
512.55
510.29
583.76
426.25
545.62
Due to
Option 6
Changes
72.43
-4.86
-263.99
71.19
-110.15
93.30
31.68
-10.34
59.19
1
611
891
2898
2854
2215
599
628
2853
81
801
836
592
146
850
411
2
914
404
371
441
2888
803
698
771
676
AITKIN
CYRUS
CANBY
WESTBROOK
ADA-BORUP
NORMAN COUNTY EA
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
PLUMMER
LAC QUI PARLE VA
COMFREY
BROWNS VALLEY
BUTTERFIELD
CLIMAX
BARNESVILLE
ROTHSAY
BALATON
HILL CITY
ULEN-HITTERDAL
LAKE BENTON
BELLINGHAM
MARSHALL COUNTY
CLINTON-GRACEVIL
WHEATON AREA SCH
FLOODWOOD
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
BADGER
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
268,800
25,518
134,875
115,151
176,926
125,991
208,326
51,420
277,548
51,652
29,226
55,061
43,044
133,150
74,982
25,605
75,115
90,825
32,232
49,103
104,679
156,279
69,410
86,706
77,210
45,089
215.21
214.44
268.14
301.44
352.44
305.80
402.95
319.38
254.87
293.48
384.55
420.31
256.21
283.30
323.20
188.27
236.96
352.03
187.40
380.64
294.04
315.72
229.83
267.61
335.70
242.41
492.50
658.54
431.74
599.94
830.82
570.67
701.67
514.30
459.94
393.44
737.26
626.82
576.97
582.02
362.04
911.94
565.87
524.28
545.32
671.62
542.11
590.24
485.27
556.23
593.52
488.95
470.57
482.46
637.12
542.42
469.48
508.43
467.69
443.11
531.05
499.16
766.79
745.68
470.30
652.36
456.19
692.45
496.16
566.81
651.30
551.42
486.77
576.60
675.35
505.58
584.29
562.70
502.59
503.79
542.61
564.17
594.52
567.53
621.83
576.61
535.29
560.83
613.63
633.53
538.38
557.18
584.07
491.95
532.52
607.23
494.09
624.83
575.44
591.74
537.42
566.35
610.83
548.65
32.02
21.34
-94.51
21.75
125.04
59.11
154.15
133.50
4.23
61.67
-153.16
-112.15
68.08
-95.17
127.87
-200.50
36.36
40.42
-157.21
73.41
88.66
15.14
-137.93
60.77
26.54
-14.05
District
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
Total
Change
Option 6
183
Sorted on Density
OPTION # 6:
Pupils
Transp
District
516
118
2358
2176
627
390
2856
4
561
381
2683
2171
2142
852
356
707
264
166
36
363
362
447
ROUND LAKE
REMER-LONGVILLE
TRI-COUNTY
LAKE OF THE WOOD
STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
MCGREGOR
GOODRIDGE
LAKE SUPERIOR
GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
KITTSON CENTRAL
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
LANCASTER
NETT LAKE
HERMAN-NORCROSS
COOK COUNTY
KELLIHER
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
GRYGLA
Appendix E
Miles
per
FY 2000
Act. Transp
FY 2000
Revenue/
FY 2000
Revenue/
Change/
Pupil Trn
Due to
Option 6
Changes
-361.43
77.29
58.48
-194.13
-32.71
72.68
-98.19
-6.42
214.69
-60.00
152.94
-85.16
-65.49
-37.39
67.45
-4.65
-309.73
-15.37
67.70
274.19
-41.88
32.68
per
Sq Mile
Eligible
Miles
Pupil
Transp
Cost/
Pupil Trn
Pupil Trn
Current Law
Pupil Trn
Option 6
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
21,600
209,267
127,288
151,523
58,467
241,077
119,336
153,590
104,903
524,393
261,806
154,145
720,003
66,674
74,842
34,776
44,880
209,522
85,853
192,517
94,852
91,888
378.95
305.50
357.55
395.62
363.15
291.16
420.20
276.24
567.04
317.24
569.14
537.09
293.28
490.25
489.16
681.88
472.42
324.84
354.76
403.60
351.30
534.23
116.90
697.69
636.00
678.68
708.24
542.18
660.72
722.52
816.44
634.44
843.35
1017.52
699.25
748.31
715.88
1167.70
624.07
633.38
631.83
757.66
549.26
1215.44
1006.58
530.26
584.33
862.05
685.02
534.24
785.76
606.45
551.15
693.96
616.90
843.39
689.76
788.69
690.59
850.80
1060.75
691.26
630.99
473.90
757.32
826.42
645.14
607.55
642.80
667.92
652.31
606.92
687.57
600.03
765.84
633.97
769.84
758.23
624.27
751.29
758.05
846.15
751.02
675.89
698.70
748.09
715.44
859.10
Total
Change
Option 6
(20,602)
52,944
20,818
(74,351)
(5,267)
60,180
(27,886)
(3,568)
39,718
(99,173)
70,352
(24,440)
(160,775)
(5,085)
10,320
(237)
(29,424)
(9,916)
16,384
130,788
(11,307)
5,621
184
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
TRANSPORTATION SPARSITY FORMULA UPDATED FOR FY 2000 DATA;
FUNDING EQUALS 50 PERCENT OF ACTUAL COST PLUS 50 PERCENT OF FORMULA COST
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
New Data & Softening
State Totals
84,282
977,264
11.6
229.41
235.59
MINNEAPOLIS
ST. PAUL
RICHFIELD
SOUTH ST. PAUL
BROOKLYN CENTER
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
EDINA
ROBBINSDALE
FRIDLEY
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
ST. LOUIS PARK
OSSEO
BURNSVILLE
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
ROSEVILLE
EDEN PRAIRIE
BLOOMINGTON
MOUNDS VIEW
HOPKINS
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
MINNETONKA
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
SPRING LAKE PARK
WAYZATA
WHITE BEAR LAKE
INVER GROVE
SOUTH WASHINGTON
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
MAHTOMEDI
LAKEVILLE
PRIOR LAKE
WESTONKA
CHASKA
58
56
8
6
3
6
13
30
5
3
11
65
36
37
22
34
38
43
29
107
32
172
28
19
44
46
22
81
27
28
86
49
28
84
58,742
55,844
4,899
3,741
1,641
3,704
7,480
16,592
2,691
1,270
5,026
25,563
13,493
13,368
7,581
11,686
12,895
13,901
9,589
32,261
9,065
47,907
7,540
4,609
10,396
10,852
5,057
17,800
5,712
3,528
10,312
5,425
3,044
7,992
1,005.9
994.6
612.4
612.3
610.1
597.5
566.6
561.3
501.0
490.4
474.6
392.6
370.2
364.2
350.2
342.7
337.5
326.4
325.3
300.4
286.9
278.1
266.7
246.6
239.0
235.4
234.1
220.9
212.4
125.4
120.5
111.1
108.9
95.0
District
1
625
280
6
286
13
273
281
14
282
283
279
191
622
623
272
271
621
270
196
276
11
12
16
284
624
199
833
197
832
194
719
277
112
236.39
237.23
128.08
122.24
128.74
124.87
91.31
162.61
198.76
173.22
146.39
210.46
169.23
167.58
168.71
194.58
234.06
128.06
179.37
212.92
154.23
208.00
185.95
206.70
199.38
188.57
153.03
150.93
154.51
162.99
192.34
234.25
217.52
232.19
248.82
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
181.56
192.91
193.93
195.98
196.49
200.02
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
182.65
194.98
196.09
198.32
198.88
202.73
235.99
209.94
155.37
152.45
155.70
153.76
136.98
172.63
190.71
177.93
164.52
196.55
175.94
175.12
175.68
188.62
208.36
155.36
181.01
197.79
168.44
195.33
184.30
194.68
191.02
185.61
167.84
166.79
168.58
172.82
193.66
215.17
207.92
215.53
225.77
6.57
28.38
-26.20
-29.11
-25.87
-27.80
-44.58
-8.93
9.14
-3.63
-17.04
14.99
-5.62
-6.45
-5.88
7.05
26.79
-26.20
-.55
16.22
-13.12
13.77
2.74
13.12
9.46
4.05
-13.72
-14.77
-12.98
-8.74
.75
21.24
11.94
19.04
25.75
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
6,425,280
1,667,138
(1,462,955)
(142,635)
(96,770)
(45,626)
(165,138)
(66,797)
151,706
(9,763)
(21,644)
75,354
(143,749)
(86,994)
(78,608)
53,467
313,116
(337,922)
(7,674)
155,567
(423,224)
124,784
131,279
98,891
43,581
42,110
(148,911)
(74,706)
(231,039)
(49,941)
2,633
219,005
64,762
57,968
205,800
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
230,622,674
12,332,559.19
8,676,251.52
746,847.58
582,520.23
252,371.94
507,437.03
1,291,221.80
3,164,202.18
478,734.48
208,978.90
987,958.89
4,497,483.21
2,362,828.26
2,348,580.19
1,429,888.91
2,434,907.97
2,003,414.02
2,516,296.14
1,896,492.68
5,434,096.06
1,770,603.19
8,829,484.04
1,467,817.96
880,406.76
1,929,640.44
1,821,401.83
843,440.26
3,000,791.33
987,186.74
683,142.16
2,218,827.87
1,127,898.84
656,105.98
1,804,403.71
Note: Excludes nonpublic transportation revenue. Funding is based on 50% of Option 1 plus 50% of actual cost.
(Similar mixing of formula cost and actual cost could also be done with other options.)
185
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
District
535
720
885
834
192
748
728
77
278
742
883
882
831
727
709
15
877
200
492
152
879
47
94
99
2144
761
659
110
138
656
347
700
256
531
717
911
423
ROCHESTER
SHAKOPEE
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
STILLWATER
FARMINGTON
SARTELL
ELK RIVER
MANKATO
ORONO
ST. CLOUD
ROCKFORD
MONTICELLO
FOREST LAKE
BIG LAKE
DULUTH
ST. FRANCIS
BUFFALO
HASTINGS
AUSTIN
MOORHEAD
DELANO
SAUK RAPIDS
CLOQUET
ESKO
CHISAGO LAKES
OWATONNA
NORTHFIELD
WACONIA
NORTH BRANCH
FARIBAULT
WILLMAR
HERMANTOWN
RED WING
BYRON
JORDAN
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
HUTCHINSON
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
218
51
40
153
77
47
172
137
49
246
43
88
214
63
356
163
149
178
143
203
66
137
97
42
165
232
179
99
176
221
220
92
176
71
73
246
168
18,870
4,292
2,890
10,863
5,060
2,919
10,330
8,091
2,763
12,867
2,045
4,114
9,293
2,731
15,357
6,795
5,611
6,143
4,861
6,705
2,065
4,086
2,795
1,125
4,218
5,757
4,296
2,325
4,104
5,148
5,087
2,109
3,934
1,583
1,617
5,330
3,533
86.7
84.3
71.8
70.9
65.7
61.5
60.2
59.2
56.8
52.4
47.2
46.7
43.5
43.3
43.1
41.7
37.7
34.5
34.0
33.0
31.2
29.7
28.9
26.5
25.5
24.8
24.1
23.4
23.4
23.3
23.2
22.8
22.3
22.3
22.2
21.7
21.0
211.08
271.91
267.87
225.28
249.00
288.08
290.09
153.42
332.53
215.13
230.97
280.10
297.30
259.12
152.22
322.68
291.08
231.38
146.90
246.98
293.07
268.29
248.97
283.79
252.89
200.85
258.52
313.42
301.54
204.86
304.89
261.52
255.55
154.69
195.08
226.56
243.62
202.42
203.14
207.43
207.77
209.85
211.66
212.23
212.68
213.84
216.10
219.08
219.37
221.41
221.54
221.63
222.61
225.58
228.20
228.57
229.51
231.14
232.62
233.51
236.10
237.27
238.16
239.11
240.00
240.01
240.08
240.29
240.78
241.45
241.54
241.63
242.34
243.40
205.34
206.13
210.82
211.19
213.48
215.45
216.09
216.58
217.85
220.33
223.61
223.92
226.17
226.31
226.40
227.49
230.76
233.65
234.06
235.08
236.89
238.52
239.50
242.37
243.65
244.65
245.70
246.68
246.70
246.77
247.00
247.54
248.28
248.39
248.48
249.28
250.45
208.21
239.02
239.34
218.24
231.24
251.77
253.09
185.00
275.19
217.73
227.29
252.01
261.73
242.71
189.31
275.08
260.92
232.51
190.48
241.03
264.98
253.40
244.24
263.08
248.27
222.75
252.11
280.05
274.12
225.82
275.94
254.53
251.92
201.54
221.78
237.92
247.03
5.79
35.88
31.92
10.47
21.39
40.11
40.86
-27.68
61.35
1.63
8.21
32.64
40.32
21.18
-32.32
52.47
35.34
4.31
-38.10
11.52
33.84
20.79
10.73
26.98
11.01
-15.41
13.00
40.05
34.10
-14.27
35.66
13.75
10.47
-40.00
-19.85
-4.43
3.63
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
109,324
154,023
92,230
113,726
108,206
117,083
422,034
(223,945)
169,497
20,971
16,779
134,268
374,665
57,825
(496,268)
356,517
198,278
26,495
(185,188)
77,277
69,881
84,934
29,984
30,340
46,435
(88,737)
55,836
93,116
139,982
(73,435)
181,387
29,001
41,185
(63,345)
(32,092)
(23,592)
12,833
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
3,928,955.57
1,025,972.55
691,649.43
2,370,735.56
1,170,006.35
734,874.07
2,614,337.92
1,496,769.63
760,273.08
2,801,525.26
464,801.06
1,036,683.88
2,432,191.79
662,784.17
2,907,219.98
1,869,053.79
1,464,105.89
1,428,335.98
925,918.06
1,616,187.86
547,202.23
1,035,325.76
682,632.19
295,882.68
1,047,296.46
1,282,383.07
1,083,118.16
651,101.48
1,125,114.44
1,162,462.80
1,403,637.29
536,690.23
990,997.77
319,123.14
358,652.45
1,268,126.03
872,758.04
186
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
District
861
726
241
204
750
508
881
300
721
829
876
695
704
181
111
413
477
206
534
2752
255
424
25
466
252
745
716
2687
2154
108
345
706
595
518
392
544
2805
WINONA
BECKER
ALBERT LEA
KASSON-MANTORVIL
ROCORI
ST. PETER
MAPLE LAKE
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
NEW PRAGUE
WASECA
ANNANDALE
CHISHOLM
PROCTOR
BRAINERD
WATERTOWN-MAYER
MARSHALL
PRINCETON
ALEXANDRIA
STEWARTVILLE
FAIRMONT AREA SC
PINE ISLAND
LESTER PRAIRIE
PINE POINT
DASSEL-COKATO
CANNON FALLS
ALBANY
BELLE PLAINE
HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
EVELETH-GILBERT
NORWOOD
NEW LONDON-SPICE
VIRGINIA
EAST GRAND FORKS
WORTHINGTON
LECENTER
FERGUS FALLS
ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
269
112
228
95
127
118
58
97
156
152
135
68
150
517
99
163
235
344
136
175
89
42
5
177
133
152
107
112
139
112
167
157
174
263
85
342
138
5,616
2,319
4,692
1,947
2,532
2,252
1,099
1,808
2,905
2,549
2,262
1,131
2,439
8,264
1,572
2,557
3,611
5,050
1,991
2,492
1,266
593
70
2,465
1,833
1,949
1,351
1,383
1,719
1,359
2,029
1,900
2,109
2,922
931
3,698
1,490
20.9
20.6
20.5
20.4
19.9
19.0
19.0
18.6
18.6
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.3
16.0
15.9
15.7
15.3
14.7
14.7
14.3
14.3
14.3
14.2
14.0
13.8
12.9
12.6
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.2
12.1
12.1
11.1
11.0
10.8
10.8
237.73
279.98
228.76
284.87
325.66
220.13
282.20
296.88
207.08
245.60
328.35
186.04
282.28
283.52
277.48
214.49
326.98
242.31
230.67
310.73
244.51
240.38
117.48
324.78
292.55
251.99
263.63
229.65
252.80
154.11
341.02
249.31
204.48
268.07
170.05
244.78
237.59
243.59
243.91
244.07
244.27
245.03
246.50
246.57
247.17
247.28
250.68
250.69
250.81
251.52
252.19
252.43
252.85
253.51
254.97
255.02
255.89
255.94
255.94
256.11
256.66
257.01
259.39
260.07
260.69
260.81
261.25
261.29
261.41
261.47
264.42
264.80
265.34
265.40
250.66
251.01
251.18
251.41
252.25
253.88
253.97
254.62
254.75
258.52
258.53
258.67
259.45
260.20
260.46
260.93
261.67
263.29
263.35
264.31
264.37
264.37
264.55
265.17
265.55
268.21
268.97
269.65
269.79
270.28
270.33
270.46
270.52
273.82
274.23
274.84
274.90
244.20
265.50
239.97
268.14
288.96
237.01
268.08
275.75
230.92
252.06
293.44
222.35
270.87
271.86
268.97
237.71
294.32
252.80
247.01
287.52
254.44
252.38
191.01
294.98
279.05
260.10
266.30
249.65
261.29
212.19
305.67
259.89
237.50
270.94
222.14
259.81
256.24
.60
21.59
-4.09
23.87
43.93
-9.49
21.51
28.59
-16.37
1.38
42.75
-28.46
19.35
19.67
16.54
-15.14
40.81
-2.17
-8.01
31.63
-1.50
-3.56
-65.09
38.32
22.05
.71
6.23
-11.03
.48
-49.05
44.38
-1.52
-23.97
6.52
-42.65
-5.53
-9.15
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
3,386
50,053
(19,199)
46,487
111,226
(21,376)
23,634
51,673
(47,539)
3,517
96,700
(32,187)
47,195
162,580
26,004
(38,709)
147,372
(10,961)
(15,951)
78,812
(1,900)
(2,113)
(4,580)
94,439
40,415
1,383
8,414
(15,264)
832
(66,684)
90,065
(2,897)
(50,550)
19,052
(39,707)
(20,458)
(13,641)
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
1,371,522.55
615,570.22
1,125,838.66
522,132.56
731,683.55
533,666.95
294,584.35
498,465.29
670,712.45
642,560.18
663,699.78
251,484.20
660,691.06
2,246,721.22
422,784.62
607,803.80
1,062,864.55
1,276,612.12
491,729.81
716,420.25
322,180.54
149,643.98
13,439.80
727,051.31
511,564.02
507,064.94
359,757.46
345,369.02
449,198.83
288,465.59
620,328.95
493,790.09
500,910.12
791,684.02
206,800.22
960,731.35
381,919.78
187
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
District
2397
465
482
394
463
738
2859
88
139
22
701
316
858
129
323
578
813
533
2155
93
2143
314
332
75
186
763
739
741
806
740
810
31
743
391
51
912
485
LESUEUR-HENDERSO
LITCHFIELD
LITTLE FALLS
MONTGOMERY-LONSD
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
HOLDINGFORD
GLENCOE-SILVER L
NEW ULM
RUSH CITY
DETROIT LAKES
HIBBING
GREENWAY
ST. CHARLES
MONTEVIDEO
FRANCONIA
PINE CITY
LAKE CITY
DOVER-EYOTA
WADENA-DEER CREE
CARLTON
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
BRAHAM
MORA
ST. CLAIR
PEQUOT LAKES
MEDFORD
KIMBALL
PAYNESVILLE
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
MELROSE
PLAINVIEW
BEMIDJI
SAUK CENTRE
CLEVELAND
FOLEY
MILACA
ROYALTON
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
169
241
382
137
102
122
218
316
107
325
342
185
132
186
4
220
195
100
191
109
149
139
261
75
154
75
127
170
82
223
164
825
197
67
266
285
113
1,777
2,508
3,968
1,426
1,052
1,245
2,207
3,193
1,071
3,237
3,400
1,832
1,284
1,773
41
2,046
1,795
901
1,719
967
1,327
1,224
2,290
657
1,327
637
1,077
1,429
673
1,813
1,287
6,367
1,507
508
2,001
2,130
831
10.5
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.0
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.4
221.32
297.71
282.87
228.39
308.70
226.62
291.05
250.18
295.22
306.42
226.13
319.77
237.77
231.58
347.43
333.69
258.24
295.01
243.12
362.77
273.45
284.19
258.66
153.64
331.04
201.86
346.45
290.79
292.86
332.21
321.11
401.85
267.13
202.31
283.62
312.20
235.41
266.32
266.65
266.68
266.73
266.87
267.40
267.54
267.64
267.85
268.11
268.18
268.41
269.02
269.74
270.10
270.51
270.91
271.56
271.63
272.09
272.20
272.35
272.60
272.69
273.24
273.69
273.83
274.12
275.18
275.32
276.57
277.18
277.50
277.75
278.08
278.41
278.95
275.93
276.30
276.33
276.39
276.55
277.14
277.30
277.41
277.64
277.93
278.01
278.27
278.94
279.75
280.15
280.61
281.06
281.79
281.86
282.38
282.50
282.67
282.94
283.04
283.66
284.16
284.32
284.64
285.84
285.98
287.38
288.07
288.43
288.70
289.08
289.44
290.05
248.63
287.01
279.60
252.39
292.62
251.88
284.17
263.80
286.43
292.17
252.07
299.02
258.36
255.66
313.79
307.15
269.65
288.40
262.49
322.57
277.98
283.43
270.80
218.34
307.35
243.01
315.38
287.72
289.35
309.10
304.25
344.96
277.78
245.51
286.35
300.82
262.73
-17.69
20.35
12.93
-14.34
25.75
-15.52
16.63
-3.85
18.58
24.07
-16.11
30.61
-10.66
-14.08
43.69
36.64
-1.26
16.83
-9.14
50.48
5.78
11.08
-1.79
-54.34
34.11
-30.68
41.55
13.60
14.17
33.78
27.68
67.78
.27
-32.24
8.27
22.41
-16.22
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
(31,442)
51,043
51,292
(20,447)
27,097
(19,323)
36,696
(12,287)
19,902
77,908
(54,780)
56,076
(13,687)
(24,950)
1,807
74,962
(2,264)
15,167
(15,708)
48,835
7,664
13,566
(4,110)
(35,716)
45,264
(19,546)
44,756
19,441
9,530
61,234
35,637
431,536
414
(16,381)
16,553
47,748
(13,473)
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
441,846.44
719,719.21
1,109,505.65
359,986.12
307,880.61
313,586.36
627,080.00
842,226.78
306,813.18
945,825.16
856,946.32
547,804.26
331,685.75
453,163.98
12,978.45
628,395.69
484,100.40
259,832.96
451,211.30
312,070.04
368,806.51
347,011.49
620,094.47
143,497.90
407,831.57
154,836.66
339,690.39
411,277.95
194,663.26
560,264.00
391,691.63
2,196,241.24
418,574.17
124,745.32
573,091.80
640,842.06
218,219.50
188
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
District
2753
487
195
811
2897
2125
840
150
2137
712
227
177
2310
549
203
182
2071
2184
333
756
857
2172
297
564
85
2164
97
253
299
116
769
2759
837
239
497
593
548
LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
UPSALA
RANDOLPH
WABASHA-KELLOGG
REDWOOD
TRITON
ST. JAMES
HAWLEY
KINGSLAND
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
CHATFIELD
WINDOM
SIBLEY EAST
PERHAM
HAYFIELD
CROSBY-IRONTON
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
LUVERNE
OGILVIE
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
LEWISTON
KENYON-WANAMINGO
SPRING GROVE
THIEF RIVER FALL
SPRINGFIELD
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
MOOSE LAKE
GOODHUE
CALEDONIA
PILLAGER
MORRIS
EAGLE VALLEY
MADELIA
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
LYLE
CROOKSTON
PELICAN RAPIDS
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
246
69
68
137
270
215
223
147
183
139
163
203
249
342
199
327
226
264
155
177
159
221
90
473
148
275
158
121
238
173
223
134
146
178
65
413
334
1,798
503
496
993
1,916
1,511
1,538
1,008
1,225
921
1,046
1,298
1,551
2,101
1,209
1,968
1,332
1,552
893
1,011
884
1,226
496
2,591
799
1,460
837
639
1,249
903
1,127
673
733
888
319
2,038
1,646
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.4
6.4
6.2
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.2
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.9
4.9
283.40
278.98
309.71
316.02
272.51
243.08
260.04
212.19
263.25
397.41
257.90
241.82
240.17
317.23
285.28
301.44
401.57
290.36
312.16
274.21
260.17
342.61
246.18
294.31
184.36
349.06
350.36
372.60
243.43
264.14
242.02
306.38
254.39
349.78
225.91
151.83
281.40
279.11
279.12
279.16
279.60
280.22
280.52
281.29
281.59
282.39
282.73
283.95
284.09
285.03
285.56
285.96
286.27
287.16
287.25
287.88
288.34
289.26
289.27
289.46
289.80
290.33
291.01
291.23
291.24
291.52
291.60
292.96
293.11
293.14
293.53
294.35
294.37
294.40
290.23
290.24
290.28
290.78
291.48
291.80
292.68
293.00
293.91
294.28
295.65
295.82
296.86
297.46
297.91
298.25
299.25
299.35
300.06
300.58
301.61
301.62
301.83
302.22
302.81
303.57
303.82
303.84
304.16
304.24
305.77
305.93
305.97
306.40
307.34
307.35
307.39
286.82
284.61
300.00
303.40
281.99
267.44
276.36
252.60
278.58
345.84
276.77
268.82
268.51
307.35
291.59
299.85
350.41
294.86
306.11
287.40
280.89
322.12
274.00
298.27
243.58
326.32
327.09
338.22
273.79
284.19
273.90
306.15
280.18
328.09
266.62
229.59
294.39
7.70
5.49
20.84
23.80
1.77
-13.07
-4.94
-28.99
-3.81
63.12
-7.17
-15.28
-16.51
21.78
5.63
13.58
63.25
7.61
18.23
-.94
-8.37
32.85
-15.45
8.46
-46.75
35.31
35.87
46.98
-17.73
-7.41
-19.06
13.05
-12.96
34.57
-27.73
-64.78
-.01
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
13,849
2,761
10,344
23,635
3,395
(19,759)
(7,591)
(29,223)
(4,668)
58,150
(7,506)
(19,835)
(25,616)
45,758
6,813
26,729
84,240
11,804
16,292
(955)
(7,393)
40,280
(7,669)
21,922
(37,339)
51,540
30,004
30,035
(22,140)
(6,686)
(21,481)
8,776
(9,498)
30,684
(8,849)
(132,023)
(9)
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
515,620.18
143,181.67
148,926.87
301,277.43
540,413.14
404,231.70
425,052.95
254,614.20
341,124.77
318,622.65
289,630.06
349,029.75
416,576.06
645,691.92
352,607.64
590,177.64
466,661.52
457,484.09
273,499.87
290,676.02
248,208.92
394,988.97
135,988.63
772,757.66
194,570.57
476,274.86
273,626.24
216,244.16
341,866.10
256,544.67
308,631.95
205,897.49
205,341.92
291,243.95
85,085.19
467,927.92
484,573.81
189
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
District
486
2168
2534
2860
2198
484
2135
2835
23
553
2149
2170
495
2689
213
173
242
818
786
361
787
238
207
2887
499
2134
294
2895
2886
2190
2889
91
309
2396
671
821
417
SWANVILLE
N.R.H.E.G.
BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
BLUE EARTH AREA
FILLMORE CENTRAL
PIERZ
MAPLE RIVER
JANESVILLE-WALDO
FRAZEE
NEW YORK MILLS
MINNEWASKA
STAPLES-MOTLEY
GRAND MEADOW
PIPESTONE-JASPER
OSAKIS
MOUNTAIN LAKE
ALDEN
VERNDALE
BERTHA-HEWITT
INTERNATIONAL FA
BROWERVILLE
MABEL-CANTON
BRANDON
MCLEOD WEST SCHO
LEROY
UNITED SOUTH CEN
HOUSTON
JACKSON C
GLENVILLE-EMMONS
YELLOW MEDICINE
LAKE PARK AUDUBO
BARNUM
PARK RAPIDS
A.C.G.C.
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
MENAHGA
TRACY
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
92
236
241
391
212
237
303
202
325
184
460
480
96
418
155
139
86
105
138
472
118
116
93
163
120
343
153
441
149
421
218
195
587
350
117
213
240
453
1,158
1,182
1,914
1,027
1,140
1,431
944
1,515
850
2,106
2,182
436
1,887
695
613
371
452
591
2,007
501
491
390
680
497
1,388
616
1,775
601
1,679
866
773
2,293
1,364
453
822
920
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
237.02
299.63
361.75
248.23
335.77
349.08
334.21
204.93
371.60
341.04
314.10
385.20
207.54
322.67
258.77
176.57
248.68
184.95
414.78
275.33
368.91
240.19
389.91
339.08
284.58
330.68
235.48
285.98
301.66
407.98
351.25
363.40
344.54
349.06
260.66
411.94
286.31
294.45
294.59
294.63
294.85
295.73
296.24
297.58
298.54
298.60
299.24
300.15
300.65
300.95
301.11
301.62
303.17
304.87
305.26
305.65
305.84
305.98
306.57
307.27
307.31
307.91
309.92
310.12
310.32
310.39
311.03
311.23
311.77
312.67
313.01
313.25
313.76
314.09
307.45
307.61
307.65
307.90
308.88
309.46
310.97
312.05
312.12
312.84
313.86
314.42
314.76
314.94
315.51
317.26
319.18
319.61
320.06
320.27
320.43
321.09
321.88
321.93
322.60
324.87
325.10
325.32
325.41
326.13
326.36
326.96
327.98
328.37
328.63
329.21
329.58
272.23
303.62
334.70
278.06
322.33
329.27
322.59
258.49
341.86
326.94
313.98
349.81
261.15
318.81
287.14
246.91
283.93
252.28
367.42
297.80
344.67
280.64
355.90
330.51
303.59
327.78
280.29
305.65
313.54
367.06
338.80
345.18
336.26
338.71
294.65
370.57
307.94
-22.22
9.02
40.07
-16.79
26.60
33.03
25.01
-40.06
43.26
27.70
13.83
49.16
-39.80
17.69
-14.48
-56.25
-20.94
-52.98
61.77
-8.04
38.69
-25.93
48.63
23.19
-4.32
17.86
-29.83
-4.66
3.14
56.02
27.57
33.41
23.59
25.70
-18.60
56.82
-6.14
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
(10,055)
10,453
47,381
(32,139)
27,324
37,663
35,791
(37,808)
65,535
23,529
29,122
107,268
(17,360)
33,394
(10,070)
(34,478)
(7,765)
(23,923)
36,482
(16,141)
19,382
(12,730)
18,957
15,760
(2,148)
24,780
(18,367)
(8,281)
1,889
94,059
23,882
25,812
54,106
35,065
(8,421)
46,699
(5,656)
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
123,216.10
351,693.05
395,777.32
532,208.66
331,095.22
375,470.26
461,717.68
243,980.80
517,938.59
277,743.91
661,168.44
763,283.76
113,905.15
601,696.74
199,689.16
151,336.08
105,292.15
113,928.31
217,009.99
597,717.76
172,683.44
137,776.64
138,742.93
224,582.62
150,956.93
454,806.10
172,583.89
542,630.64
188,444.74
616,258.04
293,484.25
266,657.06
771,199.20
462,116.56
133,398.51
304,582.00
283,450.64
190
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
District
409
500
550
511
2167
2448
2365
84
542
2180
62
2711
777
768
2890
458
2169
308
696
229
801
547
414
507
2159
261
2165
100
846
378
513
514
415
545
505
2364
319
TYLER
SOUTHLAND
UNDERWOOD
ADRIAN
LAKEVIEW
MARTIN COUNTY WE
G.F.W.
SLEEPY EYE
BATTLE LAKE
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
ORTONVILLE
MESABI EAST
BENSON
HANCOCK
D.R.S.H.
TRUMAN
MURRAY COUNTY CE
NEVIS
ELY
LANESBORO
BROWNS VALLEY
PARKERS PRAIRIE
MINNEOTA
NICOLLET
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
ASHBY
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
WRENSHALL
BRECKENRIDGE
DAWSON-BOYD
BREWSTER
ELLSWORTH
LYND
HENNING
FULDA
BELGRADE-BROOTEN
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
114
200
123
176
179
280
349
207
194
318
188
398
402
89
312
150
313
126
249
105
54
200
176
139
229
98
418
126
344
247
77
81
70
171
215
345
274
435
760
465
665
675
1,053
1,306
774
700
1,134
664
1,383
1,395
308
1,073
510
1,060
426
841
354
179
669
577
454
747
318
1,358
403
1,090
780
242
254
219
532
664
1,054
834
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.0
340.18
414.11
323.06
350.51
251.25
365.05
282.82
179.52
335.43
413.94
247.77
357.74
286.41
205.66
327.96
290.54
429.47
571.69
253.66
544.79
313.04
439.19
194.92
318.32
286.55
356.48
345.12
435.27
224.18
253.91
491.67
222.85
277.66
331.63
320.78
334.96
401.10
314.88
315.07
315.18
315.42
315.84
315.90
316.17
316.23
319.35
320.17
321.12
322.47
322.56
323.02
323.28
323.94
324.60
324.62
324.88
325.22
325.58
325.81
327.13
327.81
327.89
327.99
328.05
329.21
330.15
330.58
330.69
331.15
331.18
332.06
332.55
333.32
333.56
330.48
330.69
330.81
331.09
331.57
331.63
331.93
332.00
335.53
336.46
337.53
339.06
339.16
339.68
339.98
340.72
341.48
341.50
341.80
342.18
342.59
342.84
344.35
345.11
345.21
345.32
345.39
346.70
347.77
348.25
348.38
348.90
348.93
349.93
350.49
351.36
351.64
335.33
372.40
326.94
340.80
291.41
348.34
307.38
255.76
335.48
375.20
292.65
348.40
312.79
272.67
333.97
315.63
385.47
456.59
297.73
443.48
327.82
391.02
269.63
331.72
315.88
350.90
345.26
390.99
285.98
301.08
420.03
285.87
313.30
340.78
335.64
343.16
376.37
20.45
57.33
11.76
25.37
-24.44
32.44
-8.79
-60.47
16.13
55.03
-28.47
25.93
-9.77
-50.35
10.69
-8.31
60.87
131.97
-27.16
118.26
2.23
65.21
-57.50
3.91
-12.02
22.91
17.20
61.78
-44.17
-29.50
89.33
-45.27
-17.88
8.72
3.09
9.84
42.81
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
8,901
43,547
5,465
16,864
(16,483)
34,152
(11,479)
(46,791)
11,283
62,405
(18,890)
35,862
(13,630)
(15,493)
11,474
(4,240)
64,507
56,197
(22,849)
41,840
400
43,596
(33,174)
1,771
(8,978)
7,275
23,357
24,918
(48,144)
(23,016)
21,644
(11,493)
(3,911)
4,638
2,048
10,374
35,709
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
145,987.81
282,864.87
151,957.52
226,491.16
196,554.11
366,722.38
401,281.32
197,907.88
234,671.50
425,475.18
194,189.78
481,847.01
436,315.16
83,908.46
358,499.83
161,110.05
408,512.04
194,431.18
250,488.95
156,895.99
58,675.92
261,417.89
155,559.30
150,456.00
236,016.43
111,417.52
468,795.13
157,708.55
311,670.60
234,931.49
101,768.19
72,574.95
68,533.63
181,232.12
222,785.22
361,762.45
313,945.84
191
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
District
2174
208
836
775
113
640
418
115
2754
630
432
318
820
516
891
577
402
601
146
473
480
2342
330
682
317
635
162
2884
2609
411
32
2536
404
403
2853
2898
2527
PINE RIVER-BACKU
EVANSVILLE
BUTTERFIELD
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
WALKER-HACKENSAC
WABASSO
RUSSELL
CASS LAKE
CEDAR MOUNTAIN
RED LAKE FALLS
MAHNOMEN
GRAND RAPIDS
SEBEKA
ROUND LAKE
CANBY
WILLOW RIVER
HENDRICKS
FOSSTON
BARNESVILLE
ISLE
ONAMIA
WEST CENTRAL ARE
HERON LAKE-OKABE
ROSEAU
DEER RIVER
MILROY
BAGLEY
RED ROCK CENTRAL
WIN-E-MAC
BALATON
BLACKDUCK
IVANHOE
LAC QUI PARLE VA
WESTBROOK
NORMAN COUNTY WE
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
539
123
94
249
456
213
81
424
193
190
345
1,956
259
63
342
224
89
304
343
224
375
463
154
714
541
88
573
344
296
108
426
200
144
148
761
261
199
1,598
362
277
729
1,329
609
222
1,163
522
513
929
5,263
677
165
889
580
229
784
879
568
950
1,166
383
1,761
1,322
209
1,329
796
668
241
926
427
306
309
1,565
529
397
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
347.65
258.42
283.55
405.01
415.74
230.34
331.73
483.86
426.72
413.55
461.61
391.78
478.77
40.36
229.83
522.08
329.70
301.26
311.38
398.55
475.43
383.77
328.67
362.92
480.90
415.34
386.11
318.24
342.06
471.35
429.42
397.53
306.59
329.83
320.04
413.30
540.62
335.92
336.70
336.79
337.13
337.47
339.06
342.90
342.94
343.86
344.29
344.43
344.58
346.98
347.52
347.78
347.86
348.12
348.39
349.01
349.99
350.05
350.62
351.94
352.44
353.34
355.40
358.14
358.50
360.75
361.71
364.13
365.77
366.17
368.12
369.52
370.84
372.37
354.32
355.20
355.30
355.69
356.07
357.88
362.25
362.30
363.35
363.83
363.99
364.17
366.90
367.51
367.81
367.90
368.19
368.50
369.21
370.32
370.39
371.04
372.55
373.12
374.14
376.49
379.62
380.03
382.60
383.70
386.46
388.34
388.80
391.03
392.63
394.14
395.89
350.99
306.81
319.43
380.35
385.91
294.11
346.99
423.08
395.03
388.69
412.80
377.97
422.83
203.93
298.82
444.99
348.95
334.88
340.30
384.44
422.91
377.41
350.61
368.02
427.52
395.91
382.87
349.14
362.33
427.52
407.94
392.93
347.69
360.43
356.33
403.72
468.25
15.06
-29.89
-17.36
43.22
48.44
-44.95
4.09
80.14
51.17
44.40
68.37
33.39
75.85
-143.58
-48.96
97.13
.83
-13.51
-8.72
34.45
72.86
26.79
-1.33
15.57
74.18
40.52
24.72
-9.36
1.58
65.81
43.81
27.16
-18.48
-7.70
-13.19
32.88
95.88
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
24,073
(10,834)
(4,804)
31,506
64,357
(27,364)
908
93,190
26,727
22,770
63,523
175,727
51,370
(23,706)
(43,521)
56,376
190
(10,591)
(7,657)
19,569
69,211
31,240
(510)
27,419
98,076
8,481
32,864
(7,451)
1,055
15,891
40,577
11,609
(5,654)
(2,381)
(20,639)
17,386
38,069
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
560,977.76
111,216.37
88,395.66
277,253.75
512,699.89
179,048.45
77,024.67
491,975.03
206,341.64
199,331.13
383,523.43
1,989,186.34
286,366.77
33,669.25
265,600.35
258,282.29
79,971.86
262,550.91
298,950.06
218,394.02
401,701.13
440,126.16
134,153.83
647,896.64
565,231.07
82,876.30
508,940.79
277,787.23
242,140.39
103,225.81
377,814.16
167,934.79
106,369.98
111,497.77
557,678.09
213,492.80
185,914.81
192
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
District
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
581
2215
435
306
2311
EDGERTON
NORMAN COUNTY EA
WAUBUN
LAPORTE
CLEARBROOK-GONVI
142
284
400
163
333
282
561
788
318
636
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
345.03
419.14
444.17
506.89
681.46
372.64
373.42
373.59
374.47
376.53
396.19
397.09
397.28
398.29
400.66
370.61
408.12
420.73
452.59
541.06
-2.02
34.69
47.14
78.12
164.52
(571)
19,461
37,145
24,817
104,628
104,602.11
228,932.53
331,517.30
143,770.52
344,081.40
1
611
2580
803
584
81
914
2854
599
690
38
95
371
2176
592
600
2888
628
2
850
771
676
441
2856
815
698
2171
627
264
381
2358
4
AITKIN
CYRUS
EAST CENTRAL
WHEATON AREA SCH
RUTHTON
COMFREY
ULEN-HITTERDAL
ADA-BORUP
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
WARROAD
RED LAKE
CROMWELL
BELLINGHAM
FISHER
CLINTON-GRACEVIL
PLUMMER
HILL CITY
ROTHSAY
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
BADGER
MARSHALL COUNTY
STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
PRINSBURG
FLOODWOOD
KITTSON CENTRAL
OKLEE
HERMAN-NORCROSS
LAKE SUPERIOR
TRI-COUNTY
MCGREGOR
822
81
627
290
108
123
212
345
357
947
1,014
211
109
505
121
147
443
112
259
175
226
183
307
404
28
317
470
221
204
2,592
451
806
1,557
152
1,175
537
196
224
382
614
628
1,646
1,725
359
183
847
202
244
729
181
393
265
333
256
423
540
34
387
571
258
234
2,508
423
740
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
395.08
516.14
428.20
272.80
366.97
297.54
353.69
678.84
577.50
388.56
310.67
413.94
474.14
306.77
478.70
670.56
391.34
456.91
456.13
317.44
409.40
354.94
456.72
347.64
398.30
465.41
511.11
442.68
253.11
408.95
496.30
543.03
377.49
378.14
378.54
379.65
381.22
381.31
382.39
383.60
384.92
386.03
388.20
388.37
389.28
389.65
390.19
390.97
391.51
393.67
399.93
399.99
403.03
408.49
410.10
413.43
421.55
423.04
423.64
428.17
430.22
449.53
453.12
455.80
401.75
402.49
402.95
404.23
406.03
406.14
407.37
408.76
410.28
411.55
414.04
414.24
415.28
415.71
416.33
417.22
417.84
420.33
427.53
427.60
431.10
437.39
439.25
443.09
452.47
454.19
454.89
460.13
462.51
484.89
489.07
492.18
398.41
459.32
415.57
338.51
386.50
351.84
380.53
543.80
493.89
400.06
362.35
414.09
444.71
361.24
447.51
543.89
404.59
438.62
441.83
372.52
420.25
396.17
447.98
395.36
425.39
459.80
483.00
451.41
357.81
446.92
492.68
517.61
20.93
81.18
37.04
-41.14
5.28
-29.47
-1.86
160.20
108.97
14.03
-25.84
25.72
55.43
-28.41
57.32
152.92
13.08
44.95
41.90
-27.47
17.22
-12.32
37.88
-18.06
3.84
36.77
59.36
23.23
-72.42
-2.61
39.56
61.81
32,585
12,326
43,527
(22,100)
1,037
(6,610)
(710)
98,423
68,449
23,081
(44,584)
9,223
10,129
(24,074)
11,607
37,276
9,539
8,146
16,477
(7,269)
5,742
(3,157)
16,008
(9,750)
131
14,237
33,914
5,985
(16,962)
(6,536)
16,735
45,723
620,324.11
69,738.23
488,358.67
181,856.30
75,827.39
78,903.53
145,527.37
334,104.74
310,242.31
658,315.06
625,087.94
148,496.46
81,261.67
306,089.22
90,617.08
132,578.69
294,958.39
79,486.79
173,759.28
98,567.82
140,128.87
101,506.08
189,299.49
213,405.84
14,565.23
178,044.37
275,967.18
116,273.50
83,809.46
1,120,719.74
208,419.10
382,909.94
193
Sorted on Density
OPTION 7:
District
118
852
2142
707
2683
390
561
356
166
36
362
447
363
REMER-LONGVILLE
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
NETT LAKE
GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
LAKE OF THE WOOD
GOODRIDGE
LANCASTER
COOK COUNTY
KELLIHER
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
GRYGLA
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
Square
Resident
PU
FY 2000
FY 2000
FY 2000
Formula
FY 2000 Change/PU
Softened
Due to
Miles
Pupil Units
FY 2000
per
Sq Mile
Act. Transp
Cost/PU
Formula
Cost/PU
Cost/PU
New Data
Allow/PU New Data
836
265
4,201
108
729
1,143
284
323
1,616
627
876
809
1,532
734
233
3,668
94
607
944
212
213
845
277
366
230
344
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
620.96
437.53
468.07
634.62
639.01
475.31
712.02
515.26
483.26
551.94
405.69
909.25
1050.81
460.96
461.14
461.71
462.39
467.43
468.35
480.66
497.06
527.43
551.21
559.37
618.23
657.26
498.18
498.40
499.06
499.85
505.72
506.79
521.15
540.33
575.96
603.97
613.61
683.42
729.99
559.57
467.97
483.57
567.24
572.36
491.05
616.59
527.80
529.61
577.95
509.65
796.34
890.40
98.61
6.82
21.85
104.84
104.94
22.70
135.93
30.73
2.18
26.75
-49.72
178.10
233.14
Total
Change
New Data
& Softening
72,381
1,587
80,140
9,838
63,706
21,441
28,834
6,533
1,844
7,409
(18,175)
40,949
80,184
Appendix E
Option 7
Total $$
410,725.76
108,848.72
1,773,506.48
53,229.48
347,481.27
463,793.93
130,796.32
112,193.83
447,707.90
160,110.05
186,302.20
183,093.49
306,234.49
194
Sorted on Density
FY 2003 TRANSPORTATION SPARSITY REVENUE ESTIMATES
PER PUPIL UNIT BASED OPTIONS (OPTIONS 1, 2, 7)
District
State totals / no hold harmless
Added cost for hold harmless
1
1
2
4
6
11
12
13
14
15
16
22
23
25
31
32
36
38
47
51
62
75
77
81
84
85
88
91
93
94
95
97
99
100
108
110
111
112
113
115
116
118
129
138
139
146
150
152
AITKIN
MINNEAPOLIS
HILL CITY
MCGREGOR
SOUTH ST. PAUL
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
FRIDLEY
ST. FRANCIS
SPRING LAKE PARK
DETROIT LAKES
FRAZEE
PINE POINT
BEMIDJI
BLACKDUCK
KELLIHER
RED LAKE
SAUK RAPIDS
FOLEY
ORTONVILLE
ST. CLAIR
MANKATO
COMFREY
SLEEPY EYE
SPRINGFIELD
NEW ULM
BARNUM
CARLTON
CLOQUET
CROMWELL
MOOSE LAKE
ESKO
WRENSHALL
NORWOOD
WACONIA
WATERTOWN-MAYER
CHASKA
WALKER-HACKENSAC
CASS LAKE
PILLAGER
REMER-LONGVILLE
MONTEVIDEO
NORTH BRANCH
RUSH CITY
BARNESVILLE
HAWLEY
MOORHEAD
Current
Law Total
56,600,427
371,728
11,631
115,207
208,787
851
9,953
1,736
776
631
330,217
1,033
355,569
205,104
6,726
698,179
205,431
148,203
420,010
252,896
240,163
118,024
91,592
312,985
45,672
126,913
108,667
314,244
124,151
90,651
192,047
95,803
120,812
80,429
86,113
125,534
181,041
131,063
171,923
227,167
266,637
116,286
240,129
207,862
311,479
124,959
184,981
127,363
396,871
Option 1
Total
vs Curr Law
58,463,290
1,862,863
387,905
13,536
120,755
220,013
991
11,583
2,021
903
735
336,589
1,203
365,213
211,765
6,884
718,437
214,039
157,694
438,272
258,160
247,208
122,398
94,232
318,598
47,628
131,455
112,215
322,853
128,390
93,210
196,167
100,231
124,518
82,163
89,257
128,878
184,954
134,248
174,571
235,742
276,261
119,877
253,272
213,597
318,281
128,355
192,280
131,065
405,166
16,176
1,906
5,548
11,226
139
1,631
285
127
103
6,372
169
9,644
6,661
158
20,258
8,609
9,491
18,262
5,264
7,044
4,373
2,640
5,613
1,956
4,542
3,548
8,609
4,240
2,559
4,120
4,428
3,706
1,734
3,144
3,343
3,913
3,185
2,648
8,574
9,624
3,591
13,143
5,735
6,802
3,396
7,299
3,703
8,295
195
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
60,444,546
3,844,119
282,859
385,036
121,362
223,919
406,952
361,674
200,988
7,279
693,190
211,413
163,535
434,984
293,919
237,580
118,794
91,149
415,448
47,178
126,889
106,612
318,432
122,964
90,867
218,830
100,242
117,789
91,353
86,428
128,589
205,340
139,612
321,102
229,442
267,027
113,149
258,273
210,089
351,067
127,012
188,357
126,370
459,956
13,308
(11,631)
6,155
15,132
(851)
(9,953)
(1,736)
(776)
(631)
76,735
(1,033)
6,105
(4,116)
553
(4,989)
5,982
15,332
14,975
41,023
(2,584)
770
(444)
102,463
1,506
(24)
(2,055)
4,189
(1,187)
216
26,782
4,439
(3,023)
10,924
314
3,055
24,299
8,549
149,180
2,275
389
(3,138)
18,144
2,227
39,588
2,053
3,377
(992)
63,086
Option 7
Total
vs Curr Law
63,266,809
6,666,382
8,358,129
363,674
3,086,093
102,916
253,456
(144,735)
286,616
77,369
(192,776)
(58,676)
741,286
38,730
397,098
256,894
736
1,143,971
223,145
124,651
373,544
411,086
223,182
73,414
13,908
99,887
44,322
136,741
53,025
439,877
135,933
142,045
178,579
85,017
132,342
97,027
91,452
67,362
373,732
189,490
566,354
296,208
385,197
100,991
295,542
126,683
442,902
112,534
151,277
77,729
439,466
(8,054)
3,074,462
(12,291)
44,669
(145,587)
276,663
75,633
(193,552)
(59,307)
411,069
37,697
41,528
51,790
(5,990)
445,792
17,714
(23,552)
(46,465)
158,191
(16,981)
(44,610)
(77,685)
(213,098)
(1,350)
9,828
(55,642)
125,633
11,782
51,394
(13,468)
(10,786)
11,531
16,598
5,338
(58,173)
192,691
58,426
394,431
69,041
118,560
(15,295)
55,412
(81,179)
131,423
(12,426)
(33,703)
(49,633)
42,595
Appendix F
162
166
173
177
181
182
186
191
192
194
195
196
197
199
200
203
204
206
207
208
213
227
229
238
239
241
242
252
253
255
256
261
264
270
271
272
273
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
286
294
297
299
300
District
BAGLEY
COOK COUNTY
MOUNTAIN LAKE
WINDOM
BRAINERD
CROSBY-IRONTON
PEQUOT LAKES
BURNSVILLE
FARMINGTON
LAKEVILLE
RANDOLPH
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
INVER GROVE
HASTINGS
HAYFIELD
KASSON-MANTORVIL
ALEXANDRIA
BRANDON
EVANSVILLE
OSAKIS
CHATFIELD
LANESBORO
MABEL-CANTON
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
ALBERT LEA
ALDEN
CANNON FALLS
GOODHUE
PINE ISLAND
RED WING
ASHBY
HERMAN-NORCROSS
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
EDEN PRAIRIE
EDINA
MINNETONKA
WESTONKA
ORONO
OSSEO
RICHFIELD
ROBBINSDALE
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
ST. LOUIS PARK
WAYZATA
BROOKLYN CENTER
HOUSTON
SPRING GROVE
CALEDONIA
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
Current
Law Total
283,384
345,109
85,045
157,813
719,437
229,153
167,403
2,840
179,285
139,558
57,175
7,008
1,231
964
352,109
149,071
157,206
446,264
62,492
55,212
111,390
132,183
78,759
73,523
113,622
340,707
80,509
164,746
84,909
139,643
281,823
65,761
67,665
2,073
2,687
2,670
1,773
1,899
51,856
125,672
5,511
1,026
3,485
370
1,083
2,374
466
93,947
65,027
155,701
163,421
Option 1
Total
vs Curr Law
295,107
11,723
366,255
21,146
87,860
2,815
162,564
4,750
736,950
17,514
236,105
6,952
172,022
4,619
3,305
465
182,246
2,960
141,685
2,127
58,820
1,646
8,157
1,148
1,433
202
1,122
158
359,309
7,200
153,612
4,540
160,816
3,610
457,639
11,375
64,658
2,166
57,440
2,227
115,019
3,630
136,097
3,914
81,769
3,010
76,038
2,515
117,246
3,624
348,622
7,915
83,326
2,817
168,975
4,229
87,518
2,609
143,284
3,641
288,284
6,461
68,189
2,427
71,267
3,602
2,413
340
3,127
440
3,108
438
2,064
291
2,211
311
52,655
799
127,973
2,301
6,414
903
1,195
168
4,057
571
431
61
1,260
177
2,763
389
543
76
97,181
3,234
67,079
2,053
160,526
4,825
167,291
3,869
196
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
290,984
7,601
378,055
32,946
83,683
(1,362)
154,798
(3,016)
765,714
46,278
224,206
(4,947)
169,189
1,786
(2,840)
269,505
90,220
341,094
201,536
56,924
(251)
(7,008)
(1,231)
(964)
414,392
62,283
145,677
(3,395)
172,238
15,031
465,366
19,102
62,081
(411)
56,443
1,231
109,233
(2,156)
130,349
(1,834)
79,733
974
72,846
(678)
110,895
(2,728)
371,036
30,328
80,136
(373)
171,279
6,533
82,749
(2,161)
144,256
4,612
309,034
27,211
66,142
381
72,451
4,785
(2,073)
(2,687)
(2,670)
(1,773)
(1,899)
96,546
44,690
162,922
37,251
(5,511)
(1,026)
(3,485)
(370)
(1,083)
(2,374)
(466)
93,201
(746)
63,317
(1,709)
151,330
(4,371)
176,270
12,848
Option 7
Total
vs Curr Law
280,235
(3,148)
315,560
(29,549)
53,452
(31,593)
117,985
(39,828)
850,933
131,496
245,967
16,814
185,403
18,000
(68,737)
(71,577)
297,146
117,861
381,677
242,119
67,424
10,249
(514,511)
(521,519)
94,537
93,307
(30,361)
(31,325)
375,895
23,786
133,556
(15,515)
178,023
20,817
397,331
(48,933)
67,398
4,906
43,179
(12,034)
87,058
(24,332)
108,564
(23,619)
86,919
8,160
50,041
(23,482)
136,169
22,547
316,627
(24,081)
34,428
(46,080)
183,256
18,510
116,396
31,487
66,645
(72,998)
311,512
29,689
56,224
(9,537)
40,261
(27,405)
174,716
172,642
(324,967)
(327,654)
383,412
380,742
(96,233)
(98,006)
227,871
225,972
177,009
125,153
283,445
157,773
(4,904)
(10,415)
(141,154)
(142,181)
227,920
224,434
(77,331)
(77,701)
101,116
100,033
122,652
120,278
(96,417)
(96,883)
63,719
(30,228)
43,722
(21,304)
177,126
21,424
191,223
27,802
Appendix F
306
308
309
314
316
317
318
319
323
330
332
333
345
347
356
361
362
363
371
378
381
390
391
392
394
402
403
404
409
411
413
414
415
417
418
423
424
432
435
441
447
458
463
465
466
473
477
480
482
484
485
District
LAPORTE
NEVIS
PARK RAPIDS
BRAHAM
GREENWAY
DEER RIVER
GRAND RAPIDS
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
FRANCONIA
HERON LAKE-OKABE
MORA
OGILVIE
NEW LONDON-SPICE
WILLMAR
LANCASTER
INTERNATIONAL FA
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
BELLINGHAM
DAWSON-BOYD
LAKE SUPERIOR
LAKE OF THE WOOD
CLEVELAND
LECENTER
MONTGOMERY-LONSD
HENDRICKS
IVANHOE
LAKE BENTON
TYLER
BALATON
MARSHALL
MINNEOTA
LYND
TRACY
RUSSELL
HUTCHINSON
LESTER PRAIRIE
MAHNOMEN
WAUBUN
MARSHALL COUNTY
GRYGLA
TRUMAN
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
LITCHFIELD
DASSEL-COKATO
ISLE
PRINCETON
ONAMIA
LITTLE FALLS
PIERZ
ROYALTON
Current
Law Total
104,059
114,500
373,991
126,077
180,105
268,390
1,024,350
148,104
3,909
84,480
250,642
114,735
203,628
370,412
107,077
283,628
182,738
263,318
47,778
137,863
781,818
304,213
59,403
91,801
134,040
48,864
69,428
66,003
64,548
46,075
237,724
103,407
28,784
144,298
37,205
277,959
57,732
182,864
178,200
118,021
121,885
88,620
103,854
252,822
238,483
121,288
326,457
175,882
393,505
167,405
99,309
Option 1
Total
vs Curr Law
108,738
4,680
118,707
4,206
387,322
13,331
129,592
3,516
185,057
4,952
279,249
10,859
1,065,081
40,731
153,708
5,604
4,009
100
88,063
3,583
257,692
7,050
118,243
3,507
209,074
5,446
378,819
8,407
113,093
6,016
293,375
9,747
194,753
12,014
283,817
20,498
49,907
2,129
143,106
5,244
823,415
41,597
321,137
16,923
61,112
1,709
94,327
2,526
137,604
3,563
50,848
1,984
72,509
3,081
68,883
2,880
66,870
2,323
48,124
2,049
243,556
5,833
107,157
3,750
29,884
1,100
149,425
5,127
38,722
1,518
284,354
6,395
59,225
1,494
190,145
7,281
186,034
7,834
123,819
5,798
130,371
8,486
91,834
3,214
106,721
2,867
259,665
6,843
244,500
6,016
126,020
4,732
334,548
8,092
182,883
7,001
404,145
10,640
172,825
5,420
102,147
2,838
197
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
108,384
4,325
115,058
558
373,622
(369)
126,932
855
182,259
2,155
274,513
6,123
1,044,489
20,139
149,656
1,552
4,074
165
87,121
2,641
251,561
919
111,990
(2,746)
208,247
4,619
408,399
37,987
115,657
8,580
281,283
(2,345)
202,523
19,785
300,406
37,088
49,686
1,908
139,441
1,578
837,054
55,236
328,062
23,848
59,156
(248)
92,873
1,072
137,399
3,359
50,010
1,146
72,154
2,726
68,396
2,393
64,605
57
47,901
1,826
252,101
14,377
103,651
244
29,141
357
144,065
(234)
38,109
904
304,231
26,272
59,826
2,095
186,505
3,641
184,898
6,698
124,734
6,713
136,387
14,502
88,832
212
104,944
1,090
257,362
4,541
249,794
11,311
123,251
1,963
344,609
18,153
179,375
3,493
400,727
7,222
163,932
(3,473)
99,111
(198)
Option 7
Total
vs Curr Law
86,834
(17,225)
118,431
3,931
353,081
(20,910)
137,750
11,673
223,962
43,858
363,327
94,937
1,108,938
84,588
170,196
22,092
9,416
5,506
66,995
(17,485)
209,219
(41,423)
114,571
(165)
235,213
31,585
516,965
146,553
92,560
(14,516)
253,064
(30,564)
130,362
(52,376)
246,710
(16,608)
53,429
5,651
95,276
(42,586)
704,003
(77,815)
297,469
(6,744)
35,577
(23,826)
33,164
(58,637)
147,495
13,455
39,224
(9,639)
53,819
(15,609)
50,518
(15,485)
66,809
2,261
57,293
11,219
199,836
(37,888)
67,436
(35,971)
35,081
6,297
125,545
(18,754)
36,109
(1,096)
277,958
(1)
44,118
(13,614)
232,291
49,428
191,726
13,526
113,406
(4,615)
156,746
34,861
89,354
734
114,788
10,934
290,664
37,842
294,309
55,826
129,286
7,998
445,265
118,809
245,183
69,301
459,873
66,369
201,957
34,551
75,584
(23,725)
Appendix F
486
487
492
495
497
499
500
505
507
508
511
513
514
516
518
531
533
534
535
542
544
545
547
548
549
550
553
561
564
577
578
581
584
592
593
595
599
600
601
611
621
622
623
624
625
627
628
630
635
640
656
District
SWANVILLE
UPSALA
AUSTIN
GRAND MEADOW
LYLE
LEROY
SOUTHLAND
FULDA
NICOLLET
ST. PETER
ADRIAN
BREWSTER
ELLSWORTH
ROUND LAKE
WORTHINGTON
BYRON
DOVER-EYOTA
STEWARTVILLE
ROCHESTER
BATTLE LAKE
FERGUS FALLS
HENNING
PARKERS PRAIRIE
PELICAN RAPIDS
PERHAM
UNDERWOOD
NEW YORK MILLS
GOODRIDGE
THIEF RIVER FALL
WILLOW RIVER
PINE CITY
EDGERTON
RUTHTON
CLIMAX
CROOKSTON
EAST GRAND FORKS
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
FISHER
FOSSTON
CYRUS
MOUNDS VIEW
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
ROSEVILLE
WHITE BEAR LAKE
ST. PAUL
OKLEE
PLUMMER
RED LAKE FALLS
MILROY
WABASSO
FARIBAULT
Current
Law Total
63,497
61,624
276,221
59,793
39,681
71,882
130,055
129,849
76,353
178,343
130,549
45,262
48,477
38,594
287,772
123,030
142,235
187,795
469,890
104,017
356,929
82,604
129,871
205,927
266,889
95,646
126,695
85,985
327,245
126,104
223,268
83,761
45,726
55,676
260,496
212,585
170,596
83,470
163,221
35,961
2,774
2,992
1,601
2,188
11,118
75,466
55,265
96,120
39,945
108,615
346,455
Option 1
Total
vs Curr Law
65,632
2,136
63,449
1,825
281,930
5,709
61,739
1,946
40,972
1,291
74,326
2,444
134,544
4,489
134,929
5,080
79,298
2,945
182,566
4,223
135,170
4,621
47,000
1,738
50,362
1,886
39,981
1,387
295,446
7,674
125,833
2,803
146,248
4,013
192,435
4,639
477,445
7,556
107,749
3,732
366,634
9,706
85,815
3,212
134,616
4,745
212,488
6,561
275,096
8,208
99,124
3,479
130,860
4,165
91,063
5,078
337,353
10,108
131,215
5,111
229,444
6,176
87,498
3,737
47,779
2,053
58,194
2,518
268,896
8,400
218,178
5,593
178,485
7,889
87,218
3,748
169,739
6,518
37,651
1,689
3,228
455
3,483
490
1,864
262
2,546
359
12,940
1,822
79,475
4,009
57,895
2,630
99,925
3,805
41,637
1,692
112,890
4,275
354,271
7,816
198
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
62,692
(805)
60,768
(857)
322,615
46,394
58,621
(1,171)
38,897
(784)
71,128
(754)
129,094
(961)
132,015
2,166
77,428
1,076
192,356
14,013
130,243
(306)
45,859
597
49,233
757
38,620
26
294,618
6,846
135,364
12,335
142,598
363
198,536
10,740
749,424
279,535
104,045
28
362,704
5,775
83,887
1,283
130,369
498
200,936
(4,991)
260,015
(6,873)
95,926
280
124,482
(2,214)
93,628
7,642
318,382
(8,863)
129,023
2,919
225,436
2,168
87,124
3,364
47,613
1,887
58,046
2,369
254,869
(5,627)
218,813
6,228
178,514
7,918
86,916
3,446
166,558
3,336
37,729
1,767
(2,774)
(2,992)
(1,601)
(2,188)
(11,118)
80,778
5,312
58,104
2,840
97,932
1,813
41,185
1,240
110,549
1,934
383,227
36,772
Option 7
Total
vs Curr Law
39,193
(24,303)
48,521
(13,103)
69,155
(207,066)
37,565
(22,228)
28,261
(11,420)
64,100
(7,783)
182,198
52,143
108,859
(20,990)
86,203
9,850
147,262
(31,081)
107,031
(23,518)
56,781
11,519
26,353
(22,123)
1,890
(36,704)
302,699
14,927
22,319
(100,711)
76,825
(65,409)
138,081
(49,714)
923,661
453,771
113,234
9,217
352,551
(4,378)
83,150
546
147,405
17,534
198,984
(6,943)
266,443
(446)
64,642
(31,004)
126,386
(309)
88,659
2,674
332,495
5,250
153,995
27,891
279,876
56,608
106,567
22,806
43,189
(2,537)
58,363
2,687
117,338
(143,158)
129,114
(83,471)
201,048
30,452
99,624
16,154
126,779
(36,442)
37,669
1,707
29,109
26,335
(92,718)
(95,711)
87,577
85,976
(148,086)
(150,274)
(901,042)
(912,159)
64,795
(10,671)
46,724
(8,540)
125,415
29,295
43,650
3,705
88,433
(20,182)
349,567
3,113
Appendix F
659
671
676
682
690
695
696
698
700
701
704
706
707
709
712
716
717
719
720
721
726
727
728
738
739
740
741
742
743
745
748
750
756
761
763
768
769
771
775
777
786
787
801
803
806
810
811
813
815
818
820
District
NORTHFIELD
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
BADGER
ROSEAU
WARROAD
CHISHOLM
ELY
FLOODWOOD
HERMANTOWN
HIBBING
PROCTOR
VIRGINIA
NETT LAKE
DULUTH
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
BELLE PLAINE
JORDAN
PRIOR LAKE
SHAKOPEE
NEW PRAGUE
BECKER
BIG LAKE
ELK RIVER
HOLDINGFORD
KIMBALL
MELROSE
PAYNESVILLE
ST. CLOUD
SAUK CENTRE
ALBANY
SARTELL
ROCORI
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
OWATONNA
MEDFORD
HANCOCK
MORRIS
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
BENSON
BERTHA-HEWITT
BROWERVILLE
BROWNS VALLEY
WHEATON AREA SCH
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
PLAINVIEW
WABASHA-KELLOGG
LAKE CITY
PRINSBURG
VERNDALE
SEBEKA
Current
Law Total
314,692
67,297
73,430
366,000
399,826
92,514
148,637
155,072
164,368
349,680
193,325
203,831
34,162
688,001
84,409
139,940
118,951
88,060
117,674
248,036
189,090
134,561
395,055
129,210
118,365
216,812
162,151
530,079
167,689
181,092
113,747
217,420
120,249
406,254
71,821
49,715
172,576
90,636
150,608
239,329
92,608
87,079
27,997
148,587
75,991
160,758
107,344
192,013
10,645
93,754
138,446
Option 1
Total
vs Curr Law
321,643
6,951
69,789
2,493
76,799
3,369
380,813
14,813
417,931
18,105
94,817
2,303
154,064
5,427
162,844
7,772
168,095
3,726
359,407
9,727
198,107
4,782
209,253
5,422
35,951
1,789
701,391
13,390
86,937
2,529
143,526
3,586
121,610
2,659
89,398
1,338
119,529
1,855
253,841
5,806
193,322
4,232
137,020
2,459
401,895
6,840
132,773
3,563
121,764
3,400
222,889
6,077
166,804
4,652
539,924
9,845
172,559
4,870
185,812
4,719
115,690
1,943
222,506
5,087
123,951
3,702
415,183
8,929
73,837
2,016
51,565
1,850
178,246
5,670
95,197
4,561
156,421
5,813
247,994
8,665
95,804
3,196
89,875
2,795
29,048
1,051
155,148
6,561
78,157
2,166
165,373
4,615
110,566
3,223
197,363
5,350
11,150
506
97,131
3,377
143,849
5,403
199
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
352,310
37,618
67,729
433
76,737
3,308
374,374
8,374
416,923
17,097
97,462
4,948
149,186
549
164,427
9,355
181,339
16,970
352,366
2,685
204,256
10,931
208,889
5,057
36,481
2,320
841,599
153,598
82,923
(1,485)
145,600
5,659
132,255
13,304
191,042
102,982
198,946
81,271
269,076
21,040
210,101
21,011
174,804
40,243
548,816
153,760
130,621
1,411
117,929
(436)
217,878
1,066
161,612
(540)
677,131
147,051
166,435
(1,254)
187,113
6,021
161,253
47,506
235,919
18,499
117,112
(3,137)
456,128
49,875
72,138
317
50,077
362
169,538
(3,038)
96,168
5,532
152,745
2,137
239,823
494
91,919
(689)
85,113
(1,966)
28,247
250
154,288
5,701
75,917
(74)
160,196
(561)
105,379
(1,965)
193,375
1,362
11,189
544
93,853
99
140,692
2,246
Option 7
Total
vs Curr Law
371,111
56,419
50,512
(16,785)
64,583
(8,847)
345,827
(20,173)
374,160
(25,666)
42,549
(49,965)
102,729
(45,908)
119,646
(35,425)
146,501
(17,868)
255,714
(93,966)
243,883
50,558
141,065
(62,767)
43,011
8,849
308,661
(379,339)
159,553
75,144
139,262
(679)
94,094
(24,857)
225,612
137,552
366,456
248,781
192,834
(55,202)
227,367
38,277
212,403
77,842
913,558
518,503
83,587
(45,624)
145,210
26,845
321,479
104,668
146,557
(15,594)
753,860
223,781
189,464
21,776
174,241
(6,851)
249,978
136,231
330,951
113,531
115,477
(4,772)
324,776
(81,478)
40,932
(30,889)
28,600
(21,115)
109,167
(63,409)
73,305
(17,331)
151,418
809
192,229
(47,100)
108,128
15,519
106,679
19,600
26,295
(1,702)
91,716
(56,871)
75,014
(977)
165,318
4,561
137,832
30,488
172,814
(19,199)
27,409
16,765
29,006
(64,748)
180,107
41,661
Appendix F
821
829
831
832
833
834
836
837
840
846
850
852
857
858
861
876
877
879
881
882
883
885
891
911
912
914
2,071
2,125
2,134
2,135
2,137
2,142
2,143
2,144
2,149
2,154
2,155
2,159
2,164
2,165
2,167
2,168
2,169
2,170
2,171
2,172
2,174
2,176
2,180
2,184
2,190
District
MENAHGA
WASECA
FOREST LAKE
MAHTOMEDI
SOUTH WASHINGTON
STILLWATER
BUTTERFIELD
MADELIA
ST. JAMES
BRECKENRIDGE
ROTHSAY
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
LEWISTON
ST. CHARLES
WINONA
ANNANDALE
BUFFALO
DELANO
MAPLE LAKE
MONTICELLO
ROCKFORD
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
CANBY
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
MILACA
ULEN-HITTERDAL
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
TRITON
UNITED SOUTH CEN
MAPLE RIVER
KINGSLAND
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
CHISAGO LAKES
MINNEWASKA
EVELETH-GILBERT
WADENA-DEER CREE
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
LAKEVIEW
N.R.H.E.G.
MURRAY COUNTY CE
STAPLES-MOTLEY
KITTSON CENTRAL
KENYON-WANAMINGO
PINE RIVER-BACKU
WARREN-ALVARADOM.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
LUVERNE
YELLOW MEDICINE
Current
Law Total
139,059
218,970
447,367
48,393
3,839
350,564
48,632
96,057
184,681
197,295
84,084
68,857
124,163
136,066
398,663
189,728
301,523
133,213
85,706
198,055
91,715
102,706
171,779
427,805
252,210
84,313
147,274
169,367
189,771
212,811
137,711
1,042,920
128,418
281,200
287,232
170,528
175,914
133,723
208,785
232,584
115,448
172,943
174,225
279,779
156,113
155,769
283,821
198,581
182,488
210,078
228,310
Option 1
Total
vs Curr Law
143,844
4,785
224,337
5,367
455,933
8,566
49,128
735
4,468
629
356,468
5,904
50,575
1,942
99,165
3,108
190,122
5,441
204,620
7,324
88,100
4,016
72,788
3,931
127,993
3,831
139,835
3,768
408,018
9,355
194,355
4,627
307,462
5,938
135,987
2,774
87,751
2,045
201,761
3,706
93,426
1,711
104,371
1,666
178,746
6,967
437,500
9,695
259,457
7,247
88,106
3,793
151,787
4,512
174,337
4,971
196,325
6,554
219,540
6,729
141,853
4,142
1,100,022
57,102
131,984
3,566
287,333
6,133
296,910
9,678
175,009
4,480
180,893
4,979
138,775
5,052
215,188
6,403
241,150
8,566
119,656
4,209
178,514
5,571
180,707
6,483
288,998
9,219
163,961
7,848
160,581
4,813
294,967
11,146
207,561
8,980
189,041
6,553
216,536
6,458
236,306
7,996
200
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
137,944
(1,115)
232,325
13,355
555,093
107,726
110,677
62,284
(3,839)
508,302
157,738
49,628
996
94,053
(2,004)
182,425
(2,256)
198,651
1,356
88,458
4,373
74,568
5,711
120,842
(3,321)
137,329
1,262
431,929
33,266
201,769
12,041
365,220
63,697
154,767
21,554
92,094
6,388
251,122
53,066
116,627
24,912
160,470
57,764
175,773
3,994
472,064
44,259
251,247
(962)
87,823
3,510
143,650
(3,625)
167,514
(1,853)
188,390
(1,381)
207,298
(5,513)
135,112
(2,598)
1,121,789
78,869
129,491
1,072
317,166
35,966
283,695
(3,537)
175,617
5,089
176,170
256
135,084
1,361
203,586
(5,199)
233,830
1,246
115,839
391
169,167
(3,776)
175,499
1,274
275,028
(4,751)
165,612
9,499
151,537
(4,231)
288,756
4,935
207,027
8,446
182,573
85
204,696
(5,382)
227,290
(1,020)
Option 7
Total
vs Curr Law
166,573
27,514
194,608
(24,362)
874,912
427,545
63,010
14,617
(205,394)
(209,233)
512,144
161,580
38,647
(9,985)
73,335
(22,722)
162,201
(22,480)
139,090
(58,205)
53,840
(30,245)
60,697
(8,160)
103,316
(20,847)
96,998
(39,068)
554,516
155,853
265,601
75,872
560,907
259,384
203,818
70,605
105,282
19,576
299,261
101,206
107,415
15,700
196,810
94,105
113,247
(58,532)
307,548
(120,257)
299,835
47,625
77,781
(6,532)
248,844
101,569
143,483
(25,883)
240,793
51,022
226,081
13,270
122,965
(14,746)
1,108,277
65,357
156,890
28,472
315,493
34,294
281,040
(6,192)
133,356
(37,172)
149,598
(26,316)
102,284
(31,439)
229,505
20,719
237,346
4,762
73,868
(41,580)
142,422
(30,521)
229,983
55,759
414,590
134,811
175,597
19,484
176,072
20,303
269,950
(13,871)
161,783
(36,798)
250,516
68,027
180,641
(29,438)
318,008
89,697
Appendix F
Current
District
Law Total
2,198 FILLMORE CENTRAL
126,427
2,215 NORMAN COUNTY EA
118,608
2,310 SIBLEY EAST
191,805
2,311 CLEARBROOK-GONVI
164,901
2,342 WEST CENTRAL ARE
227,035
2,358 TRI-COUNTY
125,766
2,364 BELGRADE-BROOTEN
174,280
2,365 G.F.W.
186,969
2,396 A.C.G.C.
183,137
2,397 LESUEUR-HENDERSO
170,002
2,448 MARTIN COUNTY WE
188,934
2,527 NORMAN COUNTY WE
95,321
2,534 BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
161,927
2,536 GRANADA HUNTLEY91,794
2,580 EAST CENTRAL
281,494
2,609 WIN-E-MAC
128,003
2,683 GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
199,675
2,687 HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
108,257
2,689 PIPESTONE-JASPER
263,776
2,711 MESABI EAST
228,912
2,752 FAIRMONT AREA SC
210,622
2,753 LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
183,807
2,754 CEDAR MOUNTAIN
96,699
2,759 EAGLE VALLEY
73,199
2,805 ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
149,665
2,835 JANESVILLE-WALDO
105,087
2,853 LAC QUI PARLE VA
327,695
2,854 ADA-BORUP
156,307
2,856 STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
146,240
2,859 GLENCOE-SILVER L
234,489
2,860 BLUE EARTH AREA
254,199
2,884 RED ROCK CENTRAL
144,244
2,886 GLENVILLE-EMMONS
97,847
2,887 MCLEOD WEST SCHO
96,353
2,888 CLINTON-GRACEVIL
160,445
2,889 LAKE PARK AUDUBO
127,328
2,890 D.R.S.H.
197,245
2,895 JACKSON COUNTY C
255,407
2,897 REDWOOD FALLS AR
210,154
2,898 WESTBROOK-WALNUT
129,891
6,000 Charter / cfl vs dist est
147,594
subtotal excl charter/other 56,452,833
Total incl charter and reconciliation
56,600,427
Option 1
Total
vs Curr Law
130,553
4,126
124,005
5,396
197,586
5,782
172,012
7,110
236,363
9,328
132,678
6,912
180,961
6,682
193,535
6,566
189,523
6,386
174,624
4,622
195,679
6,745
99,302
3,982
167,140
5,213
95,887
4,094
293,830
12,336
133,270
5,266
210,864
11,189
111,010
2,753
272,708
8,932
237,546
8,634
216,101
5,479
189,310
5,503
100,518
3,819
75,635
2,436
153,714
4,050
108,535
3,448
341,764
14,070
163,257
6,950
153,429
7,189
240,833
6,344
262,629
8,430
150,305
6,061
101,301
3,454
99,623
3,270
167,853
7,407
131,852
4,524
204,860
7,614
264,308
8,902
216,340
6,186
135,215
5,324
152,451
4,857
58,310,839
1,858,006
58,463,290
1,862,863
201
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
124,023
(2,404)
123,777
5,169
188,053
(3,751)
170,538
5,637
232,844
5,809
135,361
9,594
176,534
2,254
186,235
(734)
182,161
(976)
172,760
2,759
188,805
(129)
98,042
2,722
158,369
(3,558)
95,474
3,681
291,920
10,426
131,309
3,306
215,581
15,906
113,003
4,746
260,799
(2,976)
231,174
2,262
217,785
7,163
180,607
(3,200)
98,479
1,779
72,106
(1,093)
152,368
2,704
103,206
(1,881)
338,649
10,954
162,492
6,185
154,574
8,334
238,735
4,246
250,229
(3,970)
148,516
4,272
97,562
(285)
95,311
(1,042)
167,846
7,401
127,123
(205)
200,049
2,804
254,018
(1,388)
207,648
(2,506)
133,159
3,268
157,618
10,024
60,286,928
3,834,095
60,444,546
3,844,119
Option 7
Total
vs Curr Law
150,181
23,754
118,463
(145)
160,744
(31,060)
250,372
85,470
228,678
1,643
134,128
8,362
173,677
(602)
198,725
11,756
235,529
52,392
134,507
(35,494)
179,250
(9,684)
130,584
35,263
221,657
59,730
85,560
(6,233)
293,951
12,457
126,995
(1,009)
235,793
36,118
164,249
55,992
269,937
6,161
221,921
(6,991)
303,163
92,542
206,551
22,744
124,609
27,910
82,406
9,207
115,563
(34,101)
103,269
(1,818)
285,371
(42,324)
237,640
81,333
118,454
(27,786)
286,828
52,339
185,075
(69,123)
138,195
(6,049)
78,528
(19,319)
106,612
10,259
168,442
7,997
134,815
7,487
166,331
(30,914)
239,072
(16,335)
210,109
(45)
145,383
15,491
164,977
17,383
63,101,832
6,648,999
63,266,809
6,666,382
Appendix F
AMOUNTS SHOWN PER AMC PUPIL UNIT
District
1
1
2
4
6
11
12
13
14
15
16
22
23
25
31
32
36
38
47
51
62
75
77
81
84
85
88
91
93
94
95
97
99
100
108
110
111
112
113
115
116
118
129
138
139
146
150
152
AITKIN
MINNEAPOLIS
HILL CITY
MCGREGOR
SOUTH ST. PAUL
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
FRIDLEY
ST. FRANCIS
SPRING LAKE PARK
DETROIT LAKES
FRAZEE
PINE POINT
BEMIDJI
BLACKDUCK
KELLIHER
RED LAKE
SAUK RAPIDS
FOLEY
ORTONVILLE
ST. CLAIR
MANKATO
COMFREY
SLEEPY EYE
SPRINGFIELD
NEW ULM
BARNUM
CARLTON
CLOQUET
CROMWELL
MOOSE LAKE
ESKO
WRENSHALL
NORWOOD
WACONIA
WATERTOWN-MAYER
CHASKA
WALKER-HACKENSAC
CASS LAKE
PILLAGER
REMER-LONGVILLE
MONTEVIDEO
NORTH BRANCH
RUSH CITY
BARNESVILLE
HAWLEY
MOORHEAD
AMC
Pupil Units
981,673
1,521
54,655
398
601
4,000
46,770
8,159
3,645
2,967
6,594
4,856
3,331
1,382
84
5,763
895
318
1,721
4,154
1,943
633
766
7,771
192
722
725
2,888
766
787
2,936
355
901
1,215
474
1,218
2,721
1,526
9,096
1,180
1,495
857
671
1,885
4,571
1,166
892
1,048
6,455
Current
Law Total
58
Option 1
Total vs Curr Law
60
2
244
0
289
347
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
107
148
80
121
229
465
244
61
124
187
120
40
238
176
150
109
162
115
65
270
134
66
182
103
67
86
19
192
178
136
358
110
68
107
207
122
61
255
0
303
366
0
0
0
0
0
51
0
110
153
82
125
239
495
255
62
127
193
123
41
248
182
155
112
168
118
67
283
138
68
188
106
68
88
19
200
185
140
377
113
70
110
216
125
63
202
11
0
14
19
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
5
2
4
10
30
11
1
4
7
3
1
10
6
5
3
6
3
1
12
4
1
7
3
1
2
0
7
6
4
20
3
1
3
8
4
1
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
62
4
253
305
372
62
109
145
87
120
236
514
253
71
122
188
119
53
246
176
147
110
161
115
75
283
131
75
182
106
75
91
35
194
179
132
385
111
77
109
211
121
71
9
(0)
15
25
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
12
(0)
2
(3)
7
(1)
7
48
9
10
(1)
1
(1)
13
8
(0)
(3)
1
(2)
0
9
13
(3)
9
1
3
9
6
16
2
0
(4)
27
1
9
2
4
(1)
10
Option 7
Total vs Curr Law
64
7
239
56
258
422
(36)
6
9
(53)
(20)
112
8
119
186
9
199
249
391
217
99
115
116
18
13
231
189
73
152
177
180
61
240
147
80
193
55
137
124
62
251
258
118
440
67
97
96
170
74
68
(5)
56
(31)
74
(36)
6
9
(53)
(20)
62
8
12
37
(71)
77
20
(74)
(27)
38
(9)
(70)
(101)
(27)
(7)
14
(77)
44
15
65
(5)
(30)
13
14
11
(48)
71
38
43
58
79
(18)
83
(43)
29
(11)
(38)
(47)
7
Appendix F
162
166
173
177
181
182
186
191
192
194
195
196
197
199
200
203
204
206
207
208
213
227
229
238
239
241
242
252
253
255
256
261
264
270
271
272
273
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
286
294
297
299
300
District
BAGLEY
COOK COUNTY
MOUNTAIN LAKE
WINDOM
BRAINERD
CROSBY-IRONTON
PEQUOT LAKES
BURNSVILLE
FARMINGTON
LAKEVILLE
RANDOLPH
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
INVER GROVE
HASTINGS
HAYFIELD
KASSON-MANTORVIL
ALEXANDRIA
BRANDON
EVANSVILLE
OSAKIS
CHATFIELD
LANESBORO
MABEL-CANTON
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
ALBERT LEA
ALDEN
CANNON FALLS
GOODHUE
PINE ISLAND
RED WING
ASHBY
HERMAN-NORCROSS
HOPKINS
BLOOMINGTON
EDEN PRAIRIE
EDINA
MINNETONKA
WESTONKA
ORONO
OSSEO
RICHFIELD
ROBBINSDALE
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
ST. LOUIS PARK
WAYZATA
BROOKLYN CENTER
HOUSTON
SPRING GROVE
CALEDONIA
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
AMC
Pupil Units
1,262
799
554
1,218
8,347
1,743
1,518
13,346
6,080
11,595
479
32,934
5,785
4,529
6,043
1,126
2,063
4,718
376
256
746
1,051
401
452
790
4,361
476
1,717
632
1,412
3,711
355
198
9,743
12,626
12,548
8,333
8,926
2,727
2,920
25,898
4,823
16,379
1,740
5,089
11,155
2,192
572
461
1,140
2,009
Current
Law Total
225
432
153
130
86
131
110
0
29
12
119
0
0
0
58
132
76
95
166
215
149
126
197
163
144
78
169
96
134
99
76
185
342
0
0
0
0
0
19
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
164
141
137
81
Option 1
Total vs Curr Law
234
9
458
26
159
5
133
4
88
2
135
4
113
3
0
0
30
0
12
0
123
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
1
136
4
78
2
97
2
172
6
224
9
154
5
129
4
204
8
168
6
148
5
80
2
175
6
98
2
139
4
101
3
78
2
192
7
360
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
44
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
170
6
146
4
141
4
83
2
203
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
231
6
473
41
151
(2)
127
(2)
92
6
129
(3)
111
1
(0)
44
15
29
17
119
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
69
10
129
(3)
83
7
99
4
165
(1)
220
5
146
(3)
124
(2)
199
2
161
(1)
140
(3)
85
7
168
(1)
100
4
131
(3)
102
3
83
7
186
1
366
24
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
35
16
56
13
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
163
(1)
137
(4)
133
(4)
88
6
Option 7
Total vs Curr Law
222
(2)
395
(37)
96
(57)
97
(33)
102
16
141
10
122
12
(5)
(5)
49
19
33
21
141
21
(16)
(16)
16
16
(7)
(7)
62
4
119
(14)
86
10
84
(10)
179
13
168
(47)
117
(33)
103
(22)
217
20
111
(52)
172
29
73
(6)
72
(97)
107
11
184
50
47
(52)
84
8
158
(27)
203
(138)
18
18
(26)
(26)
31
30
(12)
(12)
26
25
65
46
97
54
(0)
(0)
(29)
(29)
14
14
(44)
(45)
20
20
11
11
(44)
(44)
111
(53)
95
(46)
155
19
95
14
Appendix F
306
308
309
314
316
317
318
319
323
330
332
333
345
347
356
361
362
363
371
378
381
390
391
392
394
402
403
404
409
411
413
414
415
417
418
423
424
432
435
441
447
458
463
465
466
473
477
480
482
484
485
AMC
District
Pupil Units
LAPORTE
403
NEVIS
623
PARK RAPIDS
2,143
BRAHAM
1,121
GREENWAY
1,644
DEER RIVER
1,240
GRAND RAPIDS
4,874
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
766
FRANCONIA
41
HERON LAKE-OKABE
361
MORA
2,192
OGILVIE
861
NEW LONDON-SPICE
1,960
WILLMAR
4,987
LANCASTER
287
INTERNATIONAL FA
1,731
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
376
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
405
BELLINGHAM
188
DAWSON-BOYD
707
LAKE SUPERIOR
2,291
LAKE OF THE WOOD
828
CLEVELAND
498
LECENTER
837
MONTGOMERY-LONSD
1,305
HENDRICKS
225
IVANHOE
275
LAKE BENTON
269
TYLER
364
BALATON
182
MARSHALL
2,714
MINNEOTA
575
LYND
146
TRACY
831
RUSSELL
170
HUTCHINSON
3,633
LESTER PRAIRIE
593
MAHNOMEN
868
WAUBUN
717
MARSHALL COUNTY
395
GRYGLA
227
TRUMAN
493
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
941
LITCHFIELD
2,378
DASSEL-COKATO
2,574
ISLE
596
PRINCETON
3,651
ONAMIA
835
LITTLE FALLS
3,708
PIERZ
1,134
ROYALTON
843
Current
Law Total
258
184
175
113
110
216
210
193
95
234
114
133
104
74
374
164
486
651
254
195
341
368
119
110
103
218
253
245
177
253
88
180
197
174
219
77
97
211
249
299
536
180
110
106
93
204
89
211
106
148
118
Option 1
Total vs Curr Law
270
12
191
7
181
6
116
3
113
3
225
9
219
8
201
7
97
2
244
10
118
3
137
4
107
3
76
2
395
21
169
6
518
32
701
51
266
11
202
7
359
18
388
20
123
3
113
3
105
3
226
9
264
11
256
11
184
6
265
11
90
2
186
7
204
8
180
6
228
9
78
2
100
3
219
8
260
11
314
15
574
37
186
7
113
3
109
3
95
2
211
8
92
2
219
8
109
3
152
5
121
3
204
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
269
11
185
1
174
(0)
113
1
111
1
221
5
214
4
195
2
99
4
241
7
115
0
130
(3)
106
2
82
8
404
30
163
(1)
539
53
742
92
264
10
197
2
365
24
396
29
119
(0)
111
1
105
3
223
5
262
10
254
9
178
0
264
10
93
5
180
0
199
2
173
(0)
225
5
84
7
101
4
215
4
258
9
316
17
600
64
180
0
112
1
108
2
97
4
207
3
94
5
215
4
108
2
145
(3)
118
(0)
Option 7
Total vs Curr Law
215
(43)
190
6
165
(10)
123
10
136
27
293
77
228
17
222
29
228
134
186
(48)
95
(19)
133
(0)
120
16
104
29
323
(51)
146
(18)
347
(139)
610
(41)
284
30
135
(60)
307
(34)
359
(8)
71
(48)
40
(70)
113
10
175
(43)
196
(57)
188
(58)
184
6
315
62
74
(14)
117
(63)
240
43
151
(23)
213
(6)
77
(0)
74
(23)
268
57
267
19
287
(12)
690
153
181
1
122
12
122
16
114
22
217
13
122
33
293
83
124
18
178
30
90
(28)
Appendix F
486
487
492
495
497
499
500
505
507
508
511
513
514
516
518
531
533
534
535
542
544
545
547
548
549
550
553
561
564
577
578
581
584
592
593
595
599
600
601
611
621
622
623
624
625
627
628
630
635
640
656
District
SWANVILLE
UPSALA
AUSTIN
GRAND MEADOW
LYLE
LEROY
SOUTHLAND
FULDA
NICOLLET
ST. PETER
ADRIAN
BREWSTER
ELLSWORTH
ROUND LAKE
WORTHINGTON
BYRON
DOVER-EYOTA
STEWARTVILLE
ROCHESTER
BATTLE LAKE
FERGUS FALLS
HENNING
PARKERS PRAIRIE
PELICAN RAPIDS
PERHAM
UNDERWOOD
NEW YORK MILLS
GOODRIDGE
THIEF RIVER FALL
WILLOW RIVER
PINE CITY
EDGERTON
RUTHTON
CLIMAX
CROOKSTON
EAST GRAND FORKS
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
FISHER
FOSSTON
CYRUS
MOUNDS VIEW
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
ROSEVILLE
WHITE BEAR LAKE
ST. PAUL
OKLEE
PLUMMER
RED LAKE FALLS
MILROY
WABASSO
FARIBAULT
AMC
Pupil Units
402
490
4,617
401
267
447
788
635
382
2,192
757
229
239
218
2,785
1,643
1,237
2,114
18,174
590
3,327
408
713
1,435
1,981
529
836
212
2,410
581
2,015
329
178
214
1,777
2,112
631
324
771
130
13,034
14,061
7,525
10,282
52,246
222
195
461
171
526
4,726
Current
Law Total
158
126
60
149
149
161
165
204
200
81
172
198
202
177
103
75
115
89
26
176
107
202
182
143
135
181
152
406
136
217
111
255
257
261
147
101
270
257
212
278
0
0
0
0
0
340
284
209
234
207
73
Option 1
Total vs Curr Law
163
5
130
4
61
1
154
5
154
5
166
5
171
6
212
8
207
8
83
2
179
6
206
8
210
8
183
6
106
3
77
2
118
3
91
2
26
0
183
6
110
3
210
8
189
7
148
5
139
4
187
7
157
5
430
24
140
4
226
9
114
3
266
11
269
12
272
12
151
5
103
3
283
13
269
12
220
8
291
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
358
18
297
13
217
8
244
10
215
8
75
2
205
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
156
(2)
124
(2)
70
10
146
(3)
146
(3)
159
(2)
164
(1)
208
3
202
3
88
6
172
(0)
201
3
206
3
177
0
106
2
82
8
115
0
94
5
41
15
176
0
109
2
205
3
183
1
140
(3)
131
(3)
181
1
149
(3)
442
36
132
(4)
222
5
112
1
265
10
268
11
272
11
143
(3)
104
3
283
13
268
11
216
4
291
14
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
364
24
298
15
213
4
241
7
210
4
81
8
Option 7
Total vs Curr Law
97
(60)
99
(27)
15
(45)
94
(55)
106
(43)
143
(17)
231
66
171
(33)
225
26
67
(14)
141
(31)
248
50
110
(92)
9
(168)
109
5
14
(61)
62
(53)
65
(24)
51
25
192
16
106
(1)
204
1
207
25
139
(5)
134
(0)
122
(59)
151
(0)
419
13
138
2
265
48
139
28
324
69
243
(14)
273
13
66
(81)
61
(40)
319
48
307
50
164
(47)
291
13
2
2
(7)
(7)
12
11
(14)
(15)
(17)
(17)
292
(48)
240
(44)
272
64
255
22
168
(38)
74
1
Appendix F
659
671
676
682
690
695
696
698
700
701
704
706
707
709
712
716
717
719
720
721
726
727
728
738
739
740
741
742
743
745
748
750
756
761
763
768
769
771
775
777
786
787
801
803
806
810
811
813
815
818
820
AMC
District
Pupil Units
NORTHFIELD
4,500
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
361
BADGER
275
ROSEAU
1,690
WARROAD
1,531
CHISHOLM
1,025
ELY
817
FLOODWOOD
502
HERMANTOWN
2,219
HIBBING
3,122
PROCTOR
2,171
VIRGINIA
1,982
NETT LAKE
103
DULUTH
13,421
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
657
BELLE PLAINE
1,464
JORDAN
1,656
PRIOR LAKE
6,049
SHAKOPEE
5,138
NEW PRAGUE
3,124
BECKER
2,626
BIG LAKE
3,145
ELK RIVER
11,066
HOLDINGFORD
1,173
KIMBALL
995
MELROSE
1,909
PAYNESVILLE
1,366
ST. CLOUD
11,803
SAUK CENTRE
1,382
ALBANY
1,833
SARTELL
3,353
ROCORI
2,741
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
891
OWATONNA
5,875
MEDFORD
631
HANCOCK
265
MORRIS
1,139
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
291
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
754
BENSON
1,335
BERTHA-HEWITT
561
BROWERVILLE
599
BROWNS VALLEY
147
WHEATON AREA SCH
593
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
648
PLAINVIEW
1,353
WABASHA-KELLOGG
832
LAKE CITY
1,709
PRINSBURG
38
VERNDALE
528
SEBEKA
680
Current
Law Total
70
186
267
217
261
90
182
309
74
112
89
103
332
51
128
96
72
15
23
79
72
43
36
110
119
114
119
45
121
99
34
79
135
69
114
188
151
311
200
179
165
145
191
250
117
119
129
112
283
178
204
Option 1
Total vs Curr Law
71
2
193
7
279
12
225
9
273
12
92
2
189
7
325
15
76
2
115
3
91
2
106
3
350
17
52
1
132
4
98
2
73
2
15
0
23
0
81
2
74
2
44
1
36
1
113
3
122
3
117
3
122
3
46
1
125
4
101
3
34
1
81
2
139
4
71
2
117
3
195
7
156
5
327
16
208
8
186
6
171
6
150
5
198
7
261
11
121
3
122
3
133
4
115
3
296
13
184
6
212
8
206
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
78
8
188
1
279
12
221
5
272
11
95
5
183
1
328
19
82
8
113
1
94
5
105
3
355
23
63
11
126
(2)
99
4
80
8
32
17
39
16
86
7
80
8
56
13
50
14
111
1
118
(0)
114
1
118
(0)
57
12
120
(1)
102
3
48
14
86
7
131
(4)
78
8
114
1
189
1
149
(3)
330
19
203
3
180
0
164
(1)
142
(3)
192
2
260
10
117
(0)
118
(0)
127
(2)
113
1
297
14
178
0
207
3
Option 7
Total vs Curr Law
82
13
140
(46)
235
(32)
205
(12)
244
(17)
42
(49)
126
(56)
238
(71)
66
(8)
82
(30)
112
23
71
(32)
419
86
23
(28)
243
114
95
(0)
57
(15)
37
23
71
48
62
(18)
87
15
68
25
83
47
71
(39)
146
27
168
55
107
(11)
64
19
137
16
95
(4)
75
41
121
41
130
(5)
55
(14)
65
(49)
108
(80)
96
(56)
252
(59)
201
1
144
(35)
193
28
178
33
179
(12)
155
(96)
116
(2)
122
3
166
37
101
(11)
728
446
55
(123)
265
61
Appendix F
821
829
831
832
833
834
836
837
840
846
850
852
857
858
861
876
877
879
881
882
883
885
891
911
912
914
2,071
2,125
2,134
2,135
2,137
2,142
2,143
2,144
2,149
2,154
2,155
2,159
2,164
2,165
2,167
2,168
2,169
2,170
2,171
2,172
2,174
2,176
2,180
2,184
2,190
District
MENAHGA
WASECA
FOREST LAKE
MAHTOMEDI
SOUTH WASHINGTON
STILLWATER
BUTTERFIELD
MADELIA
ST. JAMES
BRECKENRIDGE
ROTHSAY
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
LEWISTON
ST. CHARLES
WINONA
ANNANDALE
BUFFALO
DELANO
MAPLE LAKE
MONTICELLO
ROCKFORD
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
CANBY
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
MILACA
ULEN-HITTERDAL
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
TRITON
UNITED SOUTH CEN
MAPLE RIVER
KINGSLAND
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
CHISAGO LAKES
MINNEWASKA
EVELETH-GILBERT
WADENA-DEER CREE
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
LAKEVIEW
N.R.H.E.G.
MURRAY COUNTY CE
STAPLES-MOTLEY
KITTSON CENTRAL
KENYON-WANAMINGO
PINE RIVER-BACKU
WARREN-ALVARADOM.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
LUVERNE
YELLOW MEDICINE
AMC
Pupil Units
847
2,505
9,126
3,622
18,041
10,921
230
651
1,482
1,055
295
179
916
1,225
4,995
2,193
5,698
2,186
1,037
4,314
2,015
3,799
791
5,779
2,120
326
1,101
1,369
1,148
1,503
1,064
2,914
1,151
4,138
1,814
1,698
1,521
694
1,558
1,260
637
1,182
928
1,838
503
1,147
1,379
762
1,032
1,561
1,349
Current
Law Total
164
87
49
13
0
32
212
147
125
187
285
384
135
111
80
86
53
61
83
46
46
27
217
74
119
258
134
124
165
142
129
358
112
68
158
100
116
193
134
185
181
146
188
152
311
136
206
261
177
135
169
Option 1
Total vs Curr Law
170
6
90
2
50
1
14
0
0
0
33
1
220
8
152
5
128
4
194
7
299
14
406
22
140
4
114
3
82
2
89
2
54
1
62
1
85
2
47
1
46
1
27
0
226
9
76
2
122
3
270
12
138
4
127
4
171
6
146
4
133
4
378
20
115
3
69
1
164
5
103
3
119
3
200
7
138
4
191
7
188
7
151
5
195
7
157
5
326
16
140
4
214
8
272
12
183
6
139
4
175
6
207
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
163
(1)
93
5
61
12
31
17
(0)
47
14
216
4
144
(3)
123
(2)
188
1
300
15
416
32
132
(4)
112
1
86
7
92
5
64
11
71
10
89
6
58
12
58
12
42
15
222
5
82
8
119
(0)
269
11
130
(3)
122
(1)
164
(1)
138
(4)
127
(2)
385
27
113
1
77
9
156
(2)
103
3
116
0
195
2
131
(3)
186
1
182
1
143
(3)
189
1
150
(3)
329
19
132
(4)
209
4
272
11
177
0
131
(3)
169
(1)
Option 7
Total vs Curr Law
197
32
78
(10)
96
47
17
4
(11)
(12)
47
15
168
(43)
113
(35)
109
(15)
132
(55)
183
(103)
338
(45)
113
(23)
79
(32)
111
31
121
35
98
46
93
32
102
19
69
23
53
8
52
25
143
(74)
53
(21)
141
22
238
(20)
226
92
105
(19)
210
44
150
9
116
(14)
380
22
136
25
76
8
155
(3)
79
(22)
98
(17)
147
(45)
147
13
188
4
116
(65)
120
(26)
248
60
226
73
349
39
154
18
196
(10)
212
(48)
243
66
116
(19)
236
67
Appendix F
2,198
2,215
2,310
2,311
2,342
2,358
2,364
2,365
2,396
2,397
2,448
2,527
2,534
2,536
2,580
2,609
2,683
2,687
2,689
2,711
2,752
2,753
2,754
2,759
2,805
2,835
2,853
2,854
2,856
2,859
2,860
2,884
2,886
2,887
2,888
2,889
2,890
2,895
2,897
2,898
6,000
AMC
District
Pupil Units
FILLMORE CENTRAL
844
NORMAN COUNTY EA
451
SIBLEY EAST
1,476
CLEARBROOK-GONVI
685
WEST CENTRAL ARE
1,023
TRI-COUNTY
349
BELGRADE-BROOTEN
882
G.F.W.
1,099
A.C.G.C.
1,090
LESUEUR-HENDERSO
1,585
MARTIN COUNTY WE
1,080
NORMAN COUNTY WE
418
BIRD ISLAND-OLIV
1,108
GRANADA HUNTLEY361
EAST CENTRAL
1,138
WIN-E-MAC
575
GREENBUSH-MIDDLE
537
HOWARD LAKE-WAVE
1,150
PIPESTONE-JASPER
1,652
MESABI EAST
1,191
FAIRMONT AREA SC
2,139
LONG PRAIRIE-GRE
1,432
CEDAR MOUNTAIN
466
EAGLE VALLEY
473
ZUMBROTA-MAZEPPA
1,408
JANESVILLE-WALDO
695
LAC QUI PARLE VA
1,371
ADA-BORUP
617
STEPHEN-ARGYLE C
489
GLENCOE-SILVER L
2,207
BLUE EARTH AREA
1,651
RED ROCK CENTRAL
626
GLENVILLE-EMMONS
570
MCLEOD WEST SCHO
601
CLINTON-GRACEVIL
595
LAKE PARK AUDUBO
734
D.R.S.H.
987
JACKSON COUNTY C
1,521
REDWOOD FALLS AR
1,689
WESTBROOK-WALNUT
587
Charter / cfl vs dist est
21,461
Current
Law Total
150
263
130
241
222
360
198
170
168
107
175
228
146
255
247
223
372
94
160
192
98
128
208
155
106
151
239
253
299
106
154
231
172
160
270
174
200
168
124
221
7
Option 1
Total vs Curr Law
155
5
275
12
134
4
251
10
231
9
380
20
205
8
176
6
174
6
110
3
181
6
238
10
151
5
266
11
258
11
232
9
393
21
97
2
165
5
199
7
101
3
132
4
216
8
160
5
109
3
156
5
249
10
265
11
314
15
109
3
159
5
240
10
178
6
166
5
282
12
180
6
208
8
174
6
128
4
230
9
7
0
208
Option 2
Total vs Curr Law
147
(3)
275
11
127
(3)
249
8
228
6
388
27
200
3
169
(1)
167
(1)
109
2
175
(0)
235
7
143
(3)
265
10
256
9
228
6
402
30
98
4
158
(2)
194
2
102
3
126
(2)
212
4
153
(2)
108
2
148
(3)
247
8
263
10
316
17
108
2
152
(2)
237
7
171
(0)
159
(2)
282
12
173
(0)
203
3
167
(1)
123
(1)
227
6
7
0
Option 7
Total vs Curr Law
178
28
263
(0)
109
(21)
365
125
224
2
384
24
197
(1)
181
11
216
48
85
(22)
166
(9)
313
84
200
54
237
(17)
258
11
221
(2)
439
67
143
49
163
4
186
(6)
142
43
144
16
268
60
174
19
82
(24)
148
(3)
208
(31)
385
132
242
(57)
130
24
112
(42)
221
(10)
138
(34)
177
17
283
13
184
10
169
(31)
157
(11)
124
(0)
248
26
8
1
Appendix F
PER PUPIL TRANSPORTED BASED OPTIONS (OPTIONS 4, 5, 6)
Current Law
District
Trn Sparsity Nonpub Reg
State totals / no hold harmless 56,600,427 23,380,685
1
1
2
4
6
11
12
13
14
15
16
22
23
25
31
32
36
38
47
51
62
75
77
81
84
85
88
91
93
94
95
97
99
100
108
110
111
112
113
115
116
118
129
138
139
146
150
152
AITKIN
MINNEAPOLIS
HILL CITY
MCGREGOR
SOUTH ST. PAUL
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
FRIDLEY
ST. FRANCIS
SPRING LAKE PARK
DETROIT LAKES
FRAZEE
PINE POINT
BEMIDJI
BLACKDUCK
KELLIHER
RED LAKE
SAUK RAPIDS
FOLEY
ORTONVILLE
ST. CLAIR
MANKATO
COMFREY
SLEEPY EYE
SPRINGFIELD
NEW ULM
BARNUM
CARLTON
CLOQUET
CROMWELL
MOOSE LAKE
ESKO
WRENSHALL
NORWOOD
WACONIA
WATERTOWN-MAYER
CHASKA
WALKER-HACKENSAC
CASS LAKE
PILLAGER
REMER-LONGVILLE
MONTEVIDEO
NORTH BRANCH
RUSH CITY
BARNESVILLE
HAWLEY
MOORHEAD
371,728
11,631
115,207
208,787
851
9,953
1,736
776
631
330,217
1,033
355,569
205,104
6,726
698,179
205,431
148,203
420,010
252,896
240,163
118,024
91,592
312,985
45,672
126,913
108,667
314,244
124,151
90,651
192,047
95,803
120,812
80,429
86,113
125,534
181,041
131,063
171,923
227,167
266,637
116,286
240,129
207,862
311,479
124,959
184,981
127,363
396,871
2,919,556
36,530
786,311
59,196
23,849
42,827
106,738
70,222
48,112
207,975
34,502
211,189
55,304
255,103
2,803
159,908
18,281
276,593
860
513
45,661
5,143
61,802
251,164
70,704
412,715
47,455
24,928
16,122
147,684
Total
79,981,112
371,728
2,931,187
115,207
208,787
37,382
796,264
60,932
24,625
43,458
436,955
71,256
403,682
205,104
6,726
906,154
205,431
148,203
454,512
464,085
295,467
118,024
91,592
568,088
48,476
286,821
126,948
590,837
125,011
91,164
237,708
95,803
120,812
85,571
86,113
187,337
432,205
201,767
584,638
227,167
314,092
116,286
265,057
207,862
327,601
124,959
184,981
127,363
544,555
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
87,800,823 7,819,711
9,727,677
474,424
2,316,617
98,781
306,040
1,245,330
28,929
35,291
692,575
89,345
552,967
279,353
8,520
1,406,421
282,519
143,870
746,227
384,437
416,942
64,966
147,742
441,886
72,913
185,254
73,932
372,674
180,327
159,136
115,314
128,796
172,456
136,772
79,093
305,795
454,144
298,005
544,593
342,605
315,593
185,168
369,783
213,048
512,933
124,078
118,712
60,188
375,228
209
102,696
(614,570)
(16,426)
97,253
(37,382)
449,066
(32,003)
(24,625)
(8,167)
255,620
18,089
149,285
74,249
1,794
500,267
77,088
(4,333)
291,715
(79,648)
121,475
(53,058)
56,149
(126,202)
24,437
(101,567)
(53,017)
(218,163)
55,316
67,972
(122,394)
32,993
51,645
51,201
(7,021)
118,459
21,939
96,237
(40,045)
115,438
1,501
68,882
104,726
5,185
185,332
(881)
(66,269)
(67,175)
(169,326)
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
87,932,130
7,951,018
10,164,783
454,257
2,315,462
94,909
298,413
2,151,470
168,813
35,236
739,790
176,832
529,244
260,439
8,304
1,339,444
269,731
141,462
716,287
398,224
395,209
59,723
142,564
501,901
70,108
174,387
66,826
346,826
169,014
150,161
118,441
123,641
159,209
141,218
73,658
300,268
469,761
296,531
673,691
325,327
296,060
172,152
359,882
198,078
524,606
115,719
111,266
50,602
389,816
82,529
(615,725)
(20,298)
89,626
(37,382)
1,355,206
107,881
(24,625)
(8,222)
302,834
105,576
125,563
55,335
1,578
433,290
64,300
(6,741)
261,775
(65,861)
99,742
(58,301)
50,972
(66,187)
21,632
(112,434)
(60,122)
(244,011)
44,004
58,997
(119,267)
27,838
38,398
55,646
(12,456)
112,932
37,555
94,764
89,053
98,160
(18,032)
55,865
94,825
(9,784)
197,005
(9,240)
(73,715)
(76,761)
(154,738)
2/21/02
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
88,682,530
8,701,418
11,485,860
420,287
3,230,949
81,627
265,077
2,551,919
132,685
910,984
37,565
441,032
306,839
1,646
1,560,173
337,063
122,791
525,867
621,277
355,102
60,756
98,455
284,349
75,482
168,126
101,379
388,443
174,367
189,071
14,216
118,632
152,270
119,314
68,928
227,512
349,031
255,907
675,088
363,874
367,204
173,188
349,005
119,175
486,955
115,704
120,191
47,240
428,662
48,559
299,763
(33,581)
56,290
(37,382)
1,755,655
71,753
(24,625)
(43,458)
474,029
(33,691)
37,351
101,735
(5,080)
654,019
131,632
(25,412)
71,355
157,192
59,635
(57,268)
6,862
(283,739)
27,006
(118,696)
(25,570)
(202,394)
49,357
97,907
(223,493)
22,828
31,459
33,743
(17,186)
40,176
(83,174)
54,139
90,451
136,707
53,112
56,902
83,948
(88,687)
159,354
(9,255)
(64,790)
(80,122)
(115,893)
Appendix F
162
166
173
177
181
182
186
191
192
194
195
196
197
199
200
203
204
206
207
208
213
227
229
238
239
241
242
252
253
255
256
261
264
270
271
272
273
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
286
294
297
299
300
Current Law
District
BAGLEY
283,384
COOK COUNTY
345,109
MOUNTAIN LAKE
85,045
24,752
WINDOM
157,813
8,987
BRAINERD
719,437
95,773
CROSBY-IRONTON
229,153
3,361
PEQUOT LAKES
167,403
3,689
BURNSVILLE
2,840
267,076
FARMINGTON
179,285
47,554
LAKEVILLE
139,558
92,708
RANDOLPH
57,175
4,623
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
7,008
293,806
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
1,231
412,046
INVER GROVE
964
109,304
HASTINGS
352,109
141,480
HAYFIELD
149,071
KASSON-MANTORVIL
157,206
ALEXANDRIA
446,264
147,079
BRANDON
62,492
EVANSVILLE
55,212
OSAKIS
111,390
25,891
CHATFIELD
132,183
2,030
LANESBORO
78,759
MABEL-CANTON
73,523
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
113,622
ALBERT LEA
340,707
69,111
ALDEN
80,509
CANNON FALLS
164,746
10,550
GOODHUE
84,909
13,771
PINE ISLAND
139,643
RED WING
281,823
90,527
ASHBY
65,761
HERMAN-NORCROSS
67,665
HOPKINS
2,073
276,145
BLOOMINGTON
2,687
371,027
EDEN PRAIRIE
2,670
288,180
EDINA
1,773
239,656
MINNETONKA
1,899
260,154
WESTONKA
51,856
121,806
ORONO
125,672
139,846
OSSEO
5,511
541,221
RICHFIELD
1,026
75,698
ROBBINSDALE
3,485
424,990
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
370
30,291
ST. LOUIS PARK
1,083
165,958
WAYZATA
2,374
375,038
BROOKLYN CENTER
466
6,783
HOUSTON
93,947
SPRING GROVE
65,027
CALEDONIA
155,701
127,905
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
163,421
76,964
Total
283,384
345,109
109,797
166,800
815,209
232,514
171,093
269,916
226,839
232,265
61,797
300,814
413,277
110,268
493,589
149,071
157,206
593,343
62,492
55,212
137,281
134,213
78,759
73,523
113,622
409,818
80,509
175,296
98,680
139,643
372,350
65,761
67,665
278,219
373,714
290,850
241,429
262,053
173,663
265,518
546,732
76,724
428,475
30,661
167,041
377,412
7,249
93,947
65,027
283,606
240,385
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
398,584
115,200
400,286
55,177
66,610
(43,187)
262,267
95,467
1,072,724
257,514
362,135
129,621
289,411
118,319
(269,916)
213,952
(12,887)
(232,265)
90,186
28,389
584,604
283,790
521,847
108,570
44,426
(65,842)
657,802
164,213
155,708
6,637
241,202
83,995
701,568
108,225
68,889
6,396
56,118
906
125,429
(11,852)
116,223
(17,990)
76,868
(1,891)
75,177
1,653
177,777
64,155
356,120
(53,698)
38,644
(41,865)
302,959
127,663
102,985
4,305
92,099
(47,544)
449,287
76,937
66,613
852
40,292
(27,373)
366,839
88,620
647,334
273,620
505,485
214,635
96,073
(145,355)
581,363
319,309
282,961
109,299
308,287
42,769
(546,732)
(76,724)
485,230
56,754
19,291
(11,370)
226,236
59,195
656,114
278,702
(7,249)
74,155
(19,792)
28,876
(36,150)
243,471
(40,135)
279,411
39,026
210
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
380,147
96,763
393,450
48,341
61,227
(48,570)
245,167
78,367
1,052,913
237,703
335,678
103,164
278,381
107,289
(269,916)
270,065
43,226
74,162
(158,104)
84,515
22,718
583,977
283,162
664,507
251,230
113,540
3,273
690,299
196,711
142,094
(6,978)
242,523
85,317
683,605
90,262
64,176
1,683
53,441
(1,771)
115,924
(21,357)
104,324
(29,889)
71,810
(6,949)
69,932
(3,591)
165,930
52,308
348,064
(61,754)
34,198
(46,311)
296,282
120,986
94,846
(3,834)
86,405
(53,238)
451,093
78,743
62,283
(3,478)
39,166
(28,500)
366,637
88,418
647,058
273,344
505,222
214,372
95,919
(145,510)
581,157
319,103
329,514
155,852
342,330
76,812
(546,732)
(76,724)
484,901
56,426
19,259
(11,402)
226,128
59,086
655,863
278,451
(7,249)
68,523
(25,424)
25,078
(39,949)
226,528
(57,078)
281,343
40,958
2/21/02
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
377,655
94,272
333,125
(11,984)
48,050
(61,747)
249,487
82,687
796,809
(18,401)
356,426
123,912
278,740
107,648
(269,916)
182,290
(44,548)
(232,265)
99,067
37,270
563,742
262,928
462,237
48,960
(110,268)
727,766
234,177
162,387
13,315
102,571
(54,635)
625,708
32,364
83,489
20,997
49,648
(5,564)
121,555
(15,726)
93,147
(41,066)
97,390
18,631
68,884
(4,640)
218,990
105,368
343,901
(65,916)
16,779
(63,730)
256,892
81,596
112,325
13,645
72,541
(67,102)
305,790
(66,560)
82,191
16,430
42,125
(25,541)
275,765
(2,454)
627,529
253,815
523,430
232,579
621,741
380,312
717,986
455,932
338,279
164,617
322,795
57,277
(546,732)
(76,724)
1,082,682
654,207
(30,661)
229,899
62,858
584,298
206,887
(7,249)
101,377
7,430
39,130
(25,896)
301,676
18,070
193,967
(46,418)
Appendix F
306
308
309
314
316
317
318
319
323
330
332
333
345
347
356
361
362
363
371
378
381
390
391
392
394
402
403
404
409
411
413
414
415
417
418
423
424
432
435
441
447
458
463
465
466
473
477
480
482
484
485
Current Law
District
LAPORTE
104,059
NEVIS
114,500
PARK RAPIDS
373,991
3,071
BRAHAM
126,077
4,630
GREENWAY
180,105
539
DEER RIVER
268,390
43,622
GRAND RAPIDS
1,024,350
115,419
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
148,104
FRANCONIA
3,909
776
HERON LAKE-OKABE
84,480
12,876
MORA
250,642
624
OGILVIE
114,735
NEW LONDON-SPICE
203,628
8,646
WILLMAR
370,412
88,169
LANCASTER
107,077
INTERNATIONAL FA
283,628
40,051
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
182,738
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
263,318
BELLINGHAM
47,778
DAWSON-BOYD
137,863
LAKE SUPERIOR
781,818
31,025
LAKE OF THE WOOD
304,213
CLEVELAND
59,403
5,087
LECENTER
91,801
MONTGOMERY-LONSD 134,040
58,063
HENDRICKS
48,864
430
IVANHOE
69,428
LAKE BENTON
66,003
TYLER
64,548
BALATON
46,075
13,348
MARSHALL
237,724
132,930
MINNEOTA
103,407
30,929
LYND
28,784
12,895
TRACY
144,298
15,222
RUSSELL
37,205
2,740
HUTCHINSON
277,959
94,791
LESTER PRAIRIE
57,732
17,701
MAHNOMEN
182,864
36,465
WAUBUN
178,200
MARSHALL COUNTY
118,021
GRYGLA
121,885
TRUMAN
88,620
40,794
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
103,854
4,478
LITCHFIELD
252,822
31,127
DASSEL-COKATO
238,483
5,245
ISLE
121,288
PRINCETON
326,457
52,356
ONAMIA
175,882
LITTLE FALLS
393,505
104,197
PIERZ
167,405
71,681
ROYALTON
99,309
-
Total
104,059
114,500
377,062
130,706
180,644
312,012
1,139,769
148,104
4,686
97,356
251,266
114,735
212,274
458,582
107,077
323,679
182,738
263,318
47,778
137,863
812,842
304,213
64,491
91,801
192,104
49,294
69,428
66,003
64,548
59,423
370,654
134,337
41,678
159,521
39,944
372,750
75,432
219,329
178,200
118,021
121,885
129,414
108,332
283,949
243,728
121,288
378,812
175,882
497,701
239,086
99,309
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
126,331
22,272
128,536
14,036
651,623
274,561
158,656
27,949
273,731
93,088
445,666
133,653
1,547,651
407,882
190,079
41,975
6,624
1,939
124,366
27,009
360,443
109,177
193,865
79,130
360,441
148,167
513,989
55,408
71,081
(35,996)
327,479
3,800
179,924
(2,814)
279,907
16,588
47,636
(142)
91,616
(46,246)
753,047
(59,796)
421,502
117,289
54,304
(10,186)
(91,801)
135,436
(56,667)
58,140
8,846
89,012
19,584
65,384
(619)
108,396
43,849
52,312
(7,111)
312,747
(57,907)
136,150
1,813
48,236
6,558
238,294
78,773
56,382
16,438
470,588
97,839
(75,432)
237,539
18,210
229,237
51,037
144,176
26,155
133,869
11,984
99,694
(29,719)
156,200
47,868
378,842
94,893
344,435
100,707
201,215
79,927
511,301
132,489
269,008
93,126
648,924
151,223
235,690
(3,396)
140,786
41,477
211
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
120,153
16,095
119,377
4,877
614,044
236,981
147,109
16,403
258,964
78,321
424,934
112,922
1,471,924
332,155
179,856
31,752
6,281
1,595
118,505
21,149
339,192
87,926
180,842
66,106
350,612
138,338
517,349
58,767
69,252
(37,825)
306,159
(17,520)
177,411
(5,327)
277,416
14,097
45,637
(2,142)
85,505
(52,358)
733,224
(79,618)
411,226
107,013
48,686
(15,804)
(91,801)
124,078
(68,026)
55,179
5,885
85,237
15,809
62,497
(3,506)
102,456
37,908
50,185
(9,239)
306,237
(64,417)
128,223
(6,114)
46,065
4,387
224,672
65,152
53,849
13,904
474,530
101,780
(75,432)
225,595
6,267
219,670
41,470
139,202
21,181
132,775
10,890
93,625
(35,789)
148,235
39,903
360,476
76,527
335,591
91,863
191,167
69,879
502,082
123,270
256,523
80,641
620,348
122,647
219,145
(19,941)
131,354
32,045
2/21/02
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
120,249
16,191
155,147
40,646
679,607
302,545
172,988
42,282
293,452
112,808
485,061
173,049
1,452,649
312,880
257,339
109,235
8,011
3,325
123,519
26,163
370,666
119,400
164,895
50,159
399,858
187,584
526,954
68,372
75,913
(31,164)
151,967
(171,712)
147,722
(35,017)
236,100
(27,219)
55,100
7,322
79,116
(58,746)
662,327
(150,515)
371,541
67,328
57,486
(7,004)
(91,801)
124,119
(67,984)
56,355
7,061
90,579
21,151
49,381
(16,622)
102,353
37,805
40,346
(19,077)
159,572
(211,082)
114,574
(19,763)
55,416
13,737
184,902
25,381
55,176
15,231
416,929
44,180
10,512
(64,920)
253,960
34,631
200,869
22,669
140,116
22,095
125,577
3,692
111,817
(17,597)
134,168
25,836
286,437
2,488
280,173
36,445
193,835
72,547
502,333
123,521
270,875
94,993
643,451
145,749
222,007
(17,079)
148,574
49,265
Appendix F
486
487
492
495
497
499
500
505
507
508
511
513
514
516
518
531
533
534
535
542
544
545
547
548
549
550
553
561
564
577
578
581
584
592
593
595
599
600
601
611
621
622
623
624
625
627
628
630
635
640
656
Current Law
District
SWANVILLE
63,497
UPSALA
61,624
AUSTIN
276,221
92,882
GRAND MEADOW
59,793
LYLE
39,681
LEROY
71,882
SOUTHLAND
130,055
60,798
FULDA
129,849
29,970
NICOLLET
76,353
55,457
ST. PETER
178,343
50,342
ADRIAN
130,549
BREWSTER
45,262
ELLSWORTH
48,477
ROUND LAKE
38,594
WORTHINGTON
287,772
54,577
BYRON
123,030
DOVER-EYOTA
142,235
751
STEWARTVILLE
187,795
ROCHESTER
469,890
711,521
BATTLE LAKE
104,017
1,156
FERGUS FALLS
356,929
159,203
HENNING
82,604
719
PARKERS PRAIRIE
129,871
648
PELICAN RAPIDS
205,927
1,726
PERHAM
266,889
54,413
UNDERWOOD
95,646
NEW YORK MILLS
126,695
GOODRIDGE
85,985
THIEF RIVER FALL
327,245
39,136
WILLOW RIVER
126,104
PINE CITY
223,268
27,293
EDGERTON
83,761
124,231
RUTHTON
45,726
5,256
CLIMAX
55,676
CROOKSTON
260,496
24,170
EAST GRAND FORKS
212,585
40,996
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
170,596
FISHER
83,470
FOSSTON
163,221
CYRUS
35,961
MOUNDS VIEW
2,774
308,050
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
2,992
341,679
ROSEVILLE
1,601
167,167
WHITE BEAR LAKE
2,188
215,073
ST. PAUL
11,118
949,425
OKLEE
75,466
PLUMMER
55,265
RED LAKE FALLS
96,120
35,735
MILROY
39,945
1,356
WABASSO
108,615
45,385
FARIBAULT
346,455
259,906
Total
63,497
61,624
369,103
59,793
39,681
71,882
190,853
159,819
131,810
228,685
130,549
45,262
48,477
38,594
342,349
123,030
142,986
187,795
1,181,410
105,173
516,132
83,323
130,519
207,653
321,302
95,646
126,695
85,985
366,381
126,104
250,561
207,992
50,982
55,676
284,666
253,581
170,596
83,470
163,221
35,961
310,823
344,671
168,768
217,261
960,543
75,466
55,265
131,854
41,301
154,000
606,360
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
96,720
33,224
82,390
20,765
258,251
(110,852)
27,855
(31,938)
25,813
(13,868)
69,788
(2,095)
202,794
11,941
129,019
(30,800)
136,300
4,490
192,909
(35,775)
99,022
(31,527)
73,358
28,096
34,152
(14,325)
22,494
(16,100)
489,583
147,235
128,111
5,082
97,714
(45,272)
125,711
(62,084)
(1,181,410)
161,621
56,447
502,314
(13,818)
87,430
4,107
145,777
15,258
212,023
4,369
336,212
14,910
95,807
161
175,484
48,789
101,461
15,476
405,579
39,198
160,212
34,108
345,272
94,711
144,573
(63,419)
62,693
11,711
70,334
14,658
454,395
169,729
246,094
(7,487)
203,015
32,419
85,325
1,854
177,718
14,496
48,733
12,772
98,031
(212,792)
220,682
(123,989)
372,248
203,480
465,464
248,203
636,765
(323,778)
68,235
(7,231)
62,625
7,360
159,652
27,798
62,036
20,735
143,323
(10,677)
761,111
154,750
212
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
90,426
26,929
76,622
14,998
269,017
(100,086)
24,737
(35,056)
23,448
(16,233)
64,890
(6,992)
190,333
(520)
121,554
(38,265)
129,441
(2,369)
188,577
(40,108)
91,060
(39,489)
69,494
24,231
31,924
(16,553)
20,665
(17,929)
471,275
128,926
128,018
4,988
90,046
(52,940)
116,539
(71,256)
(1,181,410)
152,797
47,623
475,666
(40,466)
82,930
(393)
136,630
6,112
195,862
(11,791)
309,021
(12,281)
89,037
(6,609)
163,435
36,740
98,966
12,981
374,176
7,795
152,053
25,949
328,139
77,578
137,897
(70,095)
60,202
9,220
67,434
11,758
425,479
140,813
233,609
(19,972)
194,813
24,217
81,276
(2,194)
168,441
5,220
46,829
10,868
97,794
(213,029)
220,417
(124,255)
372,084
203,316
668,521
451,261
635,794
(324,749)
66,258
(9,208)
60,058
4,794
152,011
20,157
59,360
18,058
136,173
(17,827)
771,689
165,329
2/21/02
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
90,575
27,078
81,356
19,732
112,431
(256,672)
18,425
(41,368)
25,308
(14,373)
51,463
(20,419)
198,025
7,172
105,547
(54,271)
115,724
(16,086)
159,129
(69,556)
99,938
(30,610)
74,750
29,488
41,008
(7,468)
32,448
(6,146)
464,078
121,730
66,435
(56,594)
77,473
(65,513)
59,845
(127,951)
10,305
(1,171,105)
178,595
73,421
453,605
(62,527)
81,968
(1,355)
136,744
6,226
179,955
(27,698)
423,262
101,961
96,263
618
144,441
17,746
121,686
35,700
303,061
(63,320)
131,263
5,159
213,460
(37,101)
144,261
(63,731)
63,228
12,246
68,448
12,772
280,692
(3,974)
216,000
(37,582)
246,662
76,066
107,249
23,779
168,654
5,433
43,128
7,166
647,519
336,695
256,988
(87,683)
240,020
71,252
390,409
173,148
(960,543)
66,504
(8,962)
67,988
12,723
147,989
16,135
83,311
42,010
139,781
(14,219)
652,937
46,577
Appendix F
659
671
676
682
690
695
696
698
700
701
704
706
707
709
712
716
717
719
720
721
726
727
728
738
739
740
741
742
743
745
748
750
756
761
763
768
769
771
775
777
786
787
801
803
806
810
811
813
815
818
820
Current Law
District
NORTHFIELD
314,692
118,140
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
67,297
6,179
BADGER
73,430
ROSEAU
366,000
WARROAD
399,826
CHISHOLM
92,514
ELY
148,637
FLOODWOOD
155,072
HERMANTOWN
164,368
HIBBING
349,680
78,093
PROCTOR
193,325
43,502
VIRGINIA
203,831
23,168
NETT LAKE
34,162
DULUTH
688,001
374,429
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
84,409
BELLE PLAINE
139,940
41,934
JORDAN
118,951
47,066
PRIOR LAKE
88,060
194,133
SHAKOPEE
117,674
241,728
NEW PRAGUE
248,036
116,387
BECKER
189,090
2,509
BIG LAKE
134,561
14,742
ELK RIVER
395,055
259,812
HOLDINGFORD
129,210
KIMBALL
118,365
16,520
MELROSE
216,812
121,278
PAYNESVILLE
162,151
929
ST. CLOUD
530,079
762,580
SAUK CENTRE
167,689
95,322
ALBANY
181,092
52,177
SARTELL
113,747
58,507
ROCORI
217,420
142,142
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
120,249
12,481
OWATONNA
406,254
176,665
MEDFORD
71,821
HANCOCK
49,715
MORRIS
172,576
28,714
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
90,636
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC 150,608
4,941
BENSON
239,329
492
BERTHA-HEWITT
92,608
BROWERVILLE
87,079
32,996
BROWNS VALLEY
27,997
WHEATON AREA SCH
148,587
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
75,991
PLAINVIEW
160,758
17,964
WABASHA-KELLOGG
107,344
72,205
LAKE CITY
192,013
32,712
PRINSBURG
10,645
37,070
VERNDALE
93,754
SEBEKA
138,446
2,774
Total
432,832
73,475
73,430
366,000
399,826
92,514
148,637
155,072
164,368
427,773
236,827
227,000
34,162
1,062,430
84,409
181,875
166,017
282,193
359,402
364,423
191,600
149,303
654,867
129,210
134,885
338,090
163,080
1,292,659
263,010
233,269
172,254
359,561
132,730
582,918
71,821
49,715
201,290
90,636
155,549
239,821
92,608
120,075
27,997
148,587
75,991
178,722
179,549
224,725
47,715
93,754
141,220
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
245,362
(187,471)
90,294
16,818
70,455
(2,975)
465,988
99,988
561,853
162,026
80,417
(12,097)
80,683
(67,955)
158,978
3,907
276,626
112,257
562,046
134,273
223,512
(13,315)
185,692
(41,308)
22,210
(11,952)
949,154
(113,276)
156,325
71,916
122,137
(59,738)
119,092
(46,925)
355,901
73,708
121,668
(237,735)
510,561
146,139
178,804
(12,796)
195,638
46,334
1,010,044
355,177
219,228
90,018
181,645
46,760
250,343
(87,747)
207,620
44,540
1,467,227
174,568
273,677
10,667
331,320
98,051
177,599
5,345
276,252
(83,310)
87,598
(45,132)
212,312
(370,606)
61,074
(10,746)
40,611
(9,104)
290,832
89,542
95,336
4,700
190,488
34,939
234,436
(5,385)
136,530
43,922
106,366
(13,708)
16,246
(11,751)
86,513
(62,074)
61,939
(14,052)
188,959
10,237
248,223
68,675
207,750
(16,975)
40,342
(7,372)
125,428
31,674
195,512
54,292
213
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
245,226
(187,606)
85,227
11,752
67,742
(5,688)
443,248
77,248
539,806
139,980
76,039
(16,475)
74,127
(74,511)
152,771
(2,300)
281,386
117,017
535,689
107,916
214,425
(22,402)
174,177
(52,823)
21,601
(12,561)
1,009,856
(52,573)
145,826
61,417
114,553
(67,322)
118,399
(47,619)
449,356
167,162
175,466
(183,937)
515,049
150,626
178,094
(13,506)
216,980
67,677
1,136,188
481,321
210,193
80,982
171,228
36,343
231,848
(106,242)
193,507
30,427
1,589,583
296,924
257,279
(5,731)
322,724
89,456
209,503
37,249
276,344
(83,218)
78,930
(53,800)
208,742
(374,176)
54,780
(17,041)
38,029
(11,686)
272,056
70,766
92,050
1,414
179,932
24,383
219,463
(20,358)
127,927
35,319
98,311
(21,764)
15,109
(12,888)
81,939
(66,648)
55,010
(20,982)
175,327
(3,395)
236,952
57,403
191,552
(33,173)
38,741
(8,974)
116,825
23,071
185,570
44,350
2/21/02
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
204,614
(228,218)
79,561
6,086
59,151
(14,279)
420,381
54,381
373,138
(26,688)
28,906
(63,608)
23,915
(124,723)
152,078
(2,993)
229,879
65,510
345,323
(82,451)
280,110
43,284
154,926
(72,074)
29,053
(5,108)
972,093
(90,337)
169,302
84,893
134,747
(47,128)
83,876
(82,142)
237,986
(44,208)
155,654
(203,749)
521,903
157,480
146,533
(45,066)
159,237
9,933
974,846
319,979
199,470
70,259
166,094
31,209
299,840
(38,250)
128,021
(35,059)
1,463,636
170,977
254,373
(8,637)
350,005
116,736
180,764
8,510
366,631
7,070
104,448
(28,282)
275,188
(307,731)
47,330
(24,491)
25,021
(24,694)
225,526
24,236
97,332
6,696
185,854
30,304
228,406
(11,416)
136,603
43,994
119,731
(344)
21,354
(6,643)
65,972
(82,615)
61,815
(14,176)
194,547
15,825
246,427
66,878
192,386
(32,339)
34,387
(13,328)
135,999
42,245
259,501
118,281
Appendix F
821
829
831
832
833
834
836
837
840
846
850
852
857
858
861
876
877
879
881
882
883
885
891
911
912
914
2,071
2,125
2,134
2,135
2,137
2,142
2,143
2,144
2,149
2,154
2,155
2,159
2,164
2,165
2,167
2,168
2,169
2,170
2,171
2,172
2,174
2,176
2,180
2,184
2,190
Current Law
District
MENAHGA
139,059
WASECA
218,970
50,008
FOREST LAKE
447,367
225,245
MAHTOMEDI
48,393
98,109
SOUTH WASHINGTON
3,839
358,407
STILLWATER
350,564
249,342
BUTTERFIELD
48,632
4,759
MADELIA
96,057
ST. JAMES
184,681
26,198
BRECKENRIDGE
197,295
41,752
ROTHSAY
84,084
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
68,857
LEWISTON
124,163
42,036
ST. CHARLES
136,066
WINONA
398,663
486,554
ANNANDALE
189,728
9,016
BUFFALO
301,523
160,483
DELANO
133,213
61,607
MAPLE LAKE
85,706
25,420
MONTICELLO
198,055
4,211
ROCKFORD
91,715
13,834
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
102,706
85,778
CANBY
171,779
13,791
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
427,805
33,156
MILACA
252,210
59,369
ULEN-HITTERDAL
84,313
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
147,274
41,540
TRITON
169,367
12,832
UNITED SOUTH CEN
189,771
66,347
MAPLE RIVER
212,811
15,732
KINGSLAND
137,711
15,929
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
1,042,920
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
128,418
24,212
CHISAGO LAKES
281,200
21,381
MINNEWASKA
287,232
5,728
EVELETH-GILBERT
170,528
WADENA-DEER CREE
175,914
32,651
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
133,723
4,700
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
208,785
755
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
232,584
3,850
LAKEVIEW
115,448
3,002
N.R.H.E.G.
172,943
MURRAY COUNTY CE
174,225
29,490
STAPLES-MOTLEY
279,779
65,183
KITTSON CENTRAL
156,113
KENYON-WANAMINGO 155,769
531
PINE RIVER-BACKU
283,821
9,577
WARREN-ALVARADO198,581
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
182,488
46,531
LUVERNE
210,078
27,410
YELLOW MEDICINE
228,310
-
Total
139,059
268,978
672,612
146,502
362,246
599,906
53,392
96,057
210,879
239,047
84,084
68,857
166,198
136,066
885,217
198,744
462,007
194,819
111,126
202,266
105,549
188,484
185,570
460,961
311,579
84,313
188,814
182,199
256,118
228,543
153,640
1,042,920
152,630
302,581
292,960
170,528
208,565
138,423
209,541
236,434
118,449
172,943
203,714
344,962
156,113
156,299
293,397
198,581
229,019
237,488
228,310
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
185,054
45,994
226,939
(42,039)
1,151,796
479,184
332,146
185,644
(362,246)
712,325
112,419
36,712
(16,679)
93,017
(3,039)
275,899
65,020
289,137
50,090
90,242
6,157
76,529
7,672
133,877
(32,321)
36,757
(99,309)
673,002
(212,215)
334,495
135,751
354,326
(107,680)
205,352
10,533
176,454
65,328
371,385
169,119
195,581
90,031
245,104
56,620
120,266
(65,304)
517,356
56,394
356,163
44,584
104,595
20,282
178,501
(10,313)
261,526
79,328
199,672
(56,446)
260,300
31,756
255,655
102,016
1,321,704
278,784
164,781
12,151
540,669
238,087
372,801
79,841
88,696
(81,832)
167,160
(41,405)
192,804
54,381
143,952
(65,588)
337,289
100,855
103,741
(14,708)
180,819
7,876
204,167
453
484,652
139,690
108,044
(48,069)
196,968
40,669
264,880
(28,517)
130,735
(67,846)
306,912
77,893
152,531
(84,958)
310,955
82,644
214
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
173,141
34,082
219,054
(49,923)
1,234,505
561,893
401,195
254,693
(362,246)
827,037
227,131
34,633
(18,759)
85,713
(10,343)
257,152
46,273
273,283
34,236
86,582
2,498
74,847
5,990
122,374
(43,824)
26,099
(109,967)
670,341
(214,876)
330,952
132,208
378,382
(83,625)
214,831
20,012
176,718
65,592
406,252
203,986
212,123
106,574
295,439
106,956
113,540
(72,030)
520,515
59,553
332,323
20,743
100,581
16,268
164,734
(24,080)
243,471
61,273
186,829
(69,289)
240,563
12,020
240,272
86,632
1,291,509
248,588
152,252
(378)
552,706
250,125
348,445
55,485
77,394
(93,134)
151,131
(57,435)
182,324
43,901
128,462
(81,079)
318,842
82,408
96,732
(21,717)
166,366
(6,577)
192,584
(11,130)
455,357
110,395
104,748
(51,365)
181,726
25,426
250,337
(43,060)
125,340
(73,241)
289,939
60,919
136,373
(101,116)
292,907
64,597
2/21/02
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
205,030
65,970
64,346
(204,632)
1,749,040
1,076,428
349,613
203,111
(362,246)
1,110,615
510,709
49,170
(4,221)
89,303
(6,754)
246,232
35,353
244,376
5,329
97,087
13,002
82,167
13,309
139,532
(26,666)
31,308
(104,759)
614,413
(270,804)
334,680
135,936
605,033
143,027
165,095
(29,724)
141,797
30,671
371,118
168,852
177,904
72,355
303,986
115,502
113,068
(72,502)
528,311
67,349
398,406
86,827
115,252
30,939
243,926
55,111
235,016
52,817
252,549
(3,569)
321,067
92,524
232,502
78,862
1,122,637
79,717
184,681
32,051
593,526
290,945
375,621
82,661
85,421
(85,107)
160,709
(47,856)
207,204
68,782
153,136
(56,404)
332,458
96,023
117,512
(937)
216,425
43,482
240,639
36,925
570,836
225,874
127,749
(28,364)
148,772
(7,528)
254,223
(39,174)
140,212
(58,368)
383,311
154,292
188,691
(48,797)
387,025
158,715
Appendix F
Current Law
District
126,427
2,241
118,608
2,310 SIBLEY EAST
191,805
30,883
164,901
227,035
2,358 TRI-COUNTY
125,766
21,521
174,280
2,365 G.F.W.
186,969
39,079
2,396 A.C.G.C.
183,137
18,038
170,002
32,303
188,934
5,813
95,321
161,927
81,474
2,536 GRANADA HUNTLEY91,794
3,728
2,580 EAST CENTRAL
281,494
1,426
2,609 WIN-E-MAC
128,003
199,675
108,257
82,011
263,776
29,806
2,711 MESABI EAST
228,912
756
210,622
182,126
183,807
80,929
96,699
28,168
2,759 EAGLE VALLEY
73,199
149,665
12,026
105,087
55,337
327,695
2,854 ADA-BORUP
156,307
146,240
234,489
116,039
254,199
5,179
144,244
9,033
97,847
96,353
160,445
8,049
127,328
2,890 D.R.S.H.
197,245
37,494
255,407
35,286
210,154
25,877
2,898 WESTBROOK-WALNUT 129,891
4,838
147,594
subtotal excl charter/other
56,452,833 23,380,685
Total incl charter and reconciliation
56,600,427 23,380,685
Total
128,668
118,608
222,688
164,901
227,035
147,287
174,280
226,048
201,175
202,305
194,748
95,321
243,401
95,521
282,920
128,003
199,675
190,268
293,582
229,668
392,748
264,736
124,868
73,199
161,691
160,425
327,695
156,307
146,240
350,527
259,378
153,277
97,847
96,353
168,494
127,328
234,739
290,692
236,031
134,729
147,594
79,833,518
79,833,518
Option 4
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
Total vs Curr Law
136,898
8,230
127,158
(1,510)
169,428
50,819
162,850
44,242
247,263
24,575
226,992
4,304
205,980
41,078
196,697
31,796
258,129
31,094
245,777
18,741
186,045
38,759
181,226
33,939
248,807
74,527
236,273
61,993
317,936
91,888
300,480
74,432
311,586
110,411
294,541
93,366
186,506
(15,799)
172,618
(29,687)
229,763
35,016
215,042
20,294
125,674
30,353
119,959
24,638
300,384
56,984
281,056
37,655
105,404
9,883
100,954
5,433
440,513
157,593
422,215
139,295
190,144
62,141
181,817
53,813
238,483
38,808
232,787
33,112
232,806
42,538
225,366
35,097
225,783
(67,799)
208,619
(84,963)
494,876
265,208
469,496
239,828
308,975
(83,773)
297,688
(95,060)
247,524
(17,212)
227,595
(37,141)
88,758
(36,110)
84,016
(40,852)
88,405
15,206
82,724
9,525
192,618
30,927
181,901
20,210
89,307
(71,118)
82,756
(77,669)
389,195
61,500
372,725
45,030
191,953
35,645
183,935
27,627
117,246
(28,994)
113,328
(32,911)
418,262
67,734
403,023
52,496
298,200
38,822
277,301
17,923
203,168
49,891
194,642
41,365
84,721
(13,126)
78,598
(19,249)
116,563
20,210
109,014
12,661
214,559
46,065
206,965
38,471
187,796
60,468
176,935
49,606
261,463
26,724
246,848
12,109
272,537
(18,155)
254,952
(35,741)
410,267
174,236
387,754
151,722
114,315
(20,414)
108,461
(26,268)
228,954
81,360
229,296
81,702
87,571,869 7,738,351 87,702,834
7,869,316
87,800,823 7,967,305 87,932,130
8,098,612
215
2/21/02
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
117,160
(11,508)
179,648
61,040
244,600
21,912
202,413
37,512
241,990
14,955
185,755
38,468
229,457
55,177
344,885
118,837
338,491
137,316
134,621
(67,683)
250,058
55,311
125,316
29,995
357,928
114,527
112,923
17,402
434,764
151,844
188,525
60,521
282,680
83,005
260,888
70,619
311,700
18,118
421,251
191,583
180,861
(211,886)
304,989
40,253
97,939
(26,929)
87,837
14,638
157,866
(3,825)
70,631
(89,793)
368,902
41,207
220,546
64,239
126,522
(19,718)
398,768
48,241
293,651
34,272
231,577
78,300
102,940
5,093
121,193
24,840
218,681
50,187
190,010
62,682
364,001
129,261
252,051
(38,641)
279,178
43,147
121,410
(13,319)
231,252
83,658
88,451,278
8,617,760
88,682,530
8,849,012
Appendix F
District
1
1
2
4
6
11
12
13
14
15
16
22
23
25
31
32
36
38
47
51
62
75
77
81
84
85
88
91
93
94
95
97
99
100
108
110
111
112
113
115
116
118
129
138
139
146
150
152
Current Law
AMC
Pupil Units Trn Sparsity Nonpub Reg
981,673
58
24
AITKIN
MINNEAPOLIS
HILL CITY
MCGREGOR
SOUTH ST. PAUL
ANOKA-HENNEPIN
CENTENNIAL
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
FRIDLEY
ST. FRANCIS
SPRING LAKE PARK
DETROIT LAKES
FRAZEE
PINE POINT
BEMIDJI
BLACKDUCK
KELLIHER
RED LAKE
SAUK RAPIDS
FOLEY
ORTONVILLE
ST. CLAIR
MANKATO
COMFREY
SLEEPY EYE
SPRINGFIELD
NEW ULM
BARNUM
CARLTON
CLOQUET
CROMWELL
MOOSE LAKE
ESKO
WRENSHALL
NORWOOD
WACONIA
WATERTOWN-MAYER
CHASKA
WALKER-HACKENSAC
CASS LAKE
PILLAGER
REMER-LONGVILLE
MONTEVIDEO
NORTH BRANCH
RUSH CITY
BARNESVILLE
HAWLEY
MOORHEAD
1,521
54,655
398
601
4,000
46,770
8,159
3,645
2,967
6,594
4,856
3,331
1,382
84
5,763
895
318
1,721
4,154
1,943
633
766
7,771
192
722
725
2,888
766
787
2,936
355
901
1,215
474
1,218
2,721
1,526
9,096
1,180
1,495
857
671
1,885
4,571
1,166
892
1,048
6,455
244
0
289
347
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
107
148
80
121
229
465
244
61
124
187
120
40
238
176
150
109
162
115
65
270
134
66
182
103
67
86
19
192
178
136
358
110
68
107
207
122
61
53
9
17
7
7
14
16
14
14
36
20
51
28
33
15
221
25
96
1
1
16
4
51
92
46
45
32
37
4
23
Total
81
244
54
289
347
9
17
7
7
15
66
15
121
148
80
157
229
465
264
112
152
187
120
73
253
397
175
205
163
116
81
270
134
70
182
154
159
132
64
192
210
136
395
110
72
107
207
122
84
216
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
89
8
10
312
42
248
509
27
4
12
105
18
166
202
102
244
316
452
434
93
215
103
193
57
380
257
102
129
235
202
39
363
191
113
167
251
167
195
60
290
211
216
551
113
112
106
133
57
58
68
(11)
(41)
162
(9)
10
(4)
(7)
(3)
39
4
45
54
21
87
86
(14)
170
(19)
63
(84)
73
(16)
127
(141)
(73)
(76)
72
86
(42)
93
57
42
(15)
97
8
63
(4)
98
1
80
156
3
41
(1)
(74)
(64)
(26)
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
90
8
10
299
42
238
496
46
21
12
112
36
159
188
99
232
301
444
416
96
203
94
186
65
365
241
92
120
221
191
40
349
177
116
155
247
173
194
74
276
198
201
536
105
115
99
125
48
60
54
(11)
(51)
149
(9)
29
13
(7)
(3)
46
22
38
40
19
75
72
(21)
152
(16)
51
(92)
67
(9)
113
(156)
(83)
(84)
57
75
(41)
79
43
46
(26)
93
14
62
10
83
(12)
65
141
(5)
43
(8)
(83)
(73)
(24)
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
90
9
12
276
59
205
441
55
16
138
8
132
222
20
271
377
386
306
150
183
96
129
37
393
233
140
135
228
240
5
335
169
98
146
187
128
168
74
308
246
202
520
63
107
99
135
45
66
32
5
(84)
94
(9)
38
9
(7)
(15)
72
(7)
11
74
(61)
113
147
(80)
41
38
31
(90)
9
(37)
141
(164)
(35)
(70)
64
124
(76)
64
35
28
(36)
33
(31)
35
10
116
36
66
125
(47)
35
(8)
(73)
(76)
(18)
Appendix F
162
166
173
177
181
182
186
191
192
194
195
196
197
199
200
203
204
206
207
208
213
227
229
238
239
241
242
252
253
255
256
261
264
270
271
272
273
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
286
294
297
299
300
Current Law
AMC
District
BAGLEY
1,262
225
COOK COUNTY
799
432
MOUNTAIN LAKE
554
153
45
WINDOM
1,218
130
7
BRAINERD
8,347
86
11
CROSBY-IRONTON
1,743
131
2
PEQUOT LAKES
1,518
110
2
BURNSVILLE
13,346
0
20
FARMINGTON
6,080
29
8
LAKEVILLE
11,595
12
8
RANDOLPH
479
119
10
ROSEMOUNT-APPLE
32,934
0
9
WEST ST. PAUL-ME
5,785
0
71
INVER GROVE
4,529
0
24
HASTINGS
6,043
58
23
HAYFIELD
1,126
132
KASSON-MANTORVIL
2,063
76
ALEXANDRIA
4,718
95
31
BRANDON
376
166
EVANSVILLE
256
215
OSAKIS
746
149
35
CHATFIELD
1,051
126
2
LANESBORO
401
197
MABEL-CANTON
452
163
RUSHFORD-PETERSO
790
144
ALBERT LEA
4,361
78
16
ALDEN
476
169
CANNON FALLS
1,717
96
6
GOODHUE
632
134
22
PINE ISLAND
1,412
99
RED WING
3,711
76
24
ASHBY
355
185
HERMAN-NORCROSS
198
342
HOPKINS
9,743
0
28
BLOOMINGTON
12,626
0
29
EDEN PRAIRIE
12,548
0
23
EDINA
8,333
0
29
MINNETONKA
8,926
0
29
WESTONKA
2,727
19
45
ORONO
2,920
43
48
OSSEO
25,898
0
21
RICHFIELD
4,823
0
16
ROBBINSDALE
16,379
0
26
ST. ANTHONY-NEW
1,740
0
17
ST. LOUIS PARK
5,089
0
33
WAYZATA
11,155
0
34
BROOKLYN CENTER
2,192
0
3
HOUSTON
572
164
SPRING GROVE
461
141
CALEDONIA
1,140
137
112
LACRESCENT-HOKAH
2,009
81
38
Total
225
432
198
137
98
133
113
20
37
20
129
9
71
24
82
132
76
126
166
215
184
128
197
163
144
94
169
102
156
99
100
185
342
29
30
23
29
29
64
91
21
16
26
18
33
34
3
164
141
249
120
217
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
316
91
501
69
120
(78)
215
78
129
31
208
74
191
78
(20)
35
(2)
(20)
188
59
18
9
90
19
10
(15)
109
27
138
6
117
41
149
23
183
17
219
4
168
(16)
111
(17)
192
(5)
166
4
225
81
82
(12)
81
(88)
176
74
163
7
65
(34)
121
21
188
2
203
(138)
38
9
51
22
40
17
12
(17)
65
36
104
40
106
15
(21)
(16)
30
3
11
(7)
44
12
59
25
(3)
130
(35)
63
(78)
214
(35)
139
19
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
301
77
492
61
111
(88)
201
64
126
28
193
59
183
71
(20)
44
7
6
(14)
176
47
18
9
115
43
25
1
114
33
126
(6)
118
41
145
19
171
4
208
(7)
155
(29)
99
(28)
179
(17)
155
(8)
210
66
80
(14)
72
(97)
173
70
150
(6)
61
(38)
122
21
175
(10)
198
(144)
38
9
51
22
40
17
12
(17)
65
36
121
57
117
26
(21)
(16)
30
3
11
(7)
44
12
59
25
(3)
120
(44)
54
(87)
199
(50)
140
20
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
299
75
417
(15)
87
(111)
205
68
95
(2)
204
71
184
71
(20)
30
(7)
(20)
207
78
17
8
80
8
(24)
120
39
144
12
50
(26)
133
7
222
56
194
(22)
163
(21)
89
(39)
243
47
152
(10)
277
133
79
(15)
35
(134)
150
48
178
22
51
(48)
82
(18)
232
46
213
(129)
28
(0)
50
20
42
19
75
46
80
51
124
60
111
20
(21)
(16)
66
40
(18)
45
12
52
19
(3)
177
13
85
(56)
265
16
97
(23)
Appendix F
306
308
309
314
316
317
318
319
323
330
332
333
345
347
356
361
362
363
371
378
381
390
391
392
394
402
403
404
409
411
413
414
415
417
418
423
424
432
435
441
447
458
463
465
466
473
477
480
482
484
485
Current Law
AMC
District
LAPORTE
403
258
NEVIS
623
184
PARK RAPIDS
2,143
175
1
BRAHAM
1,121
113
4
GREENWAY
1,644
110
0
DEER RIVER
1,240
216
35
GRAND RAPIDS
4,874
210
24
NASHWAUK-KEEWATI
766
193
FRANCONIA
41
95
19
HERON LAKE-OKABE
361
234
36
MORA
2,192
114
0
OGILVIE
861
133
NEW LONDON-SPICE
1,960
104
4
WILLMAR
4,987
74
18
LANCASTER
287
374
INTERNATIONAL FA
1,731
164
23
LITTLEFORK-BIG F
376
486
SOUTH KOOCHICHIN
405
651
BELLINGHAM
188
254
DAWSON-BOYD
707
195
LAKE SUPERIOR
2,291
341
14
LAKE OF THE WOOD
828
368
CLEVELAND
498
119
10
LECENTER
837
110
MONTGOMERY-LONSD
1,305
103
44
HENDRICKS
225
218
2
IVANHOE
275
253
LAKE BENTON
269
245
TYLER
364
177
BALATON
182
253
73
MARSHALL
2,714
88
49
MINNEOTA
575
180
54
LYND
146
197
88
TRACY
831
174
18
RUSSELL
170
219
16
HUTCHINSON
3,633
77
26
LESTER PRAIRIE
593
97
30
MAHNOMEN
868
211
42
WAUBUN
717
249
MARSHALL COUNTY
395
299
GRYGLA
227
536
TRUMAN
493
180
83
EDEN VALLEY-WATK
941
110
5
LITCHFIELD
2,378
106
13
DASSEL-COKATO
2,574
93
2
ISLE
596
204
PRINCETON
3,651
89
14
ONAMIA
835
211
LITTLE FALLS
3,708
106
28
PIERZ
1,134
148
63
ROYALTON
843
118
-
Total
258
184
176
117
110
252
234
193
114
270
115
133
108
92
374
187
486
651
254
195
355
368
129
110
147
220
253
245
177
327
137
233
285
192
236
103
127
253
249
299
536
263
115
119
95
204
104
211
134
211
118
218
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
313
55
206
23
304
128
142
25
167
57
359
108
318
84
248
55
161
47
345
75
164
50
225
92
184
76
103
11
248
(126)
189
2
479
(7)
692
41
253
(1)
130
(65)
329
(26)
509
142
109
(20)
(110)
104
(43)
259
39
324
71
243
(2)
298
121
288
(39)
115
(21)
237
3
330
45
287
95
332
97
130
27
(127)
274
21
320
71
365
66
589
53
202
(60)
166
51
159
40
134
39
338
134
140
36
322
111
175
41
208
(3)
167
49
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
298
40
192
8
287
111
131
15
158
48
343
91
302
68
235
41
152
39
328
59
155
40
210
77
179
71
104
12
242
(132)
177
(10)
472
(14)
685
35
243
(11)
121
(74)
320
(35)
497
129
98
(32)
(110)
95
(52)
246
26
310
58
232
(13)
282
104
276
(51)
113
(24)
223
(11)
315
30
270
78
318
82
131
28
(127)
260
7
306
58
353
54
584
48
190
(73)
158
42
152
32
130
36
321
117
138
34
307
97
167
33
193
(18)
156
38
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
298
40
249
65
317
141
154
38
179
69
391
140
298
64
336
143
194
81
342
73
169
54
192
58
204
96
106
14
265
(109)
88
(99)
393
(93)
583
(67)
293
39
112
(83)
289
(66)
449
81
115
(14)
(110)
95
(52)
251
31
330
77
184
(62)
281
104
222
(105)
59
(78)
199
(34)
379
94
222
31
325
90
115
12
18
(110)
293
40
280
32
355
56
553
16
227
(36)
143
27
120
1
109
14
325
122
138
34
324
114
174
39
196
(15)
176
58
Appendix F
486
487
492
495
497
499
500
505
507
508
511
513
514
516
518
531
533
534
535
542
544
545
547
548
549
550
553
561
564
577
578
581
584
592
593
595
599
600
601
611
621
622
623
624
625
627
628
630
635
640
656
Current Law
AMC
District
SWANVILLE
402
158
UPSALA
490
126
AUSTIN
4,617
60
20
GRAND MEADOW
401
149
LYLE
267
149
LEROY
447
161
SOUTHLAND
788
165
77
FULDA
635
204
47
NICOLLET
382
200
145
ST. PETER
2,192
81
23
ADRIAN
757
172
BREWSTER
229
198
ELLSWORTH
239
202
ROUND LAKE
218
177
WORTHINGTON
2,785
103
20
BYRON
1,643
75
DOVER-EYOTA
1,237
115
1
STEWARTVILLE
2,114
89
ROCHESTER
18,174
26
39
BATTLE LAKE
590
176
2
FERGUS FALLS
3,327
107
48
HENNING
408
202
2
PARKERS PRAIRIE
713
182
1
PELICAN RAPIDS
1,435
143
1
PERHAM
1,981
135
27
UNDERWOOD
529
181
NEW YORK MILLS
836
152
GOODRIDGE
212
406
THIEF RIVER FALL
2,410
136
16
WILLOW RIVER
581
217
PINE CITY
2,015
111
14
EDGERTON
329
255
378
RUTHTON
178
257
30
CLIMAX
214
261
CROOKSTON
1,777
147
14
EAST GRAND FORKS
2,112
101
19
FERTILE-BELTRAMI
631
270
FISHER
324
257
FOSSTON
771
212
CYRUS
130
278
MOUNDS VIEW
13,034
0
24
NORTH ST PAUL-MA
14,061
0
24
ROSEVILLE
7,525
0
22
WHITE BEAR LAKE
10,282
0
21
ST. PAUL
52,246
0
18
OKLEE
222
340
PLUMMER
195
284
RED LAKE FALLS
461
209
78
MILROY
171
234
8
WABASSO
526
207
86
FARIBAULT
4,726
73
55
Total
158
126
80
149
149
161
242
252
345
104
172
198
202
177
123
75
116
89
65
178
155
204
183
145
162
181
152
406
152
217
124
633
287
261
160
120
270
257
212
278
24
25
22
21
18
340
284
286
242
293
128
219
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
240
83
168
42
56
(24)
69
(80)
97
(52)
156
(5)
257
15
203
(48)
356
12
88
(16)
131
(42)
321
123
143
(60)
103
(74)
176
53
78
3
79
(37)
59
(29)
(65)
274
96
151
(4)
214
10
204
21
148
3
170
8
181
0
210
58
479
73
168
16
276
59
171
47
440
(193)
353
66
329
69
256
96
117
(4)
322
51
263
6
230
19
376
99
8
(16)
16
(9)
49
27
45
24
12
(6)
308
(33)
321
38
346
60
363
121
273
(20)
161
33
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
225
67
156
31
58
(22)
62
(87)
88
(61)
145
(16)
242
(1)
191
(60)
339
(6)
86
(18)
120
(52)
304
106
133
(69)
95
(82)
169
46
78
3
73
(43)
55
(34)
(65)
259
81
143
(12)
203
(1)
192
9
136
(8)
156
(6)
168
(12)
196
44
467
61
155
3
262
45
163
39
419
(213)
339
52
316
55
239
79
111
(9)
309
38
251
(7)
218
7
361
84
8
(16)
16
(9)
49
27
65
44
12
(6)
299
(42)
308
25
330
44
347
106
259
(34)
163
35
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
225
67
166
40
24
(56)
46
(103)
95
(54)
115
(46)
251
9
166
(85)
303
(42)
73
(32)
132
(40)
327
129
171
(31)
149
(28)
167
44
40
(34)
63
(53)
28
(61)
1
(64)
303
125
136
(19)
201
(3)
192
9
125
(19)
214
51
182
1
173
21
575
169
126
(26)
226
9
106
(18)
439
(194)
356
69
320
60
158
(2)
102
(18)
391
121
331
73
219
7
333
55
50
26
18
(6)
32
9
38
17
(18)
300
(40)
349
65
321
35
487
246
266
(27)
138
10
Appendix F
659
671
676
682
690
695
696
698
700
701
704
706
707
709
712
716
717
719
720
721
726
727
728
738
739
740
741
742
743
745
748
750
756
761
763
768
769
771
775
777
786
787
801
803
806
810
811
813
815
818
820
Current Law
AMC
District
NORTHFIELD
4,500
70
26
HILLS-BEAVER CRE
361
186
17
BADGER
275
267
ROSEAU
1,690
217
WARROAD
1,531
261
CHISHOLM
1,025
90
ELY
817
182
FLOODWOOD
502
309
HERMANTOWN
2,219
74
HIBBING
3,122
112
25
PROCTOR
2,171
89
20
VIRGINIA
1,982
103
12
NETT LAKE
103
332
DULUTH
13,421
51
28
MOUNTAIN IRON-BU
657
128
BELLE PLAINE
1,464
96
29
JORDAN
1,656
72
28
PRIOR LAKE
6,049
15
32
SHAKOPEE
5,138
23
47
NEW PRAGUE
3,124
79
37
BECKER
2,626
72
1
BIG LAKE
3,145
43
5
ELK RIVER
11,066
36
23
HOLDINGFORD
1,173
110
KIMBALL
995
119
17
MELROSE
1,909
114
64
PAYNESVILLE
1,366
119
1
ST. CLOUD
11,803
45
65
SAUK CENTRE
1,382
121
69
ALBANY
1,833
99
28
SARTELL
3,353
34
17
ROCORI
2,741
79
52
BLOOMING PRAIRIE
891
135
14
OWATONNA
5,875
69
30
MEDFORD
631
114
HANCOCK
265
188
MORRIS
1,139
151
25
CHOKIO-ALBERTA
291
311
KERKHOVEN-MURDOC
754
200
7
BENSON
1,335
179
0
BERTHA-HEWITT
561
165
BROWERVILLE
599
145
55
BROWNS VALLEY
147
191
WHEATON AREA SCH
593
250
ELGIN-MILLVILLE
648
117
PLAINVIEW
1,353
119
13
WABASHA-KELLOGG
832
129
87
LAKE CITY
1,709
112
19
PRINSBURG
38
283
985
VERNDALE
528
178
SEBEKA
680
204
4
Total
96
203
267
217
261
90
182
309
74
137
109
115
332
79
128
124
100
47
70
117
73
47
59
110
135
177
119
110
190
127
51
131
149
99
114
188
177
311
206
180
165
201
191
250
117
132
216
131
1,268
178
208
220
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
55
(42)
250
47
256
(11)
276
59
367
106
78
(12)
99
(83)
317
8
125
51
180
43
103
(6)
94
(21)
216
(116)
71
(8)
238
109
83
(41)
72
(28)
59
12
24
(46)
163
47
68
(5)
62
15
91
32
187
77
182
47
131
(46)
152
33
124
15
198
8
181
54
53
2
101
(30)
98
(51)
36
(63)
97
(17)
153
(34)
255
79
327
16
253
46
176
(4)
243
78
178
(23)
111
(80)
146
(105)
96
(22)
140
8
298
83
122
(10)
1,072
(196)
238
60
288
80
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
54
(42)
236
33
246
(21)
262
46
353
91
74
(16)
91
(91)
304
(5)
127
53
172
35
99
(10)
88
(27)
210
(122)
75
(4)
222
93
78
(46)
72
(29)
74
28
34
(36)
165
48
68
(5)
69
22
103
43
179
69
172
37
121
(56)
142
22
135
25
186
(4)
176
49
62
11
101
(30)
89
(60)
36
(64)
87
(27)
144
(44)
239
62
316
5
239
32
164
(15)
228
63
164
(36)
103
(88)
138
(112)
85
(32)
130
(3)
285
69
112
(19)
1,030
(238)
221
44
273
65
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
45
(51)
220
17
215
(52)
249
32
244
(17)
28
(62)
29
(153)
303
(6)
104
30
111
(26)
129
20
78
(36)
283
(50)
72
(7)
258
129
92
(32)
51
(50)
39
(7)
30
(40)
167
50
56
(17)
51
3
88
29
170
60
167
31
157
(20)
94
(26)
124
14
184
(6)
191
64
54
3
134
3
117
(32)
47
(52)
75
(39)
95
(93)
198
21
334
23
247
40
171
(9)
243
78
200
(1)
145
(45)
111
(139)
95
(22)
144
12
296
80
113
(19)
914
(354)
258
80
382
174
Appendix F
821
829
831
832
833
834
836
837
840
846
850
852
857
858
861
876
877
879
881
882
883
885
891
911
912
914
2,071
2,125
2,134
2,135
2,137
2,142
2,143
2,144
2,149
2,154
2,155
2,159
2,164
2,165
2,167
2,168
2,169
2,170
2,171
2,172
2,174
2,176
2,180
2,184
2,190
Current Law
AMC
District
MENAHGA
847
164
WASECA
2,505
87
20
FOREST LAKE
9,126
49
25
MAHTOMEDI
3,622
13
27
SOUTH WASHINGTON
18,041
0
20
STILLWATER
10,921
32
23
BUTTERFIELD
230
212
21
MADELIA
651
147
ST. JAMES
1,482
125
18
BRECKENRIDGE
1,055
187
40
ROTHSAY
295
285
CAMPBELL-TINTAH
179
384
LEWISTON
916
135
46
ST. CHARLES
1,225
111
WINONA
4,995
80
97
ANNANDALE
2,193
86
4
BUFFALO
5,698
53
28
DELANO
2,186
61
28
MAPLE LAKE
1,037
83
25
MONTICELLO
4,314
46
1
ROCKFORD
2,015
46
7
ST. MICHAEL-ALBE
3,799
27
23
CANBY
791
217
17
CAMBRIDGE-ISANTI
5,779
74
6
MILACA
2,120
119
28
ULEN-HITTERDAL
326
258
LAKE CRYSTAL-WEL
1,101
134
38
TRITON
1,369
124
9
UNITED SOUTH CEN
1,148
165
58
MAPLE RIVER
1,503
142
10
KINGSLAND
1,064
129
15
ST. LOUIS COUNTY
2,914
358
WATERVILLE-ELYSI
1,151
112
21
CHISAGO LAKES
4,138
68
5
MINNEWASKA
1,814
158
3
EVELETH-GILBERT
1,698
100
WADENA-DEER CREE
1,521
116
21
BUFFALO LAKE-HEC
694
193
7
DILWORTH-GLYNDON
1,558
134
0
HINCKLEY-FINLAYS
1,260
185
3
LAKEVIEW
637
181
5
N.R.H.E.G.
1,182
146
MURRAY COUNTY CE
928
188
32
STAPLES-MOTLEY
1,838
152
35
KITTSON CENTRAL
503
311
KENYON-WANAMINGO
1,147
136
0
PINE RIVER-BACKU
1,379
206
7
WARREN-ALVARADO762
261
M.A.C.C.R.A.Y.
1,032
177
45
LUVERNE
1,561
135
18
YELLOW MEDICINE
1,349
169
-
Total
164
107
74
40
20
55
232
147
142
227
285
384
181
111
177
91
81
89
107
47
52
50
235
80
147
258
172
133
223
152
144
358
133
73
161
100
137
199
135
188
186
146
220
188
311
136
213
261
222
152
169
221
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
219
54
91
(17)
126
53
92
51
(20)
65
10
160
(73)
143
(5)
186
44
274
47
306
21
427
43
146
(35)
30
(81)
135
(42)
153
62
62
(19)
94
5
170
63
86
39
97
45
65
15
152
(83)
90
10
168
21
320
62
162
(9)
191
58
174
(49)
173
21
240
96
454
96
143
11
131
58
205
44
52
(48)
110
(27)
278
78
92
(42)
268
80
163
(23)
153
7
220
0
264
76
215
(96)
172
35
192
(21)
172
(89)
297
75
98
(54)
231
61
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
204
40
87
(20)
135
62
111
70
(20)
76
21
151
(82)
132
(16)
173
31
259
32
294
8
417
33
134
(48)
21
(90)
134
(43)
151
60
66
(15)
98
9
170
63
94
47
105
53
78
28
144
(91)
90
10
157
10
308
50
150
(22)
178
45
163
(60)
160
8
226
81
443
85
132
(0)
134
60
192
31
46
(55)
99
(38)
263
63
82
(52)
253
65
152
(34)
141
(6)
208
(12)
248
60
208
(102)
158
22
182
(31)
164
(96)
281
59
87
(65)
217
48
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
242
78
26
(82)
192
118
97
56
(20)
102
47
214
(18)
137
(10)
166
24
232
5
329
44
458
74
152
(29)
26
(86)
123
(54)
153
62
106
25
76
(14)
137
30
86
39
88
36
80
30
143
(92)
91
12
188
41
353
95
222
50
172
39
220
(3)
214
62
218
74
385
27
161
28
143
70
207
46
50
(50)
106
(31)
299
99
98
(36)
264
76
185
(1)
183
37
259
40
311
123
254
(56)
130
(7)
184
(28)
184
(77)
371
149
121
(31)
287
118
Appendix F
Current Law
AMC
District
844
150
3
451
263
2,310 SIBLEY EAST
1,476
130
21
685
241
1,023
222
2,358 TRI-COUNTY
349
360
62
882
198
2,365 G.F.W.
1,099
170
36
2,396 A.C.G.C.
1,090
168
17
1,585
107
20
1,080
175
5
418
228
1,108
146
74
2,536 GRANADA HUNTLEY361
255
10
2,580 EAST CENTRAL
1,138
247
1
2,609 WIN-E-MAC
575
223
537
372
1,150
94
71
1,652
160
18
2,711 MESABI EAST
1,191
192
1
2,139
98
85
1,432
128
56
466
208
61
2,759 EAGLE VALLEY
473
155
1,408
106
9
695
151
80
1,371
239
2,854 ADA-BORUP
617
253
489
299
2,207
106
53
1,651
154
3
626
231
14
570
172
601
160
595
270
14
734
174
2,890 D.R.S.H.
987
200
38
1,521
168
23
1,689
124
15
2,898 WESTBROOK-WALNUT
587
221
8
21,461
7
subtotal excl charter/other 960,212
59
24
Total incl charter and reconciliation 981,673
58
24
Total
152
263
151
241
222
422
198
206
185
128
180
228
220
265
249
223
372
165
178
193
184
185
268
155
115
231
239
253
299
159
157
245
172
160
283
174
238
191
140
229
7
83
81
222
Option 4
Total vs Curr Law
162
10
376
113
167
17
301
60
252
30
533
111
282
84
289
84
286
101
118
(10)
213
32
301
73
271
51
292
27
387
138
331
108
444
72
202
37
137
(41)
416
223
144
(39)
173
(12)
191
(78)
187
32
137
22
128
(102)
284
45
311
58
240
(59)
190
31
181
24
325
80
149
(23)
194
34
361
77
256
82
265
27
179
(12)
243
103
195
(35)
11
4
91
8
89
8
Option 5
Total vs Curr Law
151
(2)
361
98
154
3
287
46
240
18
519
97
268
70
273
68
270
86
109
(19)
199
19
287
59
254
34
280
15
371
122
316
94
434
62
196
31
126
(51)
394
201
139
(44)
159
(26)
180
(88)
175
20
129
14
119
(112)
272
33
298
45
232
(67)
183
24
168
11
311
66
138
(34)
181
21
348
65
241
68
250
12
168
(23)
230
90
185
(45)
11
4
91
8
90
8
Option 6
Total vs Curr Law
139
(14)
399
135
166
15
295
55
237
15
532
110
260
63
314
108
311
126
85
(43)
232
51
300
72
323
103
313
48
382
133
328
105
527
155
227
61
189
11
354
161
85
(99)
213
28
210
(58)
186
31
112
(3)
102
(129)
269
30
357
104
259
(40)
181
22
178
21
370
125
181
9
202
41
368
84
259
85
369
131
166
(25)
165
26
207
(23)
11
4
92
9
90
9
Appendix F
1998-1999 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
State
Total State
Funding
($ millions)
% of
State
Aid
Alabama
167.0
6.3%
Alaska
38.1
NA
Arizona
NA
NA
Arkansas
8.2
< 1%
California
524.9
2.2%
Colorado
36.1
1.9%
Connecticut
41.3
1.8%
Delaware
49.8
7.8%
Florida
384.8
4.8%
Georgia
147.2
3.0%
Hawaii
20.2
2.3%
Idaho
44.6
5.2%
Illinois
307.3
6.3%
Transportation Program
1995 foundation program removed transportation as a cost
factor and established it as a fully state funded categorical aid
program. An allowance is provided per eligible student,
residing 2 or more miles from school. A depreciation
allowance is provided.
State provides 90% of funding including air travel and
transportation to athletic and cultural events.
Based on approved daily route miles and number of eligible
students from the prior year. Additional funding for
vocational, technical, and athletic transportation. Include in
basic program.
District transportation expenses are calculated and divided by
ADM. Costs of $117 or above receive state aid. Depreciation
allowance provided.
Funding for home to school and special education through
mega-item funding of 32 categorical programs.
Approved costs funded at $0.3787/mile + 33.87% of amount
by which costs exceed mileage reimbursement; state share
may not exceed 90% of district’s transportation expenditure.
Funding ranges from 0-60% of eligible costs based on town
wealth per capita with wealthiest receiving 0%. Minimum
grant of $1,000.
State provides 100% of public school transportation costs
including school choice program costs. Formula based on
miles driven, bus age, fuel and insurance costs, and annual
inflation using CPI. Reimbursement to nonpublic schools is
based on annual approval, distance, and educational level
eligible students.
Formula based on allowable cost/pupil * eligible pupils;
factors determining allowable cost include actual expenses,
bus replacement costs, pupil density, and bus route mileage;
eligible students include those living 2 or more miles from
school, special education students, students traveling between
schools during the day, students in pre-K programs, and K-6
subjected to hazardous walking conditions; aid to districts
prorated based on amount appropriated.
State reimbursement for transport of special education pupils
and pupils residing more than 1.5 miles from school based on
state determined minimum cost.
Transportation provided to all through state or private
vendors.
Districts reimbursed for 85% of allowable previous year costs
(transportation to curriculum related activities). Depreciation
allowance provided.
State reimburses for transportation of students 1.5 miles or
more or in hazard areas. Reimbursement is adjusted by EAV
& computational tax rate, 0.6% for elementary, 0.5% for
secondary, and 0.7% for unit districts.
223
Transportation
Support for
Nonpublic
Schools
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Appendix G
State
Total State
Funding
($ millions)
% of
State
Aid
Indiana
36.4
< 1%
Iowa
NA
NA
Kansas
70.6
3.3%
Kentucky
174.3
6.0%
Louisiana
Maine
NA
35.2
NA
4.5%
Maryland
112.2
4.3%
Massachusetts
91.8
2.9%
Michigan
1.6
< 1%
Minnesota
323.7
8.4%
Mississippi
NR
NR
Missouri
120.6
3.9%
Montana
10.4
2.3%
Nebraska
32.0
2.0%
Nevada
NR
NR
New Hampshire
NR
NR
New Jersey
261.1
4.4%
State pays $280 – [$20 * (eligible pupils / total roundtrip
mileage)]. Pupils residing more than 1 mile or kindergarten
pupils residing more than _ mile are eligible. Total state
amount = (per pupil amount * total eligible pupils) – local
contribution of $0.42 / $100 AV. State pays 80% of eligible
special education and vocational education costs.
Included in basic cost calculation. State provided $7.9 million
for nonpublic students.
Included in general state aid as weighted factor.
State pays approved costs for students 1 mile or more from
school with density adjustments. Additional funding for
vocational students.
Included in basic support program.
State pays year costs + CPI increase.
Allocation = previous year’s allowance + lesser of 8% or CPI
increase, with guaranteed 3% minimum + additional
allocation for enrollment increase.
Eligible pupils must live more than 1.5 miles from school.
Regional districts receive 80% reimbursement; local districts
receive 28% of entitlements.
Included in district foundation allowance; reimbursement
available for bus driver training (limited to 75% of costs) and
nonpublic school student transportation (pays all reasonable
costs).
Most funding is provided through the general education
program.
Add on to basic program.
State formula reimburses 75% of approved costs but formula
is not fully funded requiring a statewide reduction factor.
Formula predicts costs, factors in pupil density, total mileage,
and costs incurred. Districts not exceeding 105% of predicted
costs receive 67% of approved costs. Those exceeding 105%
may be reduced as low as 56%.
Formula reimburses at a minimum of $0.85/bus mile with
additional funding for buses with 45+ capacity and reductions
for student assignment at less than 50% of bus rated capacity.
Transportation allowance based on lesser of actual costs or
calculated amount based on miles transported (excluding
activities) + in lieu of transportation (mileage paid to parents).
Funded through basic support program; 85% of allowable
expenditures per pupil are included in basic support
guarantee; allowable expenditures = 2 years average of
equipment costs and 1 year of operations cost + an inflation
amount in both years of the biennium. $44 million combined
state and local.
State aid only for vocational transportation.
Per pupil allocations adjusted for average distance pupils
reside from school and an incentive factor.
224
Transportation
Support for
Nonpublic
Schools
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Appendix G
State
Total State
Funding
($ millions)
% of
State
Aid
New Mexico
85.6
5.7%
New York
755.7
6.5%
North Carolina
191.0
3.7%
North Dakota
18.0
7.0%
Ohio
231.6
5.2%
Oklahoma
22.8
1.3%
Oregon
NR
NR
Pennsylvania
422.4
5.2%
Rhode Island
NA
NA
South Carolina
71.7
3.6%
South Dakota
Tennessee
NR
NR
NR
NA
Texas
NR
NA
Utah
49.3
3.5%
Vermont
10.8
1.7%
Virginia
NR
NR
Formula calculates average expenditure per student for each
district. Districts exceeding average are adjusted downward,
those under average adjusted upward. Supplement provided
based on unpaved and unimproved roads traveled; hold
harmless provision.
State provides equalized aid for transportation to public and
nonpublic school students more than 1.5 miles from school;
formula provides a sparsity adjustment and is weighted by
grade levels.
Formula is based on the number of pupils transported, total
eligible operating expenditures, and the number of buses
operated. Failure to maintain a 100% efficiency rating results
in decreased future funding.
Maximum 90% reimbursement for actual expenses under
formula. Formula considers miles transported, number of
pupils/days, type of vehicle, distance from residence to
school, and the type of setting (city/rural).
Categorical aid provides approximately 50% of transportation
costs through a formula calculating the historical, statewide
transportation expenditure and adjusts for unique
geographical pupil concentration.
Provides a supplement to the foundation formula based on:
ADH (average daily haul) of eligible pupils residing at least
1.5 miles from school * a per-capita transportation allowance
* 1.39 (transportation factor).
Provides 70% of approved transportation costs (over 1 mile
elementary pupils, 1.5 miles HS students).
Subsidy for public and nonpublic students based on approved
allowance for vehicle capacity, mileage, utilized passenger
capacity, excess driver hours in congested areas, and the type
of service provided.
Funded through basic support program.
DOE is responsible for overall supervision of the
transportation program including vehicle acquisition,
maintenance, safety inspections, driver training, and all
operational costs (with limited exceptions covered by local
districts).
Included in basic support formula.
Included in basic support formula as per ADM cost.
Maximum rate/mile set by appropriation. Formula considers
daily cost per eligible student, maintenance costs, linear
density, and geographical cost variations.
Formula based on route mileage, transport time, and
equipment costs for transporting eligible pupils (more than 1.5
miles K-6, 2 miles 7-12).
Schools providing transportation are eligible for up to 50%
reimbursement.
Basic support formula considers land size of district, number
of pupils transported, and estimated costs per pupil.
225
Transportation
Support for
Nonpublic
Schools
Y
Y
N
N
Y
NR
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Appendix G
State
Total State
Funding
($ millions)
% of
State
Aid
Washington
182.8
3.7%
West Virginia
34.3
2.5%
Wisconsin
17.7
< 1%
Wyoming
30.6
9.5%
TOTAL
4,867.0
Formula based on number of pupils transported, distance,
allowance for unique costs, special education adjustment,
small fleet adjustment, and adjustment for special types of
vehicles.
Included in basic support.
State pays flat amount per transported pupil according to the
distance each pupil is transported.
Provides 100% of actual transportation and maintenance
expenditures for the preceding year and reimburses 100% of
actual lease payments and purchases for vehicles.
Transportation
Support for
Nonpublic
Schools
N
N
Y
N
14-Y
NR = Not Reported; NA = Not Applicable, included in general formula.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Public School Finance Programs of the
United States and Canada: 1998-99. NCES 2001-309; Compilers Catherine C. Sielke, John Dayton, C. Thomas Holmes, of
The University of Georgia and Anne L. Jefferson of the University of Ottawa. William J. Fowler, Jr., Project Officer.
Washington, DC: 2001.
226
Appendix G

Pupil Transportation Finance Study Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Assisted Housing List- MN- 2014-01

Koochiching County Plat Map Book