Area Police Salaries

A rough analysis of the comparative salaries of Law Enforcement in the local area. Data SOURCE

• In an economic downturn, local governments need to cut back spending and have done so - right?
• Heber City Police are underpaid - right?
• Wasatch County pay is lower than Heber and surrounding areas - right?

Apparently NOT, but draw your own conclusions:
(Note: two averages are given for Park City as their Police Chief salary, $129,535, affects the averages far more than in other jurisdictions) Click on individual locations for full salary list.

Is it time for consolidation of law enforcement forces?

		Aug 2008	Aug 2009	change
Heber City		$659,435	$752,621
		$47,103	$53,759	14.1%
	Officers	14	14
Park City		$963,601	$1,250,961
		$50,716	$56,862	12.1%
	Officers	19	22
Without Chief		$48,228	$53,401	10.7%
Wasatch County		$1,874,625	$2,106,950
		$41,658	$45,803	9.9%
	Officers	45	46
Summit County		$4,364,769	$4,570,214
		$49,042	$57,851	18.0%
	Officers	89	79
Duchesne County		$1,497,816	$1,601,552
		$36,532	$39,062	6.9%
	Officers	41	41
Roosevelt		$642,357	No data
		$30,588
	Officers	21
Gross TOTAL		$10,002,603	$10,282,298
		$43,679	$50,902	16.5%
	Officers	229	202

Wastch County Payroll Update

THE TOP TEN (of 274)
Michael Davis  COUNTY MANAGER    $105,397 up $16,531  +18.6%
Phil Wright    HEALTH DEPARTMENT  $104,330 up $6,699  +6.9%
Dennis Hansen     PREVENTION    $98,334     up $11,843 +13.7%
Alfred Mickelsen   PLANNING & ZONING  $91,386  up $2,520 +2.8%
Kent Berg     PUBLIC WORKS    $90,791  up $7,732  +9.3%
Thomas Low       ATTORNEY     $86,586  up $5,362  +6.6%
Don Wood       GIS-DATA PROCESSING $82,859  up $5,134  +6.6%
Paul Wilson      ENGINEERING   $80,870  up $5,002  +6.6%
Scott Hathcock  SHERIFF    $80,475   not top ten
Tracy Richardson   HEALTH DEPARTMENT  $76,252 up $4,816  +6.7%

Source    Previous Report 2007

Heber City Salary Update -2009

The Top Ten 

Mark Anderson  **City Manager**    $97,737 up $2,224 +2.3% 
Edward Rhoades  **Chief Of Police**   $79,568 up $2,245 +2.9%
Bart Mumford  ***Engineer***    $78,363 dn $  614
Steve Tozier  *Director Public Works*  $72,378 up $5,732 +8.6%
Jason Bradley  **Police Sergeant**   $68,099 up $2,425 +3.7%
Wesley Greenhalgh  *Building Official*   $67,481 up $921 +1.4%
J.m. Smedley  ***City  Attorney***   $66,310 up $1,952 +3.0%
Mike Clegg    ***Sergeant Police***   $66,145 up $6,092 +10.1%
Donald Blackburn  *Building Inspector*   $60,044 not top 10
Anthony Kohler  Senior Planner   $58,318 not top 10

Source   Previous Report 2008 

School Budget Questions

Here are a few questions on the 2009/10 School budget, which were recently sent to the Board of Education for the Public Hearing on 25 June. (A prompt response has been received from Board Chair, Ann Horner (see below) Thank you, Ann.

• Why are teacher and education salaries decreasing and maintenance increasing? "maintenance went up because of additional staff required for thelarger High School." Are we perhaps spending too much on buildings, cosmetics and frills rather than what is needed - in the classrooms?
• pg 7 Fund 10 line 2600-180 General Fund Operation and Maintenance Salary increased by $80K "additional personnel to maintain the old high school"
• pg 19 Fund 32 line 2600-100 Capital Projects Operation and Maintenance Salary increase of $90K "staffing adjustments made to offset the 1.5 million dollar cut from legislature"
• pg 5 Fund 10 line 1000-100 total General fund Instruction - salary decrease $600K "staffing adjustments made to offset the 1.5 million dollar cut fromlegislatured."***(1000-161 Aides -$130K) "we would love to hire all of the aides back but in lean years we aremaking adjustments to live within the budget." *** 2100-142 General fund Guidance Personnel decrease $70K "We have taken the Utah Behavior Initiative person back as we aretrained and the program can be run without 1/2 time person. We have beenable to take 1/2 time counselor from the 5th 6th school with theconfiguration because of elementary status we don't fund as muchcounselor time to do scheduling an other responsibilities that a 7thgrade would need. If the services are not required we don't have to fundthe personnel."
• pg 6 Fund 10 line 2300-115 Supervisors directors decrease $100K "We are not replacing Vickie Todd as a Director at this time. We are looking for other Directors and Superintendent to assume theresponsibilities of this position. We feel in these economic times we are all being asked to do a little more. We also reassigned a specialist from the district office to the classroom. We reassigned her work to another specialist in the district."
• pg 6 line 2400 152 Principals increase $63K

What are "Media Personnel - certificated" at nearly $300K in annual salary (for several years)? "The Media Personnel Certificated is the Librarians in the schools, they have their Media Certification. We pay them at that level not at an aide salary. With the Certification they can be counted as time with aneducator and the teachers in the Elementary schools gain additional preptime without having to loose instructional time with the students.(approx 30 minutes a week.) So that figure is their salaries."

• Why have general fund revenues increased by 50+% Total revenues by 65+% while enrollment is up only 10%?
• Why/how did 2008 budget increase by $4million from original to actual? Was it the increase in taxes from higher assessments?? "I believe you are right that the increase in the 2008 budget was fromthe assesments being higher than what we had anticipated."
• Is the Wasatch school philosophy to spend ALL monies received whether "needed" (in the budget) or not? "We are not in the business of trying to keep spending more. We did not go to truth intaxation to raise more money last year nor this year. We have in fact been putting additional money that we did not budget into the fund balance. We are trying to cut ongoing cost and personnel as we are receiving decreases from legislative funding. We are planning on holding our cost down and using the fund balance to maintain programs and the educational integrity of the district in these difficult times."
• What was the cost of trading the old Junior High and the Rocky Mountain school grades? Where is it found in the budget?

Are "building" funds (pg 20 line 720) of $66.8 million the cost of the New High School? "We have released the numbers on the high school and they are on the website, (possibly here?) the figure we have put out does include the land, architects,Layton and all fees associated with the high school."

• This number is consistent with previous reports for the $59.5 bonded school
• Will the $3.7 M in 2009/10 budget bring the cost to $70.5M?
• Are land cost, furnishings, equipment, etc. entirely included within these figures?

Supt. Shoemaker reported that $2.8 M of "interest on bond proceeds" were used in payment of High School construction:

• The budget (2008, 2009) shows $2.1 in interest on Capital Projects funds and $1.1M interest in General Fund
• Was general fund interest used for construction?

Wasn't there a roughly equivalent amount of interest accrued (but not paid?) "I know we have not changed the schedule of the bond or the payments in any way." on that bond? If so, haven't we merely created more debt and postponed payments to future years and spent MORE money than what the project was sold to the voters?

"I do appreciate thoughtful questions and hope that they will make me a betterboard member. I will look into your questions and try to answer any thatI have not at this time. "

"As I have sat in the meetings it is clear to me that we need to be sensitive and conservative in what we take from the public. I have tried to be frugal and to spend thetaxpayers money responsibly."

Truth in Education (Construction) Costs

It appears that the School District has opted not to release ALL of the teacher's aides, finding money to keep perhaps two thirds of them. It was nice to read on the School website that several of these proposed suggestions were adopted.

Earlier, funding had been "found" to build the third high school gym, and finish adding bricks and mortar. An analysis of recent school budget leads to the conclusion this should have come as no surprise. In the last five years, 2005 - 2009 Wasatch school district has had a 10% increase in enrollment BUT a 65% increase in revenues/expenditures. Click here for a Summary Report (http://sn.im/wasbud) and here for the Source. Total revenue to the district in 2009 - about $47 Million or $9,760 per student. 2005: $28 million for 4,303 students (you can divide for per student)

Several questions were asked of school representatives in a recent radio interview, click here and here to listen (two parts). In particular, one question was asked about the source of the funds for the third gym et al (sports/frills - as opposed to teachers/education). While an answer was not given in the interview, subsequently it was reported that the interest "earned" from placing construction bond funds in the bank had to be spent on construction rather than operations according to state law.

According to a phone call with the Utah State of Education, finance department that was close but not totally correct, BUT it is a Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (the website name sounds somewhat like 'gasbag'). Rather than a law, it seems to be customary practice in Utah to build 'more' school for the bond money than the advertised funds requested. This practice, of course, merely increases the costs by forcing the interest to be PAID to the end of the bond payments. It may seem strange to some, but banks generally do not provide money through a loan without paying interest from the day of receipt of funds. This procedure is reminiscent of the buy now, pay later philosophy that was so prevalent in leading up to our current national economic crisis. . . (and regrettably continues)

This little procedural interpretation allows bonds to be proposed to the taxpayers for a certain amount with the full knowledge that the costs will be substantially higher - Does this like a bit of subterfuge, bait and switch, or just a little distortion of the truth for sales purposes?

So the answer to the source of the funds appears to be simply that the money was already there, the Board was just required to give the approval for its expenditure. A second source for the money may have been the excess taxation that was received through increased assessments prior to the correction of the tax rates. In either case the Truth in taxation hearings were vastly deficient.

Several other questions remain unanswered, but the overriding answer to most seems to be "we have the money and we will spend it, building bigger and 'better' to satisfy our edifice complex" and the taxpayers are available later for increase to cover operation costs with a truth in taxation hearing.

Oh, on the subject of the NEED for a third gym. Consider this: with only TWO gyms, (at least 4 teaching stations) 1 Wrestling room, Batting room, Cheer/Dance room, Racketball (sic) Court, Student Weight room, 2 sports (?) classroom - for a total of at least 11 sport 'teaching' stations - at merely 6 periods periods per day and 20 students per class; there would apparently be enough space to have 1320 students in some sort of physical education class every single school day. Wasatch High will have the most physically fit graduates in the state!

But, planned enrollment is only 1200, AND PE is only required for 3 semesters (not eight) during four years of high school and probably does not meet daily. It certainly appears that TWO gyms would have been MORE than sufficient.

Bricks OR Aides?

A recent report stated that the School District "is currently in excellent shape financially," and that the shortfall this year was covered "without individuals losing their jobs."

Perhaps it needs to be asked why 2/3's of the teacher's aides need to be fired for next year. It would seem that these employees are probably more important, and helpful to EDUCATION than, for example, a third gym.

A few suggestions, in no particular order, on how to save these positions (listed at $671,098 in the original 2009 budget, page 5 item 161):

• The School District finally posted employee salaries on utahsright.com; the author of the District's press releases to the Wave is listed as the highest paid teacher in the District. He is also the official PR person for the District. Assuming that his extra $9,623 pay may be for his PR work, eliminating that job would save 1.5 aides.
• In an earlier report the PR said that "The total cost for the reconfiguration (Grade realignment in schools) of the district will come to about $1 million," including high school upgrades. A later report stated "We authorized an additional $750,000 to be spent at the high school to finish the portion of the school that had been scheduled to be "shelled in" for future use. This includes four classrooms, the little theater and one practice gym." One could assume that the remaining $250K is being spent for the unpopular 5/6 and 7/8 school swap - There's enough for 40 aides.
• Cutting three "Quality Teaching Days" (paid, but no teaching) would decrease the average $47,963 teacher salary (from salaries reported at utahsright.com) by about $787 or $200K total enough for 30 more aides, who are there to help teachers in educating students.
• Cutting one class day, according to the press release, would save about $250K (total operating cost $43 MILLION, up over 60% with an enrollment increase of 10% since 2005) or another 40 aides.

I have no idea of the cost of the third gym or little theater, but NOT building them now could save even more money to offset some of the other proposals.

I won't even ask why we need three assistant Superintendents and a business administrator at salaries over $100K, or multitudes of other administrators.

Reports are now being made that the reconfiguration will require more money for new buses and drivers.

Which is more important - Bricks and Mortar (gym) or teachers (and aides) in the classroom?

That question was answered here years ago in this blog. "By focusing on a extravagant oversized school/community center, we, necessarily, place our money where our collective mouth is. Apparently, we value the bricks more than the educators. Again, why not put less money in a new building and more in enticing and rewarding more quality teachers. Expending excessive taxpayer money on buildings will make it even more difficult to garner support for better salaries. It all emanates from the same taxpayers' pockets."

Legislative Audit Shows High School Over Budget

The cost of the new Wasatch High School appears to be $77 million as opposed to $59.5 authorized in the November 2006 bond which stated "that general obligation bonds would not exceed $59.5 million for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of land acquisition, equipment, acquisition, and construction of a new high school and related improvements."

The school construction cost is nearly $40 per sq. ft. more expensive than the average of seven high schools built in Utah. It was also the school cited as 20 percent larger than USOE guidelines and had the highest sq. ft. Per student. There were also flaws mentioned in the bidding and contracting processes.

These are all conclusions reached in the recent Utah Auditor General's School Constuction Legislative Audit released in November. Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature had requested a performance audit of school building construction, 21 School Districts were studied. While the report did not name the individual districts audited, it was quite clear that the one school which was highlighted as "the most expensive high school being built during our review period." was right here in Heber.

Wasatch High School construction practices merited five pages of the report, plus other being anonymously mentioned alsewhere. Those pages can be found here. The full report is available here.

While taxpayers are reviewing and paying their property taxes this week, they may remember hearing of the so-called "Truth in Taxation" hearing (See meeting report) where taxpayers were told there was no property tax increase. Checkbooks now show that was in error.

At some point the taxpayers deserve an complete explanation of the school cost AND the source of the funds to pay for the 11 to 25% cost overrun. We, the taxpayers, will now be paying for a school that was 20% too large and 25% too expensive for many years. Hopefully many people will actually read the audit. Click here for more articles on the school bond. I'll try not to say "I told you so."

In recent hearings on school class realignment, information was promulgated on the possible need for additional school construction a Junior High and/or new elementary. Even at the current $66 to $75 million reported price tag, the Wasatch Wave reports that "The total cost for the reconfiguration of the district will come to about $1 million, according to Mr. Shoemaker, and that includes completing portions of the high school that had been slated to be finished later, such as the 4 additional classrooms, the third gym and the little theater."

Many resident attendees reportedly decried the failure to consider using the current high school as a valid and usable building. It would seem pure folly to sell the property in this down economy only to spend millions on new construction in the not too distant future - if plans can be believed. Much of the school is usable and functional although it reportedly is falling into disrepair as normal maintenance seems to be minimal.

Hopefully, taxpayers will be more diligent in asking questions - and getting answers this time. Before any new construction is considered, year round school, which better utilize building resources, must be thoroughly evaluated.

North/South Fields Rezone

The move is on to rezone the North Fields. The first step appears to be the rezone of the South Fields, this was recommended by a 4-1 vote at the recent Planning Commission meeting.

A public Hearing on the matter is scheduled for 6 PM on 19 Nov. It is item #9. Items #7 and #8 are also rezone requests (P160 to M zone or 1 house per 160 acres to a potential 1 house per 2.5 acres - a 64 fold increase)

Several arguments were presented in opposition to the change, to no avail:

1. The Wasatch County General Plan (See Chap. 4, pg 159) indicates the area is "highly prized by many local residents" and is "identified as having a public benefit as open space." The area has been called the jewel of the valley and its current zoning A-20 (Agricultural with one house allowed per twenty acres) protects the "desired green belt separation between Heber and Midway" (Policy 1.1.1)
2. The area is NOT included within the Proposed Heber City Annexation Policy. Several member of the Heber City Planning Commission attended the meeting and spoke against the rezone.
3. The area is in the "Inundation Area of Sudden Jordanelle Dam Failure" - approval of more houses could present potential danger to those house and liability to County taxpayers.
4. There are currently only 6 large land parcels (>20 acres) in the 464 acre proposed rezone area and another 12 parcels between 5 and 20 acres which, as "lots of record," could already be built upon. Some parcels already have houses built. Of ten parcels less than 5 acres, 7 current have residences.
5. A zone change from A-20 to RA-5 would increase the number of allowable houses from 33 to 92.
6. The long proposed ByPass road passes through several of the parcels, a rezone would likely increase the cost of property acquisition.
7. An Open Space, Transferable Development Right ordinance was recently passed allowing a "bonus" sale from rights in this area. Rezoning would adversely affect the goals of that ordinance.
8. While presented as a "County initiated" rezone, it was clearly introduced by the land owners and not necessarily for the "health, safety and welfare" of the community in general.

In 2000, a well written resolution was introduced to "protect" the North Fields - regrettably it was never really considered for passage: