Bursting at the Seams?

The School Bond proposal points out that enrollment is growing in the district (as it has for years) and we need a bond for schools because of that growth.    Given that proposition, it seemed logical to determine what the actual capacity of each school was and how close we are to "full."   

(Addendum 10/9): After another request for school capacities AND submitting the compiled capacities below, the District finally responded    "The capacities in the schools you have supplied are reasonably accurate except J.R. Smith, which is 750 (when the addition was completed in 2006)."  If so, the the numbers in the next paragraph would be 90%/83%/78%)  The school district also maintains that the YRS plan they are using ONLY increases effective capacity by 25%, which would still be an increase of 1660 - nearly the capacity of the two proposed schools)

Click here for an School Enrollment Calculator, to allow YOU to predict the growth and incoming Kindergarten enrollment, based on entered 2104 enrollment figures.

First, the ANSWER, Wasatch School District is only at 89% of total capacity, 82% if portable classrooms are included.   Even stranger, the 'overcrowded' elementary schools are at 76% capacity, again not including portables. 

• JR Smith was expanded for an additional 250 students, in 2006
• HVE added 8,000 sq ft in 2012, for 100 students. 
• Elementary schools are K-5, the effective enrollment could be 50 or so LESS, as kindergarten is half day. 
• The 2004 report noted  "This past year, by far the largest increase in the District rolls (sic) occurred in the kindergarten age group." In 2014, kindergarten showed a large DECREASE. 
• The "North Campus has an enrollment of about 25, reportedly with room for 100. 
• At one time the old North School had classroom space. 
• Year Round School utilization could increase the effective capacity of the district to about 8,800, without considering the portables. (9,600 with)
• The proposed two new schools would increase the capacity to 9,218 with portables.

Now, the explanation of how the capacity numbers were found/determined:

That information was rather difficult to find.  By comparison our neighbors in Duchesne placed that information WITH their proposal.  An internet search found a new 'transparency' for School district Capital Outlay Reports showing school construction records back to 2004.

Only two WSD schools are new since 2004, the High School . . . .
and Old Mill Elementary.   Old Mill is shown with a capacity of 800.   Enrollment figures vary somewhat, but using the USOE enrollment figures 2014/5 shows 525 students.   That 66% of capacity - not exactly overcrowded.    WHS is listed at 2000 students, with 1782 enrolled (89%), nearing capacity but space still available.

Leading to the question, what's the total capacity vs. enrollment?    Where are the numbers, a few phone calls (Finance Dept, who published the Outlay Report and referred to USOE, who did have building construction figures in past years, but no one answered the phones.   An email request to USOE did get an answer, which referred back to Wasatch's "School District Building Official" - contacting him led to another person, who promised  "Soon as we have the information compiled I will send it on to you."    So far, nothing further.

Which raises the question: If school capacity is not known, how do we know if we are crowded?
After a query from another county resident suggesting the total enrollment was only 76%, a deeper web search was tried.  Voila!  The figures were discovered in a 2004 Facilities Report     Long story short - here were the rest, in 2004:

The 2004 report provided a far better presentation than is being done in 2015, the 2004 survey declared that 2/3 of voters were in favor.  But the 2004 building proposal was not successful.  As suggested in the 2004 report a new elementary school was  built in 2008.

The 2004 report was very informative, but the voters realized the NEED for a new high school had not been proven.  In 2015, the appeal is mainly to emotion, not facts, including a second attempt to entice an additional special interest group with a new "Aquatic Center."  

Efficient utilization with year round school was considered in 2004, but their survey said "60 percent of people oppose moving school to a year-round schedule." 
    
The year-round operation SOLUTION was ignored in 2004 and it continues to be summarily dismissed again this year - without even asking the question, or attempting to present the case for efficient utilization of current facilities.

A year-round school plan will:

•  extend the enrollment capacity longer than the proposed new schools, 
• save over $90 million in principal and interest, 
• operate with lower expenses than new buildings..   

Decide for yourself, is the $62,000,000 bond a WANT or a NEED?