School Budget - Fiscal Responsibility

The Board of Education's Statement of Purpose is void of any recognition of financial responsibility, which is inherent in the position and should be acknowledged.   Rather than simply acknowledging the need to help and educate students and working closely, rather than simply "trusting" in the administration, it is absolutely necessary to have verification, questioning, and in-depth knowledge of school finances to fulfill responsibility to the taxpayers.

While the January 2011 Purposes have admirable statements, they shortchange the idea of fiduciary responsibility to the voters and taxpayers who elected them.  Their responsibility might be considered multi-fold -  Students (5,500), Parents (1800), School Employees (700), Residents not in those categories (17,000).

"The responsibility and purpose of the Wasatch County Schools is to help each student develop to their fullest potential.

To achieve this, the schools must teach thoroughly the fundamental skills of reading, writing, and mathematics, teach students to think independently and clearly, and educate them in a sound body of knowledge that prepares them for the responsibilities of living in a democracy.

The Board of Education is mindful that public schools have long undertaken other tasks to the extent that its primary functions are not weakened. The school system will strive to assist in the development of character and citizenship, of health and safety, and proper recreational and cultural interests. The schools shall require discipline and hard work, and will attempt to inspire a desire to learn which will carry beyond all formal education.

Public schools have an equal responsibility to all students, and an obligation to help each student develop to their fullest capacity. The Board recognizes the vital importance of quality in education, and the achievement of excellence in all subjects taught shall be a prime objective.

In order to accomplish these aims, the Board of Education strives to obtain and keep the most competent teaching and administrative staff obtainable: to provide, with the assistance of the community, facilities which will meet the growth needs of the system; to work closely with the community in keeping the public informed of the program of the schools and the needs of the system, and to formulate and carry out in co-operation with the school staff the educational policies and standards that are necessary to achieve these goals."

Where is fiscal responsibility? Where is the acknowledgment of a need to conserve the taxpayers scarce resources? Yes, the primary function of the Board is to educate the students. But included in that function is following the responsibility of fiscal responsibility. It is commonly said that the best lessons are taught by EXAMPLE – are we teaching the right lessons - in thrift, economics, fiscal responsibility?

School Budget 2010

Once again there are a few questions that might be asked about the latest budget.   The budget is dated 6/11, so there has been little time for analysis.   

The proposed budget is available here.  

Last year a few of the questions were answered.

According to the notice:    "Also proposed will be an increase in the 2009-10 Budget from funds currently available."   Does this mean that the Board philosophy is - even though we had a spending budget, because we received MORE money (overtaxed the people), we should spend it - rather than cut taxes?

1. For the proposed budget itself, why have general fund revenues and expenditures increased about 55% since 2005?
2. Why have total expenditures INCREASED by nearly 70% since 2005 with a student enrollment increase of about 18%?   Click here for a Summary Report  of the budget since 2004.
3. While enrollment increased 4.5% 2008 to 2009, the total budget increased by 9% to $48 million. The prior year the increase in expenditure was 18%  The projected student increase this year is estimated at 3% with another increase of 1.5%   We, the taxpayers, should be excited that the rate of increase is slowing.
4. Pg 3, item 131 shows Teacher Salaries steady at $13.6 million, but benefits increased by 10% to $7.4 million, or 54% of salary.  In these times of economic woes, should the taxpayers who have to cut back be saddled with these increased cost? 
5. Teacher aides total salary has been reduced by 20% over two years, but administrative cost do not seem to be decreasing - $2 million for "School Adminstration" (pg 5- 2400); $1 million for "central" (pg 5- 2500); $1.2M for "staff" and "District Admin" (pg 6).  Surely this is NOT a bare-bones budget?
6. Page 10 shows a $5 M "fund balance" with another $2.7M in "debt service fund," $5M for "capital projects"  - A total of $13M in 'rainy day' funds???    Where are the earnings reported on these funds?     Where is the money invested?          But there is NOTHING in the "Building Reserve Fund" (pg 22)
7. pg 19 4502-100   Is there actually a salaried person ($65,000) for "building acquisition and construction"?

This does NOT seem to be a fiscally conservative budget. The philosophy seems to remain - we will spend every dime we get, (see 1. above) and then ask for a bond for new schools.   

Where is the study for YEAR Round Education?

The Public Hearing Notice for the budget states that the public hearing AND the approval of the budget will occur at  6:30 PM.   A subsequent notice for the actual meeting indicates it is an item on the agenda after several other items.

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.

Truth (?) Part 2

Allow me once again to attempt to explain Truth in Taxation. A hearing would not have been required if the School District had accepted the Certified Tax Rate, which would have allowed the same revenue to be collected as the prior year. By looking at individual property tax bills, each tax payer can see that, in general, most individual tax items apparently accepted the growth revenue increase and consequently many taxes went down or stayed about the same as the prior year. Only the property tax payment for the School District proposed very large increases. For each individual property, Heber City and Wasatch County’s portion of the property taxes $$ remained about the same. The assessed value went up, but the tax $$ remained the same! The “School Dist Bond” levy $$ increased in the area of 40 to 60% on individual tax notices. The “Wasatch Co. School Dist” item $$ increased about 25 to 35%.

The recent School Board letter states that RATES were maintained to . . . capture not only additional monies from growth, but ALSO MONIES FROM INCREASED ASSESSED VALUES.” Mr. Powell, in his letter, submits calculations again attempting to “prove” that the assessor/ment made them do it (raise taxes). However, he does admit to basings his calculations “from the proposed new tax rate.” Ladies and gentlemen, the School District raised their rates, which raised your taxes! This is, of course, their legal “right” to do, but Truth in Taxation “allow(s) elected officials to explain the reasons for the proposed increase.”
Second, let me compliment and thank the School District for adding their Email addresses to their website and for putting up the Hearing PowerPoint presentation. Contrary to Mr. Powell’s assertion that Ms. Taylor was inaccurate in mentioning the lack of email addresses; it appears that this information was posted AFTER the meeting. Now, as the Board is “happy to explain any item in our budget,” perhaps the budget could also be posted on the website, along with an itemization of what specific categories the increased revenues of $7 million (TnT notice) or $5 million (budget) will be used for.
Third, this reminds me that Mr. Powell was astounded that I did not mention that Mr. VanTassell, of the Utah Taxpayers, apologized for his “disingenuous” remark. (Disingenuous: “not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness”) I am astounded that Mr. Powell did not report that I mentioned, in my brief remarks, that the tax increase seemed to be more like $5 million than $7 million and, I believe, that discrepancy in the amount was what Mr. VanTassell apologized for. As Mr. Powell has access to a tape recording of the meeting, perhaps he could check that. The CD that I tried to listen to was in a proprietary format that couldn’t be deciphered with the usual computer programs. If the school district chooses not to post the recording on their website, I’d be happy to do so - if I can obtain a working copy.
Finally, “Utah's "Truth in Taxation" laws are revenue-driven, not rate-driven. That means the requirement to hold a "Truth in Taxation" hearing is based upon the collections of a taxing entity, not the rate charged. Utah law requires "Truth in Taxation" hearings to be held when a taxing entity elects to collect more revenue than was collected the previous year, although the entities are permitted to keep revenues generated by "new growth" -- such as value added to the tax rolls from a new subdivision or a new business.”
I believe, this is the primary problem presented by most of last week’s letter writers (at least mine) - no explanation or justification was presented for the tax increase, except in the most general of terms. No budget numbers were presented. Not even an estimate of the total teacher salary could be readily given. Many questions were, and are, left unanswered. For example - What is the purpose of the increase from $3.4 to $4.2 million in Capital Projects? Why did the school bond taxes increase by 85% ($3.1 to $5.7 million) - if the total school building costs has decreased to a mere $10.95 per $100K (as reported by the Wave Education Writer or increased by that amount per Mr. Powell)? What is the proposed specific use of the “fund balance” which “has increased to a healthy level,” mentioned in the School Board letter? Why have the overall school expenditures increased by over 50% to $41,680,711 from 2004 to 2008 with a less than 10% increase in students? Oh, and how can a teacher salary increase of 3.5% be $2.6 million, with a current payroll of $11,000,000? (It was certainly interesting to read in the Salt Lake Tribune that there was a local increase above the state mandated one.) Why does the District continually proclaim we need to “keep up with the Joneses” (Park City)? Neither the two minutes allowed to ask questions nor the 45 minute formal “mil rate” presentation were sufficient to obtain answers - inquiring people would like to know.

I eagerly anticipate some answers, from Mr. Powell, any representative of the School District, or anyone else for that matter.

TRUTH (?) in Taxation

I took the opportunity to attend the “Truth in Taxation” for the proposed 49.34% in “School District property tax revenue for the prior year.” I’m sad to have to report that there were two major losers at that meeting - Wasatch County taxpayers and the TRUTH.

To no one’s surprise, the tax increase was passed unanimously by the school board. Many in attendance felt the School Board was as confused as the audience. The hearing began with an archaic, involved and totally irrelevant dissertation on tax, or mil, rates. Nine basic levies, certified rates, maximums, minimums, assessments, etc.; the end result being "It’s not our fault, the assessor made us do it.” People actually wanted to hear about DOLLARS, tax revenues, school expenditures, and, particularly, individual property tax payments!

An overview of the historical budget can be found here. 2004 to 2008 = 55% increase in school expenditures, with a 9% increase in students.

Continuing with the fairy tale presented by the Wave Education Writer (and District publicist) that, according to Superintendent Shoemaker, “the growth of (the) tax bill is reflective of an increase in property value;” school officials carefully tried to place the blame for higher taxes on the County Assessor and the increase in property values. Au contraire, dear school officials, the increase is due to the actions of the School Administration/Board in RAISING THE TAX RATE, which was the very reason for the hearing being held. Strike One on truth and the taxpayer.

Royce van Tassell, of the Utah Taxpayers Association publicly described the presentation as disingenuous. He may have been too kind. Through various machinations, manipulations, sleight of hand and outright chicanery, school officials concluded that “the total debt service (not just the high school) has dropped to $10.95 per hundred thousand dollars” as reported by the Wave Education Writer (does the Wave pay him for his articles?) and reiterated that idea at the meeting. Anyone with a modicum of math ability can look at their tax notice to determine the cost is closer to $100/per $100K; the increase alone from 2007 to 2008 is more than the $10.95. Strike Two against truth and the taxpayer.

Anyone fortunate enough to find a copy of the debt fund budget can easily see that the (annual repayment) increased by 85% from 2007 to 2008. (See category 31- and also note that the Capital project fund increased by 25%) School officials explained that the "great reduction" resulted from lower rates and the fact they only borrowed $45 of the $60 million. They neglected to mention that the remaining $15 million will be accessed next year or that some of the excess tax revenues received in 2007 (through new growth) may have been used to pay down some debt. Nor did they mention that the Capital Project fund might be used to fund some of the school "frills" or pet projects. They also failed to mention that the first year of payment is apparently interest only (sounds like some current subprime loans)

And the wind up and the pitch . . . To massive adulation by many of the teachers present, we, the truth seekers were informed that the school district was awarding a 3.5% pay increase to the school teachers at a cost of $2.6 million to the district. State legislative officials at the meeting were unclear if the district was taking credit for the pay increase mandated and funded by the state or if the local district had funded an addition increase. However, when asked for an estimate of the total payroll, (10, 20 or 80 million??), school officials were unable to come up with an a ready estimate. The figure, according to the 2007 budget, was $10,669,428. (Page 5, item 131) 3.5 % of that is $373,000 NOT $2.6 million. Stee-rrriiicke THREE, you’re OUT of here. Truth and taxpayers lose!

There was more, of course, mostly equally embarrassing. The final question from the audience, “If you are increasing taxes by 50%, why are teachers only getting 3.5% increase?” While somewhat an apple and orange comparison the answer given by a school board member, ‘well. 39% of the 7 million is going to the salary increase.’ Presumably the aforementioned erroneous $2.6 million (sometimes mentioned as 2.7) was divided by the $7 million for THAT 39% result.

A teacher testified that the school was making vast improvements through vertical and horizontal collaboration and the recent understanding that they needed to focus on what was being learned rather than what was being taught.

(It might be noted that Wasatch scored quite poorly in math in UPASS Considering Albert Einstein's comment “Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach” judging from the mathematical prowess exhibited at this meeting, perhaps we've found the reason.)

Recently graduated student Jeremy Heftel may defy that mathematical mold; he exhibited more understanding by his comments than most of the others at the meeting seemed to have.

In the middle of the public discussion, the audience was entertained by a commercial interruption of a Boyer Co. development representative extolling the tax benefits of their proposed development.

Many from the public decried the lack of information provided at the meeting and on the website. Particularly missing was budget information and even addresses or contacts for the Board members. As witnessed by the links above in this blog, it is not difficult to provide the public with budget information. If anyone wants the full 29 pages, it could be easily posted AND at NO COST!!!

Several people attempted to determine the total cost of the new High School, but were told the information was not available yet.

Oh, by the way, in the latter part of the meeting the contracts for the School Superintendent and Business Administrator were approved, no mention of a pay increase.

Wait, there's more, but my cynicism meter has pegged out, so I conclude on a positive note. The School Board promised to include some Email addresses on the website . . . . but indicated they may not consistently read them.

All is well in Wasatch. . . . .

New High school over budget??

Ogden School District grapples with a $40 million shortfall, with plenty of projects in the pipe - excerpt:

Ogden district isn't alone.

Wasatch School District voters approved a $59.5 million bond in November 2006. The district estimated $50 million to construct its new high school and $9.5 million for the land purchase and furniture.

Bids are still coming in and could be decided in mid-June. But Wasatch district officials believe the total will be much higher than was originally projected.

"All of us (school districts) are going through sticker price shock," said Wasatch Superintendent Terry Shoemaker.

"Cost of square footage has gone up in the last few months," Shoemaker said. "It doesn't take a genius to know part of it is gas and diesel prices making construction costs go up."

He said the district hopes it won't have to cancel its new high school project in Heber City. Instead, officials will look at economizing on materials or cutting back on square footage.

Wasatch district is using architect and construction companies different from those Ogden district is using. "We are talking about economic forces at work here -- not bad data," Shoemaker said.

The Bid Process, by Tracy Taylor

After an apparently short consideration the AG's office seems to have changed its mind.

AG won't probe bidding for schoolSalt Lake Tribune - United StatesHEBER CITY - The Utah Attorney General's Office will not investigate an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 million ...

(Comment added 11/2) This was submitted as a letter to the Wasatch Wave, which was not printed. Apparently the Trib thought it worthy of reporting.

Critics blast selection process for architect for a new $60 ...Salt Lake Tribune - United StatesPosted: 1:02 PM- HEBER CITY- The Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 ...

(Forwarded with no comments)

High School Decisions Made in a Bubble.

I wasn't planning on getting involved with the high school bond this year. After the "community jewel" that is the North School turned out to be a very expensive administration building (go check it out, the district offices are quite expansive) I thought they would have tightened their purse strings to show the community they've learned a few lessons from that mismanaged mess. I guess I was being overly optimistic. There was little public input on the new high school design prior to it’s unveiling a few months ago with the announcement of the bond election. I had parents calling me, in the past year, explaining how they tried to talk to certain school board members only to be rebuffed. The board said that they couldn't discuss it for fear it would weaken their bargaining power with the landowner.

The final straw was community members telling me, in the past month, documents were asked for but the school district said they didn't have them to copy. So that's the reason for my last minute investigation... I decided to go in and exercise my civic right to obtain public documents with a GRAMA request. The school district said publicly that they would be "open and straight forward" with the public on this high school bond and welcomed questions, yet I was told by an employee that the delivery of my request would be after the 10 day deadline because each member of the school board was going to look over the packet before they would hand it over. Interesting. I was also charged $218.10- $9.85 of which was the charge for the paper. They figured it took them 12.25 hours to assemble information that was already compiled; budgets, bid process, full financial analysis of bond process, etc. At least half of what they gave me was the facilities committee report from 2004. Information that all Wasatch County residents deserve, comes with a price.

With most school districts a bid process would go something like this: School district decides on a budget and that they want a new design, they determine the needs of their children, they advertise for the bid applications and give the interested firms specific details of what school we want, they share information with ALL applicants that one firm has due to their previous relationship with the district, the firms come back with a bid within our budget for the parameters set by the district and they pick the one that is best for our community.

I called four firms that applied last March, and asked them specific questions. They did not receive any information from our school district that would have helped them determine what we wanted in a high school. A couple of them were so disappointed with the bid process that they have decided not to bid for our school district anymore. They also said that some of the elements of this design aren’t SAFE. They don’t do basements, or long hallways without a door, because that would trap kids inside in a fire or if a gunman entered. They design schools that get the kids out quickly if they have an emergency situation.

There was no effective bid process for these architects to submit a new design based on our "very special" needs assessment that was compiled prior to this process by Sandstrom. If only they would have received that information from our school district to have a fair process, they had the experience to bring great designs to the table. That explains why the design is extravagant to many people. This is how Wasatch bid; Sandstrom was awarded the architectural services bid (with no prior experience in designing a complete high school), we got ONE design from them (after they worked on it a year) based on every department’s wish list, and then the district came up with a price. Kind of backwards! If we knew we wanted a new design, why didn’t we have an open bid for experienced architects to bring ideas to us within a certain budget? That would have been a more cost effective procedure.

In this continuing process, the school board authorized a payment to Sandstrom of $382,500 on August 17, 2006 to continue work on a design that did not go through a bid process, and had ZERO PUBLIC INPUT prior to announcing the bond! (No open houses explaining the design to the taxpayers) Even the previous "facilities committee", who volunteered countless hours a couple years ago, was never asked for their input before it was released to the public. I was at that board meeting. They never mentioned the price, they only said "25% of the total architectural fees." You’d have to know Sandstrom’s fees based on a certain percentage of the construction costs and a calculator…They didn’t advertise in the agenda what they were planning on doing either, as per the open meetings act. This decision to spend OUR money was made before we even had our first public hearing on Sept. 26th.

The school district made decisions in a bubble, which explains the disbelief now of the public on the extravagance of this design. Whether you're for or against the school bond, I thought you needed to know how this process worked to better explain the design and cost. If this bond doesn’t pass, I would think they’d get tired of this rejection and actually come back to us again with hopefully a more cost effective high school, based on PUBLIC INPUT and an actual bid process that could result in a well tested design for a lot less money. I don’t know one person in town that doesn’t think we need a new high school, but our school board took advantage of that, and went over the top. Why? Because they think the outside appearance is more important than the quality of education inside? We can have it OUR way. There are two schools due in 2008 for the same approximate number of students for $32 Mil and $36 Mil., with beautiful facilities. If we do that, we’ll actually save ourselves $20 million to probably totally finance the inevitable renovation of the Jr. High down the road… We’ll be able to get two schools for the price of this one! Not to mention being able to afford to raise the voted leeway for higher teachers salaries and improving our curriculum.

I am for better education, better paid teachers to retain quality, lower class sizes, better curriculum, more choices for students, and a school board that is fiscally responsible and well- managed while achieving these goals.
Tracy Taylor 435 503-1121

Comments on comments in the Wave on Bond

Well, typical of the last issue before an election, the Wasatch Wave reports being overrun with letters and was unable to print them all. However, following from their editorial position of support seemed to somewhat bias their letter selection, with three expressing concern over the bond and eight supportive of the Bond.

Further if one calculates the column inches devoted to the two "sides," the bias becomes more pronounced 85 column inches to 31. To go even further, 85 inches of type was given to the School District for "news" and commentary in support of the 12 inch editorial suggesting a "yes" vote (with a reservation about the size.)

A few comments about some of the epistles printed, if I may; which I can, because it's my blog.
Self proclaimed "country boy" Phil Sweat, launches a vehement diatribe against one particular candidate (which seems to violate the Wave's length standard and its policy against candidate support - but apparently allows candidate bashing, if unnamed) and then slips in a few lines opposing the bond because of costs and the size of the school.

Paul Sweat, not surprisingly as the school principal, supports his own design.

Marie Adams is right on, discussing wants and needs.

Greg Tayler (an unsigned Doctor) declares pride in the new proposal.

Lynn Adams (a declared Doctor, as in new PhD) tries a creative computation to show taxes aren't really going up if we add up enough of them, but then falls for the "sacrifice" propaganda.

I'm sure you can (will) read the rest for yourself. I won't bother either with the School District and chief propagandist John Moss' comments, except to say it's mildly amazing the amount of room that has been given to these "press releases" not only in this issues but also on the front page for the last few weeks of sales pitches. The question needs to be asked - how much School District time and money has been paid while some employees were working for a yes vote?

A minor comment on the full page ad by Citizens for Better Schools. Wow, might the money have been better spent on a donation to the Wasatch Foundation. Then another half page of supporters names - if their ad is true (2,500 supporters), I guess they are well on the way to the $60 million educational edifice.

Tuesday's vote will be interesting.

Property TAXES

With the arrival in the mail of the 2006 tax notices, residents can now compute their potential individual annual payment for the new High School Bond.

The indicated rate is about $78/$100K of "Taxable Value," which can be found just above the middle of the Tax Notice. Multiply that value. divided by $100,000, (e.g. for $250,000, multiply be 2.5) by $78 to get your tax increase, should the bond be passed.

Or for a rough figure, your taxes (County resident) will increase by about 8%. For city residents, it's about 7.2%

You may also notice that your current payment for Wasatch County Schools is about 60 to 65% of your total Property Tax bill AND 100% of your STATE INCOME TAX.

WOW, what did they miss?

After unsuccessfully asking for more detailed information plans about the new High School, they've been found.

For those interested the new proposed $60 million High School, more detailed school plans are available at the Wasatch School website. Click on the various "levels" for PDF files (large, allow a few minutes to download). The plans can then be enlarged for greater detail, to see what the individual rooms are being used for.

Would you believe? (all estimated areas at 1" =16 ft at 200% magnification):

• Indoor baseball practice about 25 x 80 = 2000 sq.ft. @$150+/sq.ft. = $300,000+

"Little Theater/Drama" 2000 sq.ft. (in addition to the auditorium)

Varsity Weight room 3200 sq.ft. = $480,000+

Three Basketball courts

4,000 sq.ft. of "news set & production studio"

Racquetball court

8+ offices in the athletic area

A "Student Government" room

5 "team room locker"

Ever cognizant of gender equality, there's also a 2000 sq.ft. "cheer/dance" area

There are 50 + classrooms, too
What ever happened to the swimming pool?

Look for yourself and decide - WANTS or Needs?

The SURVEY says . . .

The Survey on the $60 million Wasatch High School was posted to try to gauge the pulse of the community and gather comments about the bond and the proposed High School. The proponents of the bond decided to use (abuse) the survey and turn it into propaganda promoting the YES vote.

They were successful! 78% now report being strongly in favor of the bond.

As promised, the results are now being made public . Reading thorough the comments will show the researcher the intent of the bias group. See the previous comments on the "packing issue below.

Enjoy the comments, some are quite good and could be helpful to those interested in EDUCATION at a conservative cost.

Latest Survey comments

14 responses today (10/9) - ALL in favor (5) One did say the price was too high and one was only "somewhat in favor," and 4 or 5 were through the Utah Educator Network IP; with the request for comments, many were posted - however the last one reverted to true from - "It's outdated"

"standard answer" = (generally) Strongly support, the price is just right, location is great, sell old school. It surprising how many do not know how much the taxes will be. Answers range from a high of $1,000/yr to "not a clue....it doesn't matter! Education does!" (comments added below)

Thanks for participating. ; - )

2006-10-09 04:52:01 204.113.19.8 5 (strongly support) ***price too high *** Get the school off Main Street. Build a new high school big enough for future growth. $50.00 (A lot of comments on growth, why not just manage growth?)

2006-10-09 07:53:14 172.190.246.37 standard answer

2006-10-09 07:59:47 205.123.163.13 UEN? 5 ***just right *** Students need a clean, up to date learning environment. Just the necessary work needed to update wiring for computers is overwhelming. Labs should be current with up to date materials. The size of the school also needs to be exapanded to support the growth in our valley. $ not a clue....it doesn't matter! Education does! (How much work to do the wiring and who is doing it? Students may have some hands on learning by doing. How much work or cost will wiring the new school be?)

2006-10-09 08:07:49 205.123.148.252 UEN standard answer Wasatch county is growing at a rapid rate. When new poeple move into a community it is necessary to provide new facilities for them,i.e. schools, roads annd even new stop lights ( and more roads, and schools and stoplights and . . . Who should pay for them? current residents or those creating the need?)

2006-10-09 08:22:26 205.123.148.252 UEN std answer My children will be attending the high school in this valley, and I would like a structurally sound building for them to attend. By the time my children attend, this high school will be severly over crowded. $250 My high school had a nursery that the students could work in; it helped me make my decision about going into education. *** A gym is necessary. *** This is a great district and a great place to be. As a community we need to support (in every way) the education of the future generation.

2006-10-09 09:18:52 71.213.28.164 std ans explosive population growth

2006-10-09 09:40:58 205.123.148.252 UEN std ans A new high school will allow the district to better educate our children. As an example, science labs and computer labs are virtually non-existant in the current high school. A new facility will help us stay competitive educationally. *** As I understand the current plan, I feel they have included all essential elements. *** The benefits of the new facility. They are emphasizing the educational benefits of a new school. (You may have a point on the labs, is it possible to provide without a $60 million school?)

2006-10-09 10:33:50 71.37.116.52 std ans Our children deserve facilities as good as other high schools. It is a very difficult job for the teachers to try to give comparable educational opportunities without the facilities necessary to do so. They need space to fully explore the arts, and music and sciences. *** Big cafeteria and commons area to keep students on campus during lunch! *** I think our teachers are doing a fabulous job despite the poor facilities. If we want to attract the best teachers we have to offer them great facilities also. ("as good as" or better than all others?)

2006-10-09 10:43:38 205.123.148.252 UEN std ans The facilities and classrooms at the high school are inadequate for student needs (e.g. limited science labs, computer labs poor heating system, holes in the roof, etc), there are safety and evacuation concerns, the old school can't handle the growth the county is experiencing. *** Our biggest asset in this county is our children. We must invest in them now in order to get great returns later. (DUPLICATED - was it deemed that important, or simply trying to skew the poll, or merely an error?)

2006-10-09 11:15:54 65.89.233.8 4 A new high school is necessary due to the delapidated state of the old school and the growth occuring in Wasatch County. *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** $1,000 *** I have some hesitation about the high school. For the cost, $59.5 million, I think we should be including a new rec / aquatic center as well. *** Wasatch county is a fast growing community. We need to recognize this a be prepared for the future. Our kids are worth the $ to not only build a new high school but also include a rec / aquatic center , to encourage and support them! (hesitation is good, do a little more analysis)

2006-10-09 11:52:48 67.182.207.9 std ans Students working on sound or lighting are insturced not to touch the ceiling of the auditorium Why is that? well there are toxic things in that room. Things that are in the air that we breath. A new school would be for the best health of all who enter there. $I don't know *** I think it is about time we are building a new school. You have my support (If there are toxic things, why aren't the corrected? Where is the maintenance budget?)

2006-10-09 11:53:53 204.117.0.94 std ans Wasatch County has a notoriously bad reputation when it comes to education. This is driving talented people away from the community, in search of easily attainable and much better options for their kids. Improving the county starts with a committment to education, which is lacking today. *** Public opinion of the county's commitment to education is that there is none. This reflects on the community as a whole, leaving the perception that our government and citizens are shortsighted and unsophisticated. Changing thisperception will benefit the county greatly over the long-term. (And you truly believe a new school is the answer to all edcucation problems?)

2006-10-09 14:11:51 161.28.164.37 std ans We need new facilities. Curent one is far out dated. $800.00 *** (A familar litany ! Shouldn't an $800 cost give cause for concern? That's high, by the way)

Building vs. Salary

Some people have commented that education would be far better served by focusing on the educators (and students, of course) rather than the BUILDING.

I heartlily agree with that sentiment. 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.

But some say a new school will draw "better" educators.

Granted teachers (and students) might love a NEW school as we all might like NEW cars, clothes, houses, etc. Fiscal conservative (private and public) try to follow the philosophy of "Use it up, wear it out; make it do, or do without." Rational financial advisors recommend avoiding debt. That, IMO, includes private AND PUBLIC debt. $60 million is a substantial debt - $3,000 (plus interest - about $37 million over 21 years) for every man, woman and child in the county.

Please do not be swayed by the "It's only a hamburger a day" type of argument. That's car salesmanship - "This car is only $299/month" (not $35,000) Don't fall for that appeal of the need to sacrifice: "in 1964, our people made a greater sacrifice" relative to property value. I think they may be comparing apples to oranges (see the next entry).

There is a well organized group promoting the "selling" of the bond (apparently, teachers and parents of students, who certainly have every right to do so) See "Vote Yes for a new High School" or the Wasatch School District, which even has a fancy presentation called "sellfolio" but regrettably little information about the new school.

These epistles are merely attempting to present a modicum of balance to the discussion. The school district and "Citizens for Better Education" do seem to have blinders on, IMO, and are simple selling the "car" by any gimmick possible and prefer to sell by emotion.

Most regurgitated poll responses follow the same emotional litany:

It's too old (Old is not bad, I'm considered old by some)
The roof leaks (Fix the roof - didn't we do that?)
crowded (not statistically, or that I could see)
no space (Why is a classroom being used for storage?)
outdated (Is Harvard outdated, Oxford is hundreds of years old - is it outdated? . . .)
need more computers (How many do they need, how many do they have?)
more science labs (that may be valid)
Costs too much to remodel (how does anyone know, no analysis was done?)
need "State of the art" (that changes daily, it seems)

Is the new high school too expensive?

The Vote Yes for a new High School website has a list of "Frequently Asked Questions" (as the site is relatively know, how frequently could they have been asked?)

#9 Poses this question - and "answer." Is the new high school too expensive? In 1964, the bond passed to build the current high school cost 17% of the value of all property in Wasatch County. The 2006 bond is only 3% of all property value. The building is not elaborate, but it is a sound educational design.

So effectively they are saying, if you don't support this bond you are a cheapskate and not willing to support education the children. In actuality, this comparison doesn't answer the question and is irrelevant. BUT, are the figures even correct?

An interesting little anomaly here. Cost, data and sources are not provided for their conclusion. According to the Wasatch County Offices the total property value for 1964 is not readily available, however the ASSESSED value record is available on microfilm (which was reportedly used to research the figures.)

However, from 1961 - 1978 the Statutory Assessment Level (% of Market Value) was 30 %. Currently it is 100% (with a 45% residential exemption). See Property Tax History

So, if assessed values are being used rather than market values, the cost of the 1964 school would have been more like 5% - if we compare apples to apples!!! What's that old adage - figures can lie, and . . . ?

What was the price of the 1964 school used in the calculation? No number or source is given.

What was the real assessed/ appraised/??? property values in Wasatch County in 1964?

What is it today? (2005 WASATCH $1,888,743,778) Today, indeed, $60 million is 3%
In 2000, total property value was $1,288,186,733

How Large should a High School be?

In addition to other information on School construction, the Utah State Office of Education provides a chart of Per Student Space Criteria.

The recommendation for Senior High Schools with a 1500 student enrollment is 145 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 217,500 sq.ft.

For 1,000 students they allow 155 sq.ft./student or a total school area of 155,000 sq.ft.

Wasatch School is proposing 308,000 total area or beween 205 and 308 sq.ft./student.

To further clarify, a note is added:
For purposes of this table, Gross Square Feet is defined as the sum of the area on each floor level, measured in square feet from the exterior walls. It includes all rooms, corridors and storage areas, etc.

50 % too large is 50% too expensive

$60 Million & 308,000 Sq. Ft.

Is this reasonable for Wasatch High School?

Total Sq.Ft. - - - 308,000
# Students - - - 1,500 capacity
Cost - - - - - - - -$59,500,000

$/Sq.Ft. - - - - - - $193.18
$/Student -- - - - $39,667 at capacity, $59,500 at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - 205.3 at capacity, 308.0 at start up

The 2006 School Construction Report (page 6) reports the following National Medians for High Schools:

Total Sq.Ft.- - - 120,000

# Students - - - -1,200

Cost - - - - - - - - $30,000,000

$/Sq.Ft. - - - - -- - $150.00

$/Student - - - - - $25,333

Sq.Ft./Student - - - 162.5

The proposed Wasatch High is above the Medians by:

Total Sq.Ft.- - - 156%
# Students - - - -25%
Cost - - - - - - - - 98%
$/Sq.Ft. - - - - -- - 31%
$/Student - - - - - 56% at capacity, 135% at start up
Sq.Ft./Student - - - 26% at capacity, 90% at start up

How does the proposal compare to other Utah High Schools?

The Utah State Office of Education reports on school construction. Since 1999 they report the building of 15 High Schools, in Utah, as follows:

Location---area------cost-------comp---enrollment---cost/sqft--cost/stud-ft/std
Logan-------9,700----$900,000--mar 99------? - - - - -$92.78-------?----------?
Parowan---17,964----$1,500,000--jun 99----366-------$83.50-----$4,098-----49
Cedar City-233,199--$20,000,000-Aug 00---896------$85.76-----$22,321---260
Tooele-----239,470--$16,736,000--aug 02---1824------$69.89-----$9,175---131
StGeorge---27,382----$2,300,000-jun 00------?--------$84.00-------?----------?

Murray----255,000--$24,000,000-jun 03 --1527------$94.12-----$15,717------167
Granite -----58,000---$6,000,000-sep 02----?--------$103.45--------?---------?
Duchesne----51,666---$4,300,000-sep 03----299------$83.23-----$14,381-----173
Kaysville----321,344--$32,000,000-dec 04--2230-----$99.58----$14,350-----144
Kearns------119,456----Donated---spring 03---?----------$0.00---------?----------?
SLC----------71,273----$7,000,000-dec 03-----?--------$98.21--------?----------?

StG----------61,000---$5,800,000-aug 06-----?--------$95.08--------?----------?
Springville---30,805----$2,900,000-dec 04---1411------$94.14-----$2,055-----22
Syracuse ----383,000--$38,000,000-apr 07----?--------$99.22--------?----------?

School Bond Survey

With a reasonable number of responses to the poll on Wasatch County growth, including many excellent comments; a poll was created concerning the proposed School Bond hoping to gain some more comments (pro and con) on the issue.

The growth issue poll was, from its inception, overwhelmingly of the opinion that Wasatch has too much growth and is not doing well at managing it. The School bond received mixed responses of about 55% opposed to 35% favoring. At least until September 25 through 27, when 17 responses arrived. Remarkably, 11 were "Strongly in favor" of the Bond and most made a comment about the current school being outdated or old. On further analysis of the results, it was found that five of these responses came from the same IP address and four came from another.

Lo and behold, the first IP (205.123.148.252) was traced back to the "Utah Educational Network" The second (192.107.181.) is assigned to Utah Valley State College Org.

On Wednesday, 9/27, two officials from the Wasatch County School District were interviewed on KTMP about education and school bond issues. After the online interview, this curious coincidence was mentioned to these individuals - with virtually no response.

The next day (9/28), between 8:15 AM and 10:55PM, the poll received an astounding 87 responses to the survey - even more astounding, 80 were STRONGLY IN FAVOR, 4 were somewhat in favor and 2 were opposed, but only a few were sent from the above mentioned IP addresses.

Are we now witnessing a spontaneous uprising of the masses in favor of better education of "the children" through bricks?

Friday, the deluge continued with 49 "responses" with a mere three opposed. The capping finality occurred late in the evening. The last 13 of the evening were posted from 10:08:07 PM to 10:22:38 from the same IP (Comcast) (or computer?) 13 responses in 14 minutes shows a great deal of thought and consideration, doesn't it.

Most of the comments indicated the belief that their taxes would GO DOWN! One respondent (who actually twice at 2006-09-29 22:11:30 AND at 2006-09-29 22:10:55) said "I have a house on an acre valued at $750,000, my taxes are only going up $16." Can anyone seriously believe a $60 million bond will NOT raise taxes?

His (or their) other comments: "The cost per 100,000 is $3 less than the Heber Valley bond that was passed approximately 6 years ago, and we are getting $50 million more worth of building. The Heber Valley bond will be paid off 4 years earlier, and has gone from $81 per $100,000 property valuation to $18 per $100,000 property valuation. Please do your homework prior to using an internet survey macro. Give me a break. Math and statistics lab, so people like you who made a weak attempt at designing a survey, might be better educated through their children attending a state-of-the-art facility.

This is a stupid survey. You don't ask any demographic questions, like whether I am on a fixed income or whether I am worth $2 million dollars. Don't you think this would have an impact on my answers. This is an example of the uneducated population in this valley, and just another reason to have a new high school so our future generations can appropriately design and execute a survey that evaluates objectively the local opinion."

Shall we post the name of this poll taker???

While all poll responses are appreciated, a little originality, logic and respect in the comments is strongly encouraged.

The proponents of the School Bond now have a web site - Vote Yes for a New Wasatch High School. We would encourage everone to carefully weigh the issues and vote based on that careful analysis and not succumb to emotion. Here's an opportunity to offer an educational lesson for the children, by example, of the need to differentiate between NEEDS and WANTS.