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 . . . .

Wasatch School Enrollment by Grade

USOE figures, green elementary totals are adjusted to reflect half day kindergarten for 1/2 the students.  (reportedly half of kindergarten students attend a full day ???).    It is very difficult to find actual school capacity figures in Wasatch School District)

	HVE	MID	RS	OM	total
K	122	100	99	99	420
1	141	111	98	124	474
2	156	117	95	128	496
3	117	116	93	102	428
4	141	113	102	121	477
	677	557	487	574	2295
	616	507	438	525
5	494				494
6	422				422
					916
7	494				494
8	460				460
					954
9	498				498
10	439				439
11	464				464
12	381				381
	1782	1	6	89	1782
					5947

School Vanity Survey

During their 'contemplation' of the school bond, the school district spent $12,000 for a School Bond Survey to "Assess quality of education at Wasatch County schools" and to verify what they already knew they wanted – that adding a pool to the bond would help the $62 million bond pass.

It appears a bit of bias may have been used to achieve the desired results.   On page 3 of that survey, this line appears: “Results were weighted by age to align with population base.” In the results, we find that the 'older' demographic was less favorable to the bond than the younger respondents. 

On the last page of the survey we find that 36% of those polled had no “Children in Home” - could that possibly be the 'age' group needing to be realigned? 

On the same page, it is learned that 16% of those polled self reported they were “employed by the school district.” With about 700 employees, is that 16% of the voting population?   Not even close! Why no 'realignment' for THAT demographic?  Might employees have a bias in favor of the bond? 

Similarly, Daniel residents (the location of  the proposed new elementary school) represented 2% of those polled, but Daniel has 4% of the population.  No correction there either. 

On page 8, in response to the question "Q13. From what you know or have heard, are overcrowded schools and classrooms a problem in the Wasatch County School District?" 50% reported it was a problem.  Why are they asking the question? - a bit of softening up push polling?   Proposing crowding, then providing the solution - more buildings.

Another survey inconsistency, 79% felt building maintenance was “good,” but only 49% thought the buildings were in good condition. (pg 9)   Why are they even asking the question? - a bit of softening up push polling:   Questioning conditions, then asking do we need more buildings.

There's an old adage, 'you get what you pay for.' It appears the District was successful. For those “voting against the bond (without pool),” 49% gave the reason “Want Pool Included as Well.”

So apparently the school board got the results they wanted, ignored the voice of the people in last year's vote, and opted to add the pool for a perceived better chance of approval by pandering to another interest group.

But as the pollster opined in the survey presentation to the board, 'you'll have to work hard to get it passed,' so their multi-faceted campaign is proceeding - in earnest.

Do your research, taxpayers and voters! Remember that 65% of those polled felt the school district was “probably or definitely (14%) spending tax money responsibly” (???)   Click on "School" on the right for a history of commentary - for years.    The 49.33% property Tax increase, has allowed  an abundance of funds since 2008.

"A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of voters under the guise of conducting a poll."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll

Proposed School Buildings - Cost Comparisons

     Recent Utah code has required more transparency in school construction costs this year.  Each School District must submit an Annual Capital Outlay Report.  This year  data from 2004-14 has also been submitted - click here.

      Below are some cost comparisons for 'contemporary projects' to Wasatch's proposals.  Wasatch schools do NOT include LAND costs, the remainder generally do.  School site says "*Costs for all projects include architectural fees, construction, contingency, and furniture, fixtures, and equipment."
  (Land for WSD middle was $2 Million, for Daniel Elementary about $1 Million.)

       Draw your own conclusion but, generally, the only school near the suggested per sq.ft cost being proposed was the 2009 Wasatch High!

			cost	sqft		per sqft	per student
Wasatch	2009	Wasatch HS	$69,532,638	320,000	2,000	$217	$34,766
Proposed	2016	Middle	$33,000,000	142,000	1,200	$232	$27,500
	2016	Elementary	$18,500,000	79,040	800	$234	$23,125
Alpine	2014	Black Ridge	$14,775,948	81,491	1,032	$181	$14,317
	2014	Dry Creek	$16,405,109	77,907	1,032	$211	$15,896
	2013	Frontier Middle	$29,936,515	174,175	1,590	$172	$18,828
Canyons	2013	Butler Middle	$30,492,495	177,000	1,781	$172	$17,121

17 Schools

Average

$19,178,735

122,489

1,004

$157

$19,106

For schools considered, to obtain the above figures, see below:

Education in Digitized Schools

Wasatch is now a few years into Digitized Education.  Are the new school plans taking that into consideration?

$5.7 million spent - so far. Details HERE     Before more 'bricks and mortar' these question needs to be answered:

• If digital learning is the future of education, is there a possibility of a need for different type of physical facility? Or do we simply replicate the past?
• Will more students be capable of learning at home, or on their on time? Is it possible lecture time is on its way out?
• Are we analyzing digitized learning to find the most efficient way to use it? Do we have results of how it is succeeding? Should we WAIT before spending $62 Million? Review this article "As districts design and remodel school buildings, they are working on a belief that classrooms should mirror the workplaces of today and the future"

New Jersey Education Department
Districts across the nation are implementing and evaluating a variety of approaches that allow students ubiquitous access to computing resources for teaching and learning. These approaches have been referred to as anywhere, anytime learning, one-to-one computing, laptop learning, or 24/7 access. In as much as the names differ, so do the possible approaches to achieving ubiquitous computing for the range of pre-K through high school students. The purchasing, funding, and dissemination strategies differ as do the computing devices, software alternatives, and network access.

******

The traditional classroom with rows of desks, a schedule of 50-minute classes, and curriculum consisting of memorization of discrete facts no longer aligns well with this vision of the emerging learning landscape. Instead, public education needs to embrace spaces that are flexible and promote group and collaborative efforts; schedules that allow for engaged, project-based learning; and curriculum that encourages interdisciplinary and cross-curricular research and exploration.

Digitization of Classrooms

Classes will be self paced and conclude with interactive assessments that measure students’ ability to find and use online resources to answer probing questions.

Before then we, as teachers, need to remember that the best way to educate students today is not the same way that we learned when we were students.

Those Who Do Not Learn From History . .

As we contemplate this $62 Million bond for two new schools and a POOL  (closer to $80,000,000 total with interest), consider the possibility of  'overruns.'    History may offer some good experience to learn from.

Here's a bit of fiscal history for the school district:

   2008-9 budget shows $23M for high school - funding source unknown 

• High School construction costs over bond by $10-20 million Board of Education / Updated Cost of Wasatch High School “This page is currently unavailable. Last Modified on December 10, 2012” (previously listed at ca $70 million with a promised update) 

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.  Pertinent excerpts can be found here., or check out the complete 2008 Utah Legislative Audit on School Building Construction

For those new in the District AND for those with longer memories, you may want to review the old North School History (aka Wasatch Education Center, now)  Check this 1998-2004 History

For Fiscal History, it is also appropriate to look at Budgets.   Try this from 2013 
How about the Football Stadium at $3,500,000 plus?   Here's a brief budget overview of budgets from 2004 to 2013 comparing revenues to enrollment year by year.

-->

2005 vs. 2013 TOTAL revenue	79.4%
enrollment	27.8%
2005 vs. 2013 gen fund	71.5%

See the post below about property tax receipts which were over the School Budget (again.) Here's how they handled the surplus in a 'get-away' meeting on 24 Apr 2013:

Daniels Summit, recording part 1- WCSD Daniels Summit Lodge Meeting 042413 A– local school district funding 101, 32:30 min. into recording business administrator talks about total dollars for 2013 budget is $1.5 mil better than expected. 37:00 min into recording school board compares spending taxpayer’s money to doing drugs “Just say no”. 37:30 into -All total expenses. 40:00 min into- better fiscal situation than last year. 41:00 min. supt. introduction to digital conversion. Digital conversion presentation by secondary curriculum director, Paul Sweat. $1 million for next (1) year, 6th and 7th grades! following years, high school conversion.

Year-Round School Websites

The Wasatch School District apparently will not be providing any information of Year-Round Education - but merely "threatens" its use - if the $62 Million school bond fails      Here are just a few of the multitude of sites discussing Year-Round Schools, in no particular order.

WCSD Promotional Website 'Citizens for Better School' - (but buried deeply in a July 9th post.)

WCSD Social Media Manager, Melissa Campbell's July 9 report on the school board presentation by Rosemarie Smith, Provo principal with ten years of experience with year-round schools.

“The interview with Rosemarie Smith is one data point out of others that will be studied as the board seriously studies year round schools.”    Comment: That serious study apparently was postponed as soon as she finished her presentation and answering questions so the Board could get down to the more serious of getting the $62 Million bond passed. Listen to the complete hearing here.
 

“Provo School District switched half of their elementary schools over to year round schools back in the 1990s for two primary reasons (1) to improve scores and enhance learning and (2) for the cost of one school, three school buildings are saved.”

Utah Schools 2012   

Granite:     "The district began year-round schools about 20 years ago during a high growth period and it is estimated that over the years the decision saved the district $25 million in administrative costs and another $80 million in schools that weren't built, district spokesman Ben Horsley said.

But in recent years, the number of students in the district has stabilized at around 67,000 students, Horsley said. If the district had elected to build more facilities and keep the traditional schedule, students today would be attending half-empty schools."

Jordan:    "In Jordan, 19 year-round elementaries have saved the district from building 13 additional schools, spokeswoman Sandra Riesgraf said. At an average construction cost of $16 million per school, the year-round format has saved taxpayers more than $200 million."

Hanover Research costs and benefits of year round calendar systen

The California Department of Education’s Year-Round Education Program Guide, for instance, highlights some cost savings of year-round education:

• Avoided Costs: capital outlay for additional facilities; avoided extra‐site operation and staffing, including classified, certificated, and administrative personnel, furniture, supplies and
  

Comments: "Citizens" for "Better" Schools on Facebook

Regrettably, or thankfully, I don't "DO" Facebook, but some folks are promoting the $62,000,000 School (and POOL, again) Bond (good for them).  I can read it, but not comment so I will post a few responses here.
Names of posters have been removed here.  It's assumed that "Citizens for..."  is the page moderator.

Moderator:  (Re Year-Round) "It isn't a failing option as far as test scores and retention for the students. It is a very viable option. It is the parents that are moving the school districts away from the YRS option. Smaller schools are better academically and adding on only makes the number of students bigger in that building. Having smaller numbers in more schools is an academically better environment for the students. That is why the district does not want to add on and would rather build new schools. As parents we do have a choice in this and your questions are great! Thank-you!"  AND

Moderator: Just to be clear, year round school is not a long-term option because it only solves the problem of overcrowding at the elementary level (which includes TIS) but does not deal with the overcrowding at the high school or Rocky Mountain Middle School. Year round school might delay the need to bond by a few years but the school board would need to bond relatively soon for new buildings.

Response: Yes, parents DO have a choice, as do ALL taxpayers and voters.  It would have been nice if more (positive) information had been provided and discussed with the public and the viability of year-round and better utilization.  As the only presenter to the school board said - parents and teachers generally liked YRE once they learned about it and used it.  She also stated that it needs a year or two of community preparation to educate the public. For more of her comments.  

Continue Reading here.

 (This is a fairly objective report posted by the School district's (paid) Social Media Manager who monitors and reports posts for the School district.)

Commenter: We moved from year round schools which we did for 7 years- my guess is the real reason parents voted to go back could stem to the nightmare it is when you have elementary kids on year round and older kids on traditional. I loved it when all my kids were year round/ we really enjoyed traveling when the rest of the world didn't and found that even in tough terms/stretches/homework loads, you could do anything for 9 weeks knowing you'd get 3 to catch up and relax.

The STEALTH $62 Million School Bond - YOUR TAX Increase

As the annual County Tax Notices did not include the effects of the proposed $62 MILLION School Building Bond, here is an example of what you can expect for your property TAX, if the bond appears on the ballot in November and passes.  (Update:the school board DID approve the bond to be voted on THIS year - through a mail-in ballot.)

Public Meeting Notice: "on August 18,2015, the Board of Education (the “Board”) of the Wasatch County School District, Utah (the“District”), adopted a resolution (the “Resolution”)"

It is uncertain at this time whether taxes will change in 2016 or 2017. (Update: if passed, taxes WILL increase next year.) 

Approval of this $62,000,000 proposed bond:

• Will increase your school tax bond (debt) burden by over 60%, and
• Will increase your total school taxes by about 15% (for 2/3 or your total property Tax)
• AND increase your TOTAL property tax bill by about 10%

If you would like to compute YOUR new taxes go to this link to determine your own increased TAX burden.

• Enter YOUR 2015 Property Value and taxes in the GREEN boxes 
• Enter YOUR School taxes in the YELLOW boxes for 2014 & 2015 
• This blog will reflect the most recent entry.

Also please note:

• After a “truth” in taxation hearing Summer 2016 – the new building operating tax would probably begin BEFORE new buildings are finished.  
• NO expenses appear to have been budgeted yet for modification of OLD pool area (= more $$$$)
• If the bond does NOT pass, the School District has 'promised' to implement better utilization of the existing schools - at a MUCH lower cost.

An Open Letter to the Wasatch School Board

(In case you missed it the Wasatch School Board will, in all likelihood, approve a bond election for $62 Million in new school buildings, here's a recent Email to the Board recommending an alternative, some editing done, links and highlighting done)

An Open Letter to the School Board

Dear School Board Members

I took the opportunity to listen to the School Board study session (July 7, 2015) on Year Round Education, the Provo principal, Rosemarie Smith gave a great presentation!!!  She pointed out the pros and cons and clearly stated the #1 reason for YRE was "enhanced learning."

++++(More in depth report here, (regrettably you need to scroll to July 9 to find it, amongst the other mainly pro building propaganda) from Melissa Campbell, WCSD Media Manager, with comments from others)+++   "Mrs. Smith recommended that at least one year before the switch (and preferably two) the district should:
1. create a committee of principals who would be involved in the switch to lay groundwork for the massive amount of planning
2. hold cottage meetings around the community to explain how the year round schedules would work and how it would affect families with students in the schools
3. meet with teachers
4. meet with district and then school based PTA groups
5. identify community members favorable to year round schools and help them be parent leaders in implementing
6. send out newsletters"   

The only previous Board discussion on this viable alternative was apparently about 5 minutes in a work minute, wherein a board member reportedly stated 'teachers and parents are not happy with year round education.'   (which effectively ended the discussion)

Professional Educator Smith, with her ten year YRE experience emphasized the need to “educate” the public on the value, and efficacy, of YRE. This has NOT been done in Wasatch County. Without that explanation, the lack of accurate information devolves into emotion and a reluctance to accept potentially advantageous, and positive, change.

She also went to great lengths discussing the scheduling flexibility and its acceptance by both parents and teachers. She further elaborated on the virtual elimination of time to get students “back on task” after the long summer vacation, which greatly enhance retention and learning. 

Within the last few years, WSD adopted education digitization with little public discussion, at an expense of millions of taxpayer dollars. That computerized system has the capability, and possible requirement, for a new evaluation of school structures, to allow even more student learning flexibility and learning possibilities. This may, in fact, reduce the need for brick and mortar as a few, or many, students may be able to use an alternative educational method through computers.

As the wasatch.edu website states you are only “contemplating a need for a bond?,” and you are now seeking “Citizen Input on Facilities Bond,” I would strongly encourage a deeper public discussion before attempting to pass a $62 million bond. YRE could greatly extend the time in which new buildings are truly “needed.” 

 

On a companion issue, I believe your survey results may be slightly awry. The survey report states "Results were weighted by age to align with population base" Checking the vote in those demographics suggest that would create a more favorable vote. 

But no weighting was done for 16% school employees (16%, what is the actual percentage of voters, maybe 5%), or geographic (unincorporated county accounts for 31 %, but the poll response appears nearer to 10%. The town of Daniel, where a new school is proposed, received half representation in the Survey. 

 

The choice is really quite simple:

• a new $62 million bond,
• with $850K in increased taxes for operations,
• Plus a large tax increase for debt payment and interest ($3-$4 million per year?),
  
• and the status quo, OR . . . . 
• "optimizing the use of existing buildings,"
• with a tax increase of 'only' $765K, and
• the “Enhanced Learning” reported by Rosemarie Smith,
• with vastly greater scheduling flexibility!!!

Yes, Wasatch County is growing, but remember the 2008 economic turn-down. A recurrence is not beyond a possibility.   More DEBT is NOT fiscal responsibility! 
A new mail-in off year election is not the time for experimentation with such an immense decision.

WSD Computerized Education Cost

The Wasatch School District was kind enough to respond to a GRAMA request from WTPA about expenditures for 'Digital Conversion Expenses" (aka known as 'computer oriented education').  

This post is merely a report on the financial aspects, and does not intend to comment on the viability and efficacy of this new pedagogy.    Hopefully the school district will soon report how effective digitization has been in increasing educational outcome.  In the meantime try this analysis , or here, or here, pros and cons,  and here 
 A grand total for 3 years of $5.7 Million already, PLUS at least $771,773 proposed 2016-7.  That corresponds to an average expenditure of about $1,000 per student or about $21,000 per teacher over the three year period.

Devices:	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	Students	Avg cost	2016-17
Devices RMMS	$518,769			850	$610
Devices TIS	$273,158	$324		844	$324
Cases	$52,000	$61,000				??
Projectors	$42,000	$147,000	$344,000			??
Wireless upgrades	$75,000	$77,000	$79,000			??
Yearly Total	$960,927				$960,927
Devices WHS		$1,460,900		1664	$878
Yearly Total		$1,745,900			$1,745,900
Devices 3-4			$425,250	1200	$360
Teacher laptop upgrades			$177,600	270.62	$656	??
Yearly Total			$1,025,850	5710	$1,025,850
Device Repair & Upgrades						??
Digital curriculum:	2013-14	2014-15	2015-16	3 yr total	$3,732,677	2016-17
Core digital curriculum	$91,010	$257,009	$387,791	$735,810		$387,791
Supplemental digital curriculum	$45,445	$85,129	$119,854	$250,428		$119,854
Curriculum subtotal:	$136,455	$342,138	$507,645	$986,238		$507,645
Schoolnet IIS		$131,980		$131,980		$100,798
Supporting change of practice	$187,630	$262,980	$303,330	$753,940		$163,330
Planning/project management	$84,250	$97,250	$92,000	$273,500
Technical support	$10,500	$14,000	$17,500	$42,000
Negotiated savings		-$94,000	-$92,000	-$186,000
Total curriculum:	$418,835	$754,348	$828,475	$2,001,658		$771,773
	$1,379,762	$2,500,248	$1,854,325	2013-16:	$5,734,335
			per student		$1,004

NOTES: Figures have been realigned somewhat to make it easier to understand.  The top half seems to 'hardware' expenses, the bottom is curriculum costs.  Totals were added for the respective fiscal years yielding a grand total for 3 years of $5.7 Million.

• It is unclear whether the curriculum cost will continue as yearly expenditures. As most of the figures for 2015-6 are again presented for 2016-7,  we may assume a continuing annual expense.
• It is also unclear why no continuing hardware expense is shown for 2016-7 "??"
• As no enrollment figures (other than district totals were found at Wasatch.edu) the enrollment figures were found here for per student average 'cost.'  Avg cost for "Device 3-4" used half the listed total elementary enrollment.
• The teacher count was computed using the pupil per teacher ratio.

Much of this money was "found" money in property taxes which were received in excess of the original budget expectations. Some may opine that it is actually from the 50% Truth in Taxation increase of 2007, which has allowed, created, caused or precipitated much of the free spending philosophy of recent years. (Football Stadium, marble floors, sports facilities, etc.)

New School Budget and Public Hearing

Addendum 6/13  Board member responses added - My thanks for the prompt answers 

Since the passage in 2007 of a near 50% local property tax increase, the Wasatch School District has been flush with cash.

Budgets have increased FAR more than student enrollment for over ten years.  FY 2015 is no exception, with enrollment projected up by 3%, expenditures are proposed up by 5.5% over the original FY 2014 budget.

Last year (2013) WSD collected nearly 7% more than budgeted.   The solution - amend the 2014 budget to spend it.   Proposed increase almost 9%  (resulting in a $9 Million increase from FY 2013 to 2014.)

The money is still there - no tax decrease even remotely considered.  Some may remember the REQUESTED TAX CUT by the Taxpayers' Association because of excessive reserves.

There will be a Public Hearing on the budget next Tuesday.  A "complete" budget, highlighted for anomalies and inconsistencies, with percentage changes,  is available here.

Raise some questions and comments for the hearing.  In the past, very few answers are ever given to public budget queries, here are a few that might be proposed:

District officials indicate wage and benefits are 95% of the general fund and 65 % of the entire budget, a closer look raises some questions, a few random observations:

In this FY 2015 Budget, it appears all of the state retirement budget items have increased by about 24%.    Is that a requirement due to the recent study on the optimistic growth factor that had been assumed?   If so, is this a one-time correction or a continuing cost factor?  Can anything locally be done to ameliorate this extra expense?    Any time the state retirement increases, we are by state statute required to pay that increase for all eligible employees in the district.  The state used to fund that program, but hasn't funded the increase for several years.

Under the category "District Administration," the total salary has remained about the same, but retirement, Social Security and group insurance DROPPED drastically 2014 to 2014 (amended) and for 2015.    The district administrative decrease was a result in the new reporting procedures because of the new software by the Utah Public Education FInancial System.

Benefits for " Elementary PE Specialists" seem to be twice as high as other positions.  We only apply the benefits toward the Elementary PE Specialists wages, but that section also includes the wages paid for stipends. . .  .

"Group insurance" seem to be somewhat inconsistent in

Tax Receipt Bonanza

What do you call it when you receive more property tax money than requested or budgeted?

• Very good planning
  
• The joy of growth
• Magnificent management
• Inflation
• Pure luck
• More money to SPEND
  
• Time for a tax CUT
  
• Shh, don't tell anyone

In 2013, most Wasatch governmental entities collected between 5 and 12% MORE than budgeted.
WCFD, which is requesting a near 80% tax increase, received 6.61% over budgeted.

Here are the figures for the largest recipient of property taxes:

Demolition or devolution

School Demolition  (expansion of a local Letter to the Editor)

About two weeks ago the School District was seeking public comments concerning demolition of the old high school. I responded with this Email to the board (to their .edu addresses):

“As I was not able to attend your public comment period concerning the disposition of the old high school, I will offer you my 'outside the box view,' if I may.

I would strongly oppose demolishing the old High School. I maintained when the new school was proposed that it was a viable building and continue to view it as such. I have not yet seen the analysis of the financial 'benefits' of the demolition, but question whether the school district should become a developer or land manipulator.

All schools are, obviously, built with taxpayer dollars. (mainly local). I understand an attempt was made to sell the building to the County for several ($9 ?) million when it was vacated. That exchange would have simply transferred money for the taxpayers left pocket to the right pocket. A simple transfer may have been a benefit to all. It could have provided office space, theater and a rec center (for which the county subsequently spent other tax millions on).

I would strongly urge, before demolition, a sincere consideration of:

• (1) using the building as a school (I understand that is apparently not given much approval by the education establishment.)
• (2) selling, trading or donating the building to Heber City, which is currently considering a large expenditure for a public safety building. Again it is nearly the same basic taxpayers (Heber has about 60% of the county population) There is also a problem with required impact fees (which would not be a problem if Heber owned the building)
  

Demolishing the building would NOT necessarily guarantee a sale. So, if that becomes the chosen avenue, I would urge including the demolition in any sales agreement and hold out hope that the building might be used.

Thank you for your consideration of this proposal to transfer the property to Heber City. I trust it will yield a discussion with the officials involved. The transfer might also solve a problem with Heber's eventual need for larger office space AND possibly allow Wasatch County additional meeting space. WIN, WIN, WIN
In any event, we, the taxpayers, will continue to pay the bills. Let's look for ways to minimize taxes wherever levied.”

No response, of any type, was received.

Last week in the Wave, I read that Supt. Shoemaker said, “It may be time to look at the property without the existing buildings.” However, it appears that the decision had already been made and plans were well underway well before the public comment meeting!   (Note that there is already discussions with Mountain America CU as a buyer of Lot 1)

Heber City received proposals from the school district for a commercial development last month (or earlier).  Click here for the development plans  (about page 12)   C

Given that school districts are given some exceptions to zoning laws, impact fees and various regulations, a few more questions need to be answered.   

Is it appropriate for a school district to be a land developer? Are they going to be involved with “redevelopment agencies”? Is their any guarantee of a sale after the $700K demolition, and additional development costs? What will be the full cost of the redevelopment, history shows than some previous financial estimates have been more than a little bit off.

The Wave reported Mr Shoemaker saying that “many local government entities expressed interest,” but none acted. Perhaps it was the proffered price which was millions higher than the latest suggested 'value.' Board Chair Baird suggests that the “school would retain rights to types of businesses” on the property. Is the proposal really to sell, or to manage, the proposed 11 lot subdivision with offices, gas stations, restaurants and retail?  (At least no high rises dwellings were suggested.)

If this is such a potentially profitable deal, why hasn't some enterprising individual, or company, jumped on the opportunity? Or will it be easier for the school district to get approval than a normal commercial developer? Just consider how much tax money could have been saved by working WITH “local government entities,” five years ago rather than trying to extract top dollar from the left tax pocket to the right? Let's have the real discussion.
****************
Addendum:  the Heber Planning Commission gave concept approval in their 9 Jan 2014 meeting  The link contains the agenda, info packet and audio.

WSD estimates demolition cost at $700K for the old high School, Heber suggest $350K (?) for the old central school to build the proposed Public Safety building.

Wasatch Schools' GRADING

Heber City, Wasatch County:   The just released Utah School report grade indicates that Wasatch schools are, well,  . . . .  . . . average.

One news report indicates that "Eleven percent of Utah’s 855 public schools earned an A, 45 percent a B, 30 percent a C, 10 percent a D and 4 percent an F. Grades are based on a combination of student growth and student performance on criterion-referenced tests in language arts, math and science given in the spring of each year."

Another report states "School grades are calculated on a "bell curve," which means most Utah schools fall somewhere in the middle, "     This means a grade of 80% can earn a "A"  (JR Smith) and a 79% drops you to a "B"  (Old Mill).   That difference is accounted for by a grand total of FIVE points out of 600. 

The full graded report can be found here  ( the grades MAY be based on Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) 2013 data, which does not seem to be available yet)  and here for the 2012 UCAS report .    For (apparently) the legislators' view of grading click here.  (Provides a spreadsheet download for ALL schools)

As "curve" grading is often seen as unfair (an A for 80% and a  C for 60% ??? )  and analyses based on more data generally provide more accurate results, this table gives an overview of both sets of data, with an Adjusted Grade (Adj) based on both ratings:

	Points	Percent	Grade	UCAS	Avg	Adj
HVE	368/600	61%	C	56%	59%	D
Midway	378/600	63%	C	65%	64%	D+
JR Smith	480/600	80%	A	86%	83%	B
Old Mill	475/600	79%	B	92%	86%	B+
Timp Inter	418/600	70%	B	69%	70%	C
Rocky Mtn Middle	446/600	74%	B	87%	81%	B
Wasatch High	508/750	68%	C	66%	67%	C-

It appears an $80 million High School may not have attained its suggested academic results, but, that may be OK to many because the primary purpose (sports) seems to be thriving.

As everyone likes to compare to "neighbors," here are some neighborly ratings:

Park City High	594/750	79%	B	86%	83%	B
No Summit High	556/750	74%	B	77%	76%	B-
So Summit High	485/750	65%	C	67%	66%	C-
Duchesne High	581/750	77%	B	88%	83%	B
Union High	431/750	57%	D	81%	69%	C-
No Summit Elem	414/600	69%	C	79%	74%	C+
So Summit Elem	439/600	73%	B	71%	72%	C
Duchesne Elem	383/600	64%	C	67%	66%	C-
Jeremy Ranch Elem	475/600	79%	B	78%	79%	B-

The idea of ratings on GROWTH and PROFICIENCY seems to be be valid - time will tell if it provides valuable information for system USERS.