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."

School Budget - Fund Balance Rules

Utah Law and USOE regulation provide limits  and policies on the use of "Fund Balances" in School Budgets.   While it appears that Wasatch School District has excessive unallocated funds, it is entirely possible that the district has complied with the strict legal requirements; however, the excellent procedures of ANNUAL budgets, with certain specific and limited "fund balances," should be  applied and used and the current excess funds should be returned to the Wasatch taxpayers through an immediate property tax cut.

In the Annual audit that is done on the School District, the Independent Auditors basically report that the numbers add up correctly and proper procedures are followed.   No opinion is rendered as to how, or where, the money is spent or the prudence of the actions, merely the that the numbers balance properly.

That audit report is followed by the Wasatch District “Management's Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited).” This contains items apparently deemed of importance to management - Spending overviews, assets, balances, construction, etc. - items such as this:

Salary expenses increased 3.2% during fiscal year 2011, which is in line with the enrollment growth during the year. Employee benefits costs, however, increased 10.5% during the same time period. This increase included a substantial adjustment to the amount the District contributes to the Utah Retirement System for its employees, as well as a slight increase in the cost of health insurance. Benefits costs totaled 49.4% of salaries expenses for fiscal year 2011, as compared to 46.2% for fiscal year 2010.

An explanation then follows about financial statements: “The District's basic financial statements comprise three components: 1) government-wide financial statements, 2) fund financial statements, and 3) notes to the financial statements. “

Contained in this explanation is this:
"Governmental funds – The focus of the District's governmental funds is to provide information on how money flows into and out of the funds and to show balances left at year-end available for spending. Under Utah law, it is illegal to budget for an undesignated fund balance. This is in alignment with the concept that the revenues provided to a District are intended to be used during the period for which they were generated. That is to say that at the beginning of a fiscal year, undesignated fund balance is budgeted to be $0. If over the course of the year, the difference between budgeted and actual revenues and expenditures leaves an unspent balance, that unspent balance must be budgeted to be used in normal operations during the next fiscal year so as to prevent a District from accumulating excess funds.”

This seems to be good budgeting philosophy: determine the amount of money you will need and the amount of taxpayers' money you will receive, allocate that money where it is needed, and if some of the money is NOT spent it can be moved to the NEXT (one) year – AND it would appear that the next year's revenue request should be REDUCED, if not needed. Then after determining the money NECESSARY to provide the funding needed, set a tax rate to provide that amount of revenue – limited, of course, by the “certified tax rate” maximum. The recent, and current philosophy, seems more attuned to: 1 - Determine how much the “certified tax rate” will bring. 2 – Spend it.

The Wasatch School District's explanation in the audit continues:

“Fund balances may (and in some cases must) be reserved or designated and carried over to the next year for specific purposes. As those specific purposes are part of next year's budget and are identified as specific reservations and/or designations of fund balances, they are not available for appropriation. Fund balances for the capital projects and other governmental funds are restricted by State law to be spent for the purpose of the fund and are not available for spending at the District's discretion.Utah law allows for an undistributed reserve fund balance not to exceed 5% of the general fund budget.

Total fund balances in the governmental funds were $13,458,556 as of June 30, 2011, and $14,161,089 as of June 30, 2010."

Regrettably it is unclear of the meaning of “governmental funds,” “general fund budget,” but if the aforementioned “governmental funds” balance of about $14 million IS the subject of the 5% limit then the budget must have been $280 million, (over fives times actual) or the funds should have a limit of nearer $2 million - or this explanation is simply lacking in clarity, or meant to confuse.

The actual Utah Code reads in part “53A-19-103.   Undistributed reserve in school board budget.
     (1) A local school board may adopt a budget with an undistributed reserve. The reserve may not exceed 5% of the maintenance and operation budget adopted by the board in accordance with a scale developed by the State Board of Education. The scale is based on the size of the school district's budget.

A power point USOE presentation teaches this:

"Unassigned Fund Balance

◦ Will only occur in the General Fund

◦ Formerly called Unreserved – Undesignated Fund Balance"

Further,

LEGAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT GUIDE Reference: GC-18

School Districts:

There is no limitation on school district fund balances except for amounts designated to meet unexpected and unspecified contingencies. Such “undistributed reserves” may not exceed 5% of the maintenance and operations budget. (53A-19-103(1))

These procedures ARE fairly complex, arcane and often difficult to comprehend, especially for the average taxpayer.   The Wasatch School Audit also contains this statement:

“This financial report is designed to provide our citizens, taxpayers, students and all other interested parties with a general overview of the District's finances and to show accountability for tax dollars. If you have questions about this report or need additional financial information, contact the Treasurer and Business Administrator, Wasatch School District, 101 East 200 North, Heber City, UT 84032. “

At the risk of being called 'negative,' through analyzing this, and previous, budgets, attempting discover information over the years, the 2007 so-called Truth in Taxation hearing, unwieldy requirements for GRAMA requests, unclear Board agendas, legislative audits and a general lack of communications concerning financial matters indicate to me that the Wasatch School District is not truly providing "citizens, taxpayers, students and all other interested parties with a general overview of the District's finances and to show accountability for tax dollars."

Robert Wren, Wasatch Taxpayer

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 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

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.

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.

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

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.

School Budget - Hearing

Are the "School Laws of the State of Utah, 1967" still in effect? (Or only for Wasatch County School District)  Surely there are more current laws requiring a meeting - but this is still your chance to be heard!!       

PUBLIC NOTICE

July 9, 2012
BUDGET HEARING AND ADOPTION NOTICE
In accordance with Articles 15 through 17, Section 4‐15‐6 through 4‐17‐3, School Laws of the State of Utah, 1967, a public hearing will be held on the 2012‐13 Appropriations and Expenditures Budget for Wasatch County School District at the Wasatch Education Center, 101 East 200 North, Heber City, Utah, at 6:30 p.m. on July 19, 2012. A copy of said budget has been placed on file with the Business Administrator of the Board of
Education as well as the district website for public inspection. Pursuant to Article 15, Section 4‐15‐8 of the above code, the Appropriations and Expenditures Budget for the 2012‐13 school year will be adopted at 6:30 p.m. on July 19, 2012 at the Wasatch Education Center, 101 East 200 North, Heber City, Utah.
KEITH JOHANSEN
Business Administrator
Wasatch County School District
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations during
this meeting should notify the Superintendents office at 435‐654‐0280 at least one day prior to the meeting.
Published in The Wasatch Wave June 11 and 18, 2012.

Brief Overview of School Finance History

A brief outline overview of WSD financial history, (those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.)

2007 49.33% tax increase through “Truth in Taxation” More here

• Presentation mainly about mil rates – NOT dollars 
• Board declared need because of a 3.5% salary increase (actually that was done by state)
• This massive increase resulted in massive spending increases above student growth ever since

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)

Utah code specifies no transfers betweenfunds without state school board permission

• 2011 $3 million football stadium built without any approval found in minutes - funding source unknown

USOE rules state the no 'unassigned' funds can be kept in funds other than “General” Other fund balances must be allocated.

Wasatch School SAO Audits specifically refersto 5% limit – then lists all (unassigned ?) balances

The improperly noticed WSD Jul 2012 budget hearing had No budget available for hearing 

•  received 'expanded' budget copy after repeated requests
• Found excessive Gen Fund reserve balance ca. $5 million
• With that expanded info, more data found in SAO audit submissions

WTPA requested return of excess funds at 2^nd budget heating (Aug)

• WSD Business Administrator produced extra budget page showing 'unassigned' and 'undistributed'  anddeclared ONLY 'undistributed' was limited to 5%
• WSD Business Administrator said it was OK because at least 3 other districts had larger % balances
• Board members declared the 'Rainy Day' fund was needed for unseen expenses

White Paper issued by WTPA on 5% issue

• WSD response 
• WTPA asked for time at next meeting to discuss the issue – refused!

SAO audit (2012) submission now shows 5% 'undistributed

School board policies should be altered to reflect a policy of fiscal responsibility, conservatism and respect for taxpayers, in addition to declared goal of educating students.

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.

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)

School Budget - Retirement

The FY 2013 Wasatch County School Budget is having a (second) Public Hearing on Thursday, July 19
How has your retirement done in the last couple years?    
To help you better understand the $53,059,689 School budget, here's an analysis of just one item Retirement:


The "Education" group has, at least, had the amount  on their behalf INCREASED!

It's unknown if that reflects mandated costs or increased benefits,
but it does cause INCREASED cost to the taxpayers!  nearly $1 Million over two years and $650,000 2012 to 2013.

Retirement		FY 2011	FY 2012		FY 2013	2011 -13	2012 - 13
210 Instruction		2,612,933	2,847,637		3,315,826	26.9%	16.4%
210 Support Services – Students	Retirement	85,548	108,779		170,241	99.0%	56.5%
210 Support Services – Media Personnel	Retirement	62,092	58,258		70,643	13.8%	21.3%
210 Support Services – Dist Admin	Retirement	83,445	125,792		137,496	64.8%	9.3%
210 Support Services – School Admin	Retirement	230,808	251,293		330,929	43.4%	31.7%
210 Support Services – Central	Retirement	99,443	107,487		130,675	31.4%	21.6%
Total		$3,174,269	$3,499,246		$4,155,810	30.9%	18.8%

All from the General Fund
  (It appears the Media Personnel (librarians) are being relatively short-changed as their salaries also decreased.)

'Inappropriate" Bond Promotion

Has anyone in the school district ever used 'deceptive' (or illegal) tactics before?

2006 'First' school bond for $46 M high school  (aka, give us the money, trust us)  School children were used to bring home flyers to encourage a YES vote

2006 In a private Survey to ascertain public opinion on the school bond:
"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."

Where did nearly all the respondent comments originate?  The  "Utah Educator Network IP" 
Read more here

2007:  TnT for 50% TAX Increase   "We're raising teacher salaries."  No, the Legislature did that.
"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."
 
2008:  In the campaign for the second try for a High School  ($59.5M, this time).  A local radio program was promoting the "fiscally responsible" - "let's be serious" concept.   Being offended by the opposition, two gentlemen from the School District arrived shortly after nearly ever program with a pre-recorded program promoting the virtues of new edifice.  (apparently prepared in the school, during school time and by school employees - who often arrived in a school driver ed vehicle.   (aka expending tax money to promote a bond election)

There's more,  (did we ever report being called to the 'Principal's (aka supt) office) . . . . . .  but, we just had another election;  maybe the 'tricks' will be reported, but it might sound like sour grapes for a loss.  (robo-calls to selected individuals, push survey, interesting donors, activities)   

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.

Excess Wasatch County School Fund Reserves

Possibly influenced by the Wasatch TaxPayers Association White Paper, Wasatch County School District has modified their 5% General Fund Reserve for the Fiscal 2012 Audit.

In 2012 the General Fund reserve was 13% "Unassigned" and 2.5% "Undistributed"

In 2013 it was 7% "Unassigned" and 5% "Undistributed" (actually 4.99% approx $1,652 less than the 'maximum')
 
    The terms "Unreserved" and "undesignated" are also used for these amounts.  It is not clear if unassigned is the same as unreserved or undesignated.  Perhaps unreserved is the same as undistributed . . . or undone, unspent, unrealistic, maybe unknown and most likely uneducational.

They also added two extra categories to the general fund balances for "Employee Obligations" $537,725 and "Contracts & Encumbrances" $392,133

School

Gen Fund Rev

Unassigned

Undist

2013

Wasatch

$35,103,305

$2,424,755

6.9%

$1,750,000

4.99%

2012

Wasatch

$34,852,145

$4,396,968

12.6%

$881,256

2.53%

I continue to maintain there is NO difference between "Unassigned,"  "Undistributed," "Unreserved" and "Undesignated"  - A distinction without a difference, as eitherany can apparently used for anything (Rainy Day Funds).      (Notice below the increase in expenditures and the decrease in the fund balance.)


The excess above 5% should be returned to the taxpayers, through a property tax reduction this year.


The 2012 Report states:
 "Utah law allows for an undistributed reserve fund balance not to exceed 5% of the general fund budget.
 Total fund balances in the governmental funds were $13,277,221 as of June 30, 2012, and $13,458,558 as of June 30, 2011".

General fund – The general fund is the primary operating fund of the District. Unreserved and undesignated fund balance in the general fund was $5,109,813 as of June 30, 2012, compared to $5,669,846 as of June 30, 2011. The only nonspendable amount in the general fund was for an inventory advance of $5,200 as of June 30, 2012 and 2011 relating to the District’s participation in Northeastern Utah Educational Services which acts as a buying cooperative for nine school districts."

"The Board of Education revised the 2011-2012 budget during the year. Budget amendments reflected changes in programs and related funding. The difference between the original budget and the final amended budget increased the total amount of budgeted expenditures by $419,866. The fund balance decreased by $560,031 from $5,669,844 at June 30, 2011, to $5,109,813 at June 20, 2012."

School Budget - History

 Everyone knows that Wasatch County has had an increasing population in recent years.   They also know that the country has been in an economic downturn recently.

While the economic growth shows, that economic reality is not reflected when comparing student and expenditures.    Over five years or so, expenditures outgrew student increases two or three to one:

(Abbreviated spreadsheet summary budget from 2004 to 2013 can be found here)

(Click here for more history on the school budget)

2005 vs.2013 TOTAL		+ 79.4%		2007 vs.2012 TOTAL		36.7%		2008vs.2013 TOTAL			18.3%
enrollment		27.8%		enrollment		17.9%		enrollment			15.9%
2005 vs.2013 gen fund		+ 71.5%		2007 vs.2012 gen fund		55.8%		2008vs.2013 gen fund			22.7%