School Enrollment Projection by Grade

Addendum: Census figures indicate growth may slow in future due to decreasing percentage increase for 0 to 5 age group:
 

	Total	%	number	avg
2014	27,714	7.9%	2,189	438	0 to 5
2010	23,530	9.9%	2,329	466	0 to 5
2014	27,714	32.9%	9,118	507	0 to 18
2010	23,530	33.9%	7,977	443	0 to 18
2014	27,714	25.0%	6,929	533	6 to 18
2010	23,530	24.0%	5,647	434	6 to 18

Notice the actual number for the youngest age group, as well as the % of population, DECREASED from 2010 to 2014 .  These may have been reflected in the kindergarten enrollment last year of 420.  These relatively lower figures flow through the education years.  (note also grade 7 at 422, as another anomaly.)

****Click here for an School Enrollment Calculator***, to allow YOU to predict the growth and incoming Kindergarten enrollment, based on entered 2104 enrollment figures. (and these figures will also change)

Projection of growth are NOT simply 'if we have had a 3% growth in the past, it will continue at 3%' It, obviously, varies year to year and grade to grade. Certainly, the school district has a more sophisticated system, than simply the graph presented, which is not a straight 3%.  

But a table is far more illustrative.  Notice the enrollment figures for last year (base), while the average grade enrollment may be 460, or so, the range goes from low 420's in 1^st and 7th grade to 498 in tenth.  
Even with assuming a 3% (or any number you'd like to put in the calculator) the annual increase varies from 4.7% to to 0% over various years – depending on the individual grade size as it flows through the years.

We can guess (or forecast) the incoming Kindergarten, but, generally the grade enrollment flows through the years.   BUT, as usual, please remember that Efficient Utilization of schools is a far better, quicker and SAVES a great deal of Taxpayers Money (Fiscal Responsibility)

-->

Growth Rate		3.0%	Enter YOUR guess
	You can also modify the Kindergarten enrollment, if you have a crystal ball
		Any changes made will remain, until the next change
Grade	base	next yr.	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	Year 6	Year 7	Year 8	Year 9	Year 10
K	450	450	400	475	470	450	480	485	500	485	485
1	421	434	464	412	489	484	464	494	500	515	500
2	474	488	447	477	424	504	499	477	509	515	530
3	495	510	503	460	492	437	519	514	492	525	530
4	436	449	525	518	474	506	450	535	529	506	540
Elem	2,276	2,331	2,338	2,342	2,349	2,382	2,411	2,505	2,529	2,546	2,585
		2.4%	0.3%	0.2%	0.3%	1.4%	1.3%	3.9%	1.0%	0.6%	1.6%
5	477	491	463	541	533	488	522	464	551	545	522
6	495	510	506	476	557	549	503	537	478	567	561
Mid	972	1,001	969	1,017	1,091	1,038	1,024	1,001	1,028	1,112	1,083
		3.0%	-3.3%	5.0%	7.2%	-4.9%	-1.3%	-2.3%	2.7%	8.1%	-2.6%
7	422	435	525	521	491	574	566	518	553	492	584
8	495	510	448	541	537	505	591	583	533	570	507
Int	917	945	973	1,062	1,028	1,079	1,157	1,101	1,087	1,062	1,091
		3.0%	3.0%	9.2%	-3.3%	5.0%	7.2%	-4.9%	-1.3%	-2.3%	2.7%
9	461	475	525	461	557	553	521	609	600	549	587
10	498	513	489	541	475	574	570	536	627	618	566
11	439	452	528	504	557	489	591	587	552	646	637
12	464	478	466	544	519	574	504	609	604	569	665
High	1,862	1,918	2,008	2,050	2,108	2,190	2,185	2,340	2,384	2,383	2,455
		3.0%	4.7%	2.1%	2.8%	3.9%	-0.2%	7.1%	1.9%	-0.1%	3.1%
	6,027	6,194	6,288	6,472	6,575	6,688	6,778	6,947	7,029	7,102	7,214
		2.8%	1.5%	2.9%	1.6%	1.7%	1.3%	2.5%	1.2%	1.0%	1.6%
Line 2 is the estimated growth Rate for the entire period
Line 6 is the estimated size of incoming Kindergarten class
Col B is the enrollment from the previous year, moved up one grade
Col D – L automatically moves each grade enrollment up one year.
Projections are automatically calculated from the previous year, adjusted for the growth rate

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

New Election LAW concerning Influencing Bond Elections

Some new (actually the same as before with minor correction) election law in effect this year, prohibits a public entity from spending public money to influence a bond election.  

This IS NEW law:  It prohibits the USE of a public entity's Email, (for example an @schooldistrict.edu email address)  to influence a bond election. - and has a $250 civil penalty attached.

If, perchance, you receive any emails, using a wasatch.edu email address,  "to advocate for or against a ballot proposition."   (aka, Vote FOR, or AGAINST, the School building bond), THAT could be a violation of Utah Code 20A-11-1205.
Anyone who has seen, or received, any such email might consider reminding the sender of the law or forward the suspect email to the County Clerk for action, referencing, Utah Code 20A-11-1205. 

Effective 5/12/2015
20A-11-1203. Public entity prohibited from expending public funds on certain electoral matters.

(1)	Unless specifically required by law, and except as provided in Section 20A-11-1206, a public entity may not make an expenditure from public funds for political purposes or to influence a ballot proposition.

Effective 5/12/2015
20A-11-1204. Criminal penalty.
Each public official who violates Section 20A-11-1203 is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

Effective 5/12/2015
20A-11-1205. Use of public email for a political purpose.

(1)	Except as provided in Subsection (5), a person may not send an email using the email of a public entity, for a political purpose or to advocate for or against a ballot proposition.

(2)	The applicable election officer shall impose a civil fine against a person who violates Subsection (1) as follows:

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.

Overtaxation OR 'Community' reserves?

Once again in 2015, the School District collected an extra $1.6 million over budget.   2014, 2013
Don't worry, it will all be (or has been) spent.  (School is emphasized here as the largest tax recipient, and they want to bond for more.)
(For older school budget analyses, click here)

And all of the other property tax recipients also receive windfalls. For example:
County $502K, 5.98%;       Heber $35K, 3.2%;    Midway $17K, 2.5%;       Fire $77K, 5.5%
         Would any entity consider reducing taxes one year because of this continuing overtaxation?

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.

HL&P Commercial Rates

While HL&P raised residential rates across the board by 6% (including the monthly base charge), the commercial rates are presented as a 6% in each "class."
However, the monthly bills show a large variety of results.  The Cost of Study analysis reports small commercial (about 1,000 accounts) example changes of -26% to -7% (Lower rates).  For medium (120), increases of 7 to 12%; and Large Commercial (21) all at 7%, or so.   They failed to seriously consider suggestions from the public to correct the inequities.

However here are a few examples of specific accounts provided by HL&P.  NO large Commercial examples were provided (to protect the identity of the 21 users)

					OLD RATES					NEW RATES
	Monthly Usage kWH	Average demand kW	Peak demand kW	Monthly Base Charge	Energy - first 500 kWh	Energy -next 500 kWh	Energy - all addditional kWh	Total	Base Charge	Energy - first 10,000 kWh	Energy - all add'l kWh	Demand Charge per kW	Total	% change vs. current rate
med	840	1.17	64	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$(12.78)	$120.57	$15.20	$50.74		$640.00	$705.94	486%
med	960	1.33	49	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$(3.20)	$130.15	$15.20	$57.98		$490.00	$563.18	333%
small	454	0.63	1.15	$6.50	$74.60	$(4.81)	$(43.63)	$32.66	$8.00	$35.41		$10.24	$53.65	64%
small	433	0.60	4.62	$6.50	$74.60	$(7.00)	$(45.30)	$28.80	$8.00	$33.77		$41.12	$82.89	188%
small	1,120	1.56	3	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$9.59	$142.94	$8.00	$78.00	$5.52	$26.70	$118.22	-17%
small	974	1.35	4.95	$6.50	$74.60	$49.53	$(2.08)	$128.55	$8.00	$75.97		$44.06	$128.03	0%
small	1,260	1.75	3.96	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$20.77	$154.12	$8.00	$78.00	$11.96	$35.24	$133.20	-14%
small	2,923	4.06	2.27	$6.50	$74.60	$52.25	$153.65	$287.00	$8.00	$78.00	$88.46	$20.20	$194.66	-32%

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.

Heber Light Proposed Rate Increase

Update: The rate increase WAS approved at a postponed  August meeting on 2 Sept.  As a result of some data supplied it appears some commercial users may get increases of up to 400%, while others may get a reduction.  All residential users will get a 6% increase.   The rate increase will occur in  the next billing cycle.

A word to the wise, it may be very appropriate to carefully check your bills.  One user recently found his residential account had been billed in error for several YEARS
*************        *******************
Heber Power Board Members and Heber City Council

As this epistle is too detailed for presentation at the Public Hearing, I'm sending it to the decision makers (Board) in the hope that you will take it under consideration in your decision on the rate increase.

My two major concerns are raising residential rates and the possible reduction in larger commercial, that may not be offset by necessary Peak Power purchases. A minor concern is also the lack of time based rates and its affect on peak power.

At last year's Rate Increase hearing, Mr Pender talked about the concept of “Cost of Causation.” “means that those who cause the utility to incur its costs should be responsible for payment of such costs.” pg 4, COS Study

The imposition, or continuation, of a service charge further hurts those least able to pay bills – the low residential user. But that IS being addressed somewhat, relatively, with the new proposed rates.Removing it or reducing it, with a per kwhr adjustment, might be a better alternative to an increase.

The Board decision to increase impact fees from 40% to 60% was a step in the right direction, in my opinion. I believe last year 75% was recommended.

That does mean, however, that 40% (rather than 60%) of the 'caused' cost burden must be still be borne by the remaining current ratepayers. While this was a good decision, it appears that this proposed rate increase may further the inequitable burden on the residential ratepayer, rather than those who have benefited from the past lower impact fees.

Last year's rate increase presentation used 'examples' showing a standard 4.5% for all users. A closer look showed that not to be true. Smaller commercial faced a larger relative burden that larger commercial. That appears to have been corrected in this year's proposal. All small commercial seems to be getting a rate REDUCTION. This is probably a positive step, for the existing 1185 small businesses, who may have been beneficiaries of the lower impact fees of the past.

It appears that an original 4.5% residential increase has been increased to 6% for all nearly 10,000 users. This does seem strange to me as one of the avowed reasons for municipal (user owned) utilities is lower rates for the 'owners' (municipalities and their residents and taxpayers). The supposed advantage of lower impact fees was encouragement for