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 . . . .

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.

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

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. 

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.

School Budget - Board Pay

Members of the Wasatch County School Board, find their pay on the high end of comparable sized schools according to Utahsright.com.    From the Wasatch School Budget, the only reference for FY 2011 to 2013 appears to be:

Salaries - District Board and Administration

158,374

157,339

137,500

As the total for five members would be $86,440, and the Superintendent is well over $100K, the remaining amounts must be elsewhere.  Perhaps some of their pay is in Non-Taxable benefits (health insurance??)

School District	Students	Board Member Salary	per student
Park City	4400	$18,385	$4.18
Wasatch	5253	$17,228	$3.28
Iron	8508	$15,982	$1.88
Sevier	4546	$8,515	$1.87
So. Sanpete	3124	$3,000	$0.96
Carbon	3423	$3,000	$0.88
Logan	6120	$4,392	$0.72
Duchesne	4574	$3,230	$0.71
Murray	6417	$3,900	$0.61
Uintah	6993	$3,230	$0.46

Wasatch FERPA and Common Core

The School Board approved a 30 day comment period on the FERPA changes approved in April, without any review or public comment period.   As this reconsideration was done last week, the comment period ends about 15 June.    Residents may want to weigh in on the subject of releasing private student information.  From the School website:   "For comments on policies contact Vicci Gappmayer here.  Last Modified on Friday at 3:36 PM"     (For comparison the Kitchen Use Policy is also up for review; one might ask which is more important, but we won't.)  
 
An Open Letter to the Wasatch School Board  (sent via , and sent to as LTE to the Wave)

It is my understanding that Wasatch Schools are in the process of reviewing the modifications made to the local FERPA policy.    (Anyone of you is invited to join on the Impact program to provide the answers to these question and discuss the issue. It has been a item of discussion already and, thus far, no one has heeded the request to represent the school.)

1    I also understand that some people are saying it is necessary to make the changes because it is required by law.  If so, could you please provide a reference to that law?  Who gave the information to the school board?

2    If it is NOT required, what is the reason for the change?

3    While the DoE implementation of the Federal FERPA law was changed last year to allow (not require) more dissemination of personal student information, why is it beneficial to the student or parent?

4    If the information is to "prove" the value, or measure the success, of some 2020 goal (see below), how does that justify releasing private information to a database?

5    Do Wasatch County students really need or, benefit from, having K-12 information in some computer database that may only be as secure as the Utah medical records that were breached recently?

6    If it wasn't allowed before the change of rules by DoE; did, or does, the federal FERPA law allow it now?  Have your attorneys checked that?

7    I would also suggest that #8 "To certain designated government or educational authorities;"  is rather vague.   Designated by whom, designated where and for what purpose?

From the DoE for the proposed NPRM to allow release of more personal student info.

Concerning testing, FERPA and private student info dissemination, the DoE modified their regulations governing privacy.

"As States develop their longitudinal data systems, the Department has been informed of significant confusion in the education field surrounding what are permissible disclosures of personally identifiable student information from education records. . . "

"the NPRM proposes requiring a State or local educational authority or an agency headed by an official listed in 99.31(a)(3) to use a written agreement that designates any authorized representative to whom it will redisclose personally identifiable information from education records without consent."

Why is this change needed - according to the proposal? 

"High quality data and robust data systems will help us measure our progress towards President Obama's goal for us to be first in the world in college completion by the year 2020 and better meet the needs of parents, teachers, and students."


Apparently to prove this new program, whether federal or by a consortia, we need to allow the release and collection of MORE private information to "better meet the needs of " the education establishment, federal government and for propaganda and justification.

For more on the NEW Common Core see What is Common Core?  and Utahns against Common Core

School Budget Questions

Here are a few questions on the 2009/10 School budget, which were recently sent to the Board of Education for the Public Hearing on 25 June. (A prompt response has been received from Board Chair, Ann Horner (see below) Thank you, Ann.

• Why are teacher and education salaries decreasing and maintenance increasing? "maintenance went up because of additional staff required for thelarger High School." Are we perhaps spending too much on buildings, cosmetics and frills rather than what is needed - in the classrooms?
• pg 7 Fund 10 line 2600-180 General Fund Operation and Maintenance Salary increased by $80K "additional personnel to maintain the old high school"
• pg 19 Fund 32 line 2600-100 Capital Projects Operation and Maintenance Salary increase of $90K "staffing adjustments made to offset the 1.5 million dollar cut from legislature"
• pg 5 Fund 10 line 1000-100 total General fund Instruction - salary decrease $600K "staffing adjustments made to offset the 1.5 million dollar cut fromlegislatured."***(1000-161 Aides -$130K) "we would love to hire all of the aides back but in lean years we aremaking adjustments to live within the budget." *** 2100-142 General fund Guidance Personnel decrease $70K "We have taken the Utah Behavior Initiative person back as we aretrained and the program can be run without 1/2 time person. We have beenable to take 1/2 time counselor from the 5th 6th school with theconfiguration because of elementary status we don't fund as muchcounselor time to do scheduling an other responsibilities that a 7thgrade would need. If the services are not required we don't have to fundthe personnel."
• pg 6 Fund 10 line 2300-115 Supervisors directors decrease $100K "We are not replacing Vickie Todd as a Director at this time. We are looking for other Directors and Superintendent to assume theresponsibilities of this position. We feel in these economic times we are all being asked to do a little more. We also reassigned a specialist from the district office to the classroom. We reassigned her work to another specialist in the district."
• pg 6 line 2400 152 Principals increase $63K

What are "Media Personnel - certificated" at nearly $300K in annual salary (for several years)? "The Media Personnel Certificated is the Librarians in the schools, they have their Media Certification. We pay them at that level not at an aide salary. With the Certification they can be counted as time with aneducator and the teachers in the Elementary schools gain additional preptime without having to loose instructional time with the students.(approx 30 minutes a week.) So that figure is their salaries."

• Why have general fund revenues increased by 50+% Total revenues by 65+% while enrollment is up only 10%?
• Why/how did 2008 budget increase by $4million from original to actual? Was it the increase in taxes from higher assessments?? "I believe you are right that the increase in the 2008 budget was fromthe assesments being higher than what we had anticipated."
• Is the Wasatch school philosophy to spend ALL monies received whether "needed" (in the budget) or not? "We are not in the business of trying to keep spending more. We did not go to truth intaxation to raise more money last year nor this year. We have in fact been putting additional money that we did not budget into the fund balance. We are trying to cut ongoing cost and personnel as we are receiving decreases from legislative funding. We are planning on holding our cost down and using the fund balance to maintain programs and the educational integrity of the district in these difficult times."
• What was the cost of trading the old Junior High and the Rocky Mountain school grades? Where is it found in the budget?

Are "building" funds (pg 20 line 720) of $66.8 million the cost of the New High School? "We have released the numbers on the high school and they are on the website, (possibly here?) the figure we have put out does include the land, architects,Layton and all fees associated with the high school."

• This number is consistent with previous reports for the $59.5 bonded school
• Will the $3.7 M in 2009/10 budget bring the cost to $70.5M?
• Are land cost, furnishings, equipment, etc. entirely included within these figures?

Supt. Shoemaker reported that $2.8 M of "interest on bond proceeds" were used in payment of High School construction:

• The budget (2008, 2009) shows $2.1 in interest on Capital Projects funds and $1.1M interest in General Fund
• Was general fund interest used for construction?

Wasn't there a roughly equivalent amount of interest accrued (but not paid?) "I know we have not changed the schedule of the bond or the payments in any way." on that bond? If so, haven't we merely created more debt and postponed payments to future years and spent MORE money than what the project was sold to the voters?

"I do appreciate thoughtful questions and hope that they will make me a betterboard member. I will look into your questions and try to answer any thatI have not at this time. "

"As I have sat in the meetings it is clear to me that we need to be sensitive and conservative in what we take from the public. I have tried to be frugal and to spend thetaxpayers money responsibly."

Truth in Education (Construction) Costs

It appears that the School District has opted not to release ALL of the teacher's aides, finding money to keep perhaps two thirds of them. It was nice to read on the School website that several of these proposed suggestions were adopted.

Earlier, funding had been "found" to build the third high school gym, and finish adding bricks and mortar. An analysis of recent school budget leads to the conclusion this should have come as no surprise. In the last five years, 2005 - 2009 Wasatch school district has had a 10% increase in enrollment BUT a 65% increase in revenues/expenditures. Click here for a Summary Report (http://sn.im/wasbud) and here for the Source. Total revenue to the district in 2009 - about $47 Million or $9,760 per student. 2005: $28 million for 4,303 students (you can divide for per student)

Several questions were asked of school representatives in a recent radio interview, click here and here to listen (two parts). In particular, one question was asked about the source of the funds for the third gym et al (sports/frills - as opposed to teachers/education). While an answer was not given in the interview, subsequently it was reported that the interest "earned" from placing construction bond funds in the bank had to be spent on construction rather than operations according to state law.

According to a phone call with the Utah State of Education, finance department that was close but not totally correct, BUT it is a Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (the website name sounds somewhat like 'gasbag'). Rather than a law, it seems to be customary practice in Utah to build 'more' school for the bond money than the advertised funds requested. This practice, of course, merely increases the costs by forcing the interest to be PAID to the end of the bond payments. It may seem strange to some, but banks generally do not provide money through a loan without paying interest from the day of receipt of funds. This procedure is reminiscent of the buy now, pay later philosophy that was so prevalent in leading up to our current national economic crisis. . . (and regrettably continues)

This little procedural interpretation allows bonds to be proposed to the taxpayers for a certain amount with the full knowledge that the costs will be substantially higher - Does this like a bit of subterfuge, bait and switch, or just a little distortion of the truth for sales purposes?

So the answer to the source of the funds appears to be simply that the money was already there, the Board was just required to give the approval for its expenditure. A second source for the money may have been the excess taxation that was received through increased assessments prior to the correction of the tax rates. In either case the Truth in taxation hearings were vastly deficient.

Several other questions remain unanswered, but the overriding answer to most seems to be "we have the money and we will spend it, building bigger and 'better' to satisfy our edifice complex" and the taxpayers are available later for increase to cover operation costs with a truth in taxation hearing.

Oh, on the subject of the NEED for a third gym. Consider this: with only TWO gyms, (at least 4 teaching stations) 1 Wrestling room, Batting room, Cheer/Dance room, Racketball (sic) Court, Student Weight room, 2 sports (?) classroom - for a total of at least 11 sport 'teaching' stations - at merely 6 periods periods per day and 20 students per class; there would apparently be enough space to have 1320 students in some sort of physical education class every single school day. Wasatch High will have the most physically fit graduates in the state!

But, planned enrollment is only 1200, AND PE is only required for 3 semesters (not eight) during four years of high school and probably does not meet daily. It certainly appears that TWO gyms would have been MORE than sufficient.

Bricks OR Aides?

A recent report stated that the School District "is currently in excellent shape financially," and that the shortfall this year was covered "without individuals losing their jobs."

Perhaps it needs to be asked why 2/3's of the teacher's aides need to be fired for next year. It would seem that these employees are probably more important, and helpful to EDUCATION than, for example, a third gym.

A few suggestions, in no particular order, on how to save these positions (listed at $671,098 in the original 2009 budget, page 5 item 161):

• The School District finally posted employee salaries on utahsright.com; the author of the District's press releases to the Wave is listed as the highest paid teacher in the District. He is also the official PR person for the District. Assuming that his extra $9,623 pay may be for his PR work, eliminating that job would save 1.5 aides.
• In an earlier report the PR said that "The total cost for the reconfiguration (Grade realignment in schools) of the district will come to about $1 million," including high school upgrades. A later report stated "We authorized an additional $750,000 to be spent at the high school to finish the portion of the school that had been scheduled to be "shelled in" for future use. This includes four classrooms, the little theater and one practice gym." One could assume that the remaining $250K is being spent for the unpopular 5/6 and 7/8 school swap - There's enough for 40 aides.
• Cutting three "Quality Teaching Days" (paid, but no teaching) would decrease the average $47,963 teacher salary (from salaries reported at utahsright.com) by about $787 or $200K total enough for 30 more aides, who are there to help teachers in educating students.
• Cutting one class day, according to the press release, would save about $250K (total operating cost $43 MILLION, up over 60% with an enrollment increase of 10% since 2005) or another 40 aides.

I have no idea of the cost of the third gym or little theater, but NOT building them now could save even more money to offset some of the other proposals.

I won't even ask why we need three assistant Superintendents and a business administrator at salaries over $100K, or multitudes of other administrators.

Reports are now being made that the reconfiguration will require more money for new buses and drivers.

Which is more important - Bricks and Mortar (gym) or teachers (and aides) in the classroom?

That question was answered here years ago in this blog. "By focusing on a extravagant oversized school/community center, we, necessarily, place our money where our collective mouth is. Apparently, we value the bricks more than the educators. Again, why not put less money in a new building and more in enticing and rewarding more quality teachers. Expending excessive taxpayer money on buildings will make it even more difficult to garner support for better salaries. It all emanates from the same taxpayers' pockets."

Legislative Audit Shows High School Over Budget

The cost of the new Wasatch High School appears to be $77 million as opposed to $59.5 authorized in the November 2006 bond which stated "that general obligation bonds would not exceed $59.5 million for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of land acquisition, equipment, acquisition, and construction of a new high school and related improvements."

The school construction cost is nearly $40 per sq. ft. more expensive than the average of seven high schools built in Utah. It was also the school cited as 20 percent larger than USOE guidelines and had the highest sq. ft. Per student. There were also flaws mentioned in the bidding and contracting processes.

These are all conclusions reached in the recent Utah Auditor General's School Constuction Legislative Audit released in November. Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature had requested a performance audit of school building construction, 21 School Districts were studied. While the report did not name the individual districts audited, it was quite clear that the one school which was highlighted as "the most expensive high school being built during our review period." was right here in Heber.

Wasatch High School construction practices merited five pages of the report, plus other being anonymously mentioned alsewhere. Those pages can be found here. The full report is available here.

While taxpayers are reviewing and paying their property taxes this week, they may remember hearing of the so-called "Truth in Taxation" hearing (See meeting report) where taxpayers were told there was no property tax increase. Checkbooks now show that was in error.

At some point the taxpayers deserve an complete explanation of the school cost AND the source of the funds to pay for the 11 to 25% cost overrun. We, the taxpayers, will now be paying for a school that was 20% too large and 25% too expensive for many years. Hopefully many people will actually read the audit. Click here for more articles on the school bond. I'll try not to say "I told you so."

In recent hearings on school class realignment, information was promulgated on the possible need for additional school construction a Junior High and/or new elementary. Even at the current $66 to $75 million reported price tag, the Wasatch Wave reports that "The total cost for the reconfiguration of the district will come to about $1 million, according to Mr. Shoemaker, and that includes completing portions of the high school that had been slated to be finished later, such as the 4 additional classrooms, the third gym and the little theater."

Many resident attendees reportedly decried the failure to consider using the current high school as a valid and usable building. It would seem pure folly to sell the property in this down economy only to spend millions on new construction in the not too distant future - if plans can be believed. Much of the school is usable and functional although it reportedly is falling into disrepair as normal maintenance seems to be minimal.

Hopefully, taxpayers will be more diligent in asking questions - and getting answers this time. Before any new construction is considered, year round school, which better utilize building resources, must be thoroughly evaluated.

TRUTH (?) 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. . . . .