Tax-rate increase hearing: August 14, 2018

This Tuesday, August 14, at 6pm at the District Office (575 N. 100 E., American Fork) the Alpine School Board will hold a Truth in Taxation hearing.  This is where you, the taxpayer, can have an opportunity to be heard about a tax-rate increase for this year's budget.

The perspective of most everyone in education is that if the amount isn't all that big, then it shouldn't be an issue.  In fact, bond votes and tax increases are proclaimed, nationwide in school board conferences and publications, as evidence that taxpayers are "supportive of public education."  If you oppose a bond or any other sort of tax increase, you don't care about kids and certainly you don't want them educated.  (In fact, some of the conferences have "how to" courses on increasing funding in education.  There is no discussion about what to spend that money on.)  In fairness, for the most part, I think Alpine School District does a decent job with our funding and budgeting. And the intentions of everyone involved, I think, are good.

Here's what you need to know.  Feel free to skim the non-italicized parts for the main points.

1. Utah Law requires the amount of money the districts (or cities or counties) receive from year to year to remain the same, excluding growth. 

So, if we received $100M one year from all the property in ASD's boundaries, then we should receive $100M the next year from those same properties PLUS any additional property taxes from any new developments that came into being that next year.  

How this works: If the total amount of all the property in ASD increases in value, then the tax rate decreases automatically to generate the same amount going to the district.  If the total amount of all the property decreases in value, then the tax rate increases automatically. 

An example.  Numbers used are for explanation purposes but are not accurate.  The tax rate is much, much lower.  And the examples are, admittedly, very simplified.
Year 1: Total property value : $100M. Tax rate: 1%. Taxes generated: $100M x 1% =  $1M.
Year 2: Total property value: $90M. Tax rate:1.1%. Taxes generated (minus growth): $90M x 1.1% = $1M.
Year 3: Total property value: $110M. Tax rate: 0.9%. Taxes generated (minus growth): $110M x 0.9% = $1M.


Truth in Taxation: If in Year 3, the district would like to keep the tax rate at 1.1% or even increase it, so as to generate more than the $1M, then a Truth in Taxation hearing would need to occur.  At the 1.1% rate, this would generate $1.21M instead.  

Rather than following the economy like most other states, that when values increase, the taxes go up and vice versa, ours is the opposite. When the economy is struggling and values are down, the tax rate automatically increases and you are paying a larger percentage in property taxes than you were.  But there is no hearing on this.  It just happens.  When the economy is good, you pay a smaller percentage in taxes.

2. If the tax rate goes down, the district can hold a public Truth in Taxation hearing to increase that rate.  This is what we are doing on Tuesday.  The interesting part of this is that we only have these hearings, arguably, when the economy is strong.  When the economy is weak and values are down, the rate increases but without a public hearing.  So the vast majority of the population is less concerned about a rate increase because they are doing well.

Sadly, under our current tax system, the people who are most harmed by this are those whose particular circumstances make them struggle economically while prosperity reigns around them.  They might be those on a fixed-income (who, if elderly or disabled, do get partial waivers for property taxes), young people and young families, just starting off in life, and military families, for example.

3. The legislature has created an incentive for districts to increase property taxes. The state matches local property tax with state funds, up to a certain amount.  If the tax rate goes down, the state continues to match at the higher rate for up to 5 years.  This creates an incentive for the district to increase the rate at least once every 5 years.  The legislature may claim that they don't raise taxes, but they incentivize the local school districts to do it for them.  It's a win-win for the legislature.  More money in education; no accountability for raising taxes or creating a tax system where in hard times your tax rate just happens to go up without anyone commenting or caring.

Going forward, it would be even easier for the district to just regularly increase the rate every year, that way the increase is much, much smaller, and fewer people will complain.  Doing this yearly, the perception will be that we aren't increasing the taxes very much, and the side-benefit is that people get used to having a Truth in Taxation hearing every year. It becomes as big of a deal as watching paint dry.   

4. We support tax-incentives over multiple decades for big, well-connected companies, like Facebook.  Currently, those range in the area of $18,000,000 per year. (See pg. 181: here.)

Yes, the argument is that without these tax incentives, nothing would ever develop.  But, giving the tax incentives over more than 5 -10 years enters into the realm of predicting the future.  It is difficult for the average person to justify a tax incentive for a big, well-connected corporation, but then come back to taxpayers and ask for a few dollars more.  What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.  If we need more money today, then we probably shouldn't have approved those tax incentives all those years ago.  With a growing community like Utah County, I think we would be hard-pressed to assume that all the development in our communities wouldn't have occurred without these tax incentives.  In the short-term, that may be true.  In the long-term? I seriously doubt it.  Tax-incentives, if you think such a thing should be done, should be limited to 5 or 10 years.  Anything more than that is just robbing future generations of school kids in order to appease the power-brokers of today.  Facebook gets to live here tax-free for 35 years.  You and I aren't so lucky.

5. Increased Tech and Coaching Funding vs More Teachers and Smaller Class Sizes.  Our district/board's priorities don't seem to match those priorities of the people.  Repeatedly, when talking with parents and taxpayers, their biggest concerns are wanting smaller class sizes, traditional math (not Common Core/Investigations/Inquiry-based math), and limits on screen time.

Instead, partly due to legislative incentives and partly due to education conferences, everyone (it seems) in the state and the nation is accepting the narrative that without technology, kids will not be able to function appropriately "in the 21st Century."  So, in addition to the millions that ed tech companies stand to make, everyone thinks that educational technology is the Silver Bullet of education--probably a lot like Baby Einstein videos from a decade or so ago.  (Side note: Silicon Valley execs are the exception. ) Have you seen your kids on tech?  Are you worried they won't pick it up without explicit training and exposure to it?

Also, there is a huge push toward Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)/21st Century Skills, nationally, as opposed to academic content. What that means is participation and attitudes can be seen as more important than whether you know history or math facts.  To our credit, our teachers are being trained to make SEL as important, not more important, than academic content. But, while teachers have always, naturally, included things like participation, honesty, and a can-do attitude as a by-product of their teaching, to focus on those things necessarily removes the focus from reading, writing, and math.

Our current budget includes expenses for hiring more Technology and Instructional Coaches to train teachers to use tech and these other methods (Project-based, Inquiry-based, etc), as opposed to using those same funds to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes.  The argument is that if the Coaches make our existing teachers better, then it's a more efficient use of our time.  One school has had great success with an Instructional Coach.  So, if that model holds, then similar improvements should be seen when expanded across the district's nearly 90 schools. 

Our budget also includes funding for more technology.  As our schools go through our 21st Century implementation, iPads and ChromeBooks are included at the ratio of 1 device for every 2 students.  Sadly, parents don't really have an option for a tech-less school system. And in light of all the negative results of too much screen time, I think we are setting our kids up for lots of problems (sleep issues, moodiness, depression, etc.  See here, here, and here.) by adding to the already ubiquitous screen exposure.  Not to mention, the increased difficulty parents now have in making sure kids do their homework (and don't get distracted), limiting screen time, and knowing what their kids are studying and how they're doing, if everything is online.  

Many people think a small increase in funding is appropriate.  The real question is what do you think? How should that increase be used? Will you be willing to stand up and state what your priorities are for our school district?  Hope to see you at the hearing on Tuesday!

Local Building Authority

On January 9, 2018, our Alpine School Board decided to create a Local Building Authority (LBA).  The main reason behind this is to rebuild Scera Park Elementary in Orem in order to consolidate that population of students with Hillcrest.  Hillcrest will be closed but the property will be retained for future use.  Since the original consolidation plan included many more schools and the possible sale of the Hillcrest property, the savings from those closures and the sale of the property would have allowed the Board to pay cash to rebuild Scera Park.  As such, the savings from closing Hillcrest will be close to $800,000 each year, but insufficient to rebuild an school at the cost of $18M.  So, the LBA was created to accomplish this goal.

An LBA is allowed under state law and allows the Board to finance things over time without using property tax increases as collateral for the debt.  School districts in this state are not allowed to use a regular debt scenario like you and I do for a mortgage or a construction loan.  We have to either pay everything off within a year (short-term loan) or use a tax-related funding process.  We could also do something called a revenue loan which would work if we were building a rec center and we could use the fees (the revenue) from that rec center as the payment.

You can read all the information, including the By-Laws and the Articles of Incorporation here. (See Local Building Authority Mtg Documents.pdf)  The LBA is subject to the same open meeting laws as the ASD Board, and all LBA meetings will be held at the same location and place as the ASD Board meetings, when an LBA meeting is required.

The essence is this.  The ASD Board of Education (ASD Board) members automatically become the Board of Trustees of the Alpine Local Building Authority (LBA).  So as members are elected and so forth, the make-up of the LBA changes accordingly.  I had concerns about the ability of the LBA to remove board members and that language was removed from our documents.  The action of the Board on the 9th simply created a non-profit corporation, the LBA.  At the Jan. 23 meeting of the LBA, the proposal will be to seek a loan for the purpose of rebuilding Scera Park.  The LBA gets the "mortgage" for Scera Park and the school is the collateral for the loan.  The ASD Board then signs a lease with the LBA for Scera Park, paying the amount required to cover the cost of the Scera Park loan.  Then the LBA gets the amount agreed to in the lease from the ASD Board and pays the lender for the Scera Park loan.  The LBA, as a non-profit, makes no money in the transaction.  The lease is also written so that upon payment of the loan in full, Scera Park will automatically transfer ownership from the LBA to the ASD Board.  This allows the amount saved from consolidating Hillcrest of nearly $800,000 to be used, annually, to pay off, over time, the Scera Park rebuild.

My opinion of the Pros.  The advantages I see are: 1) The Hillcrest consolidation savings are used to pay-off Scera Park. 2) There is no tax increase required for this transaction and the savings in one area of the budget can be used to pay for buildings.  Currently, this could only be done if we chose to pay cash completely for the building.  We could use our rainy-day fund to pay for Scera Park upfront, and then take 18 years to pay it back.  That decreases our rainy-day fund by about 20% with no guarantee that it would be repaid.  The decrease would also negatively impact our credit rating for future bond rates.  3) It allows for building construction to begin more quickly without going through a bond election and so forth.  In theory, if we had the funds in the budget from savings in other areas, some of the West's growth could be accommodated by accelerating buildings without waiting for the bond cycle in 2020.

My opinion of the Cons.  1) The LBA only requires 24 hour notice for actions that regular board meetings are given.  The LBA can go into debt for any number of buildings, additions, appurtenances either inside or outside the district boundaries with a simple majority vote by the LBA board (aka the ASD Board).  2) The Board could use the LBA to finance things that do not take precedence on a bond by the public.  In short, it could skew our building priorities to reflect more internal priorities instead of those demanded by the people.  Some of the things that might be financed by the LBA board which the public hasn't wanted to see in a bond would be: Clear Creek renovation, District Office renovation, etc.  As long as there is a revenue stream that will cover the annual debt payments to the LBA, the Board can finance things as it sees fit.  This is the essence of Local Control, but it also requires diligence from the people in making sure those who are elected to the Board have an understanding of what they should and shouldn't do in this arena.

By way of information, the following entities have set up LBAs.
Duchesne School District
Granite School District
Jordan School District
Morgan School District
Ogden School District
Piute School District
Sevier School District
South Sanpete School District
South Summit School District
Tooele School District
Uintah School District
Grand County

Orem Consolidation: Why You Care Even If You're Not In Orem

The Board has been considering consolidating schools in Orem (see info here).  "So What?" you might say.  "I don't live in Orem." The reason why it matters to you is because whatever we do or don't do in Orem will impact what we can or cannot do in the rest of the district.

So, here is what I'm asking.  Take a minute to look through the figures on the Orem plan.  Here is a link to the City Data that includes not just property tax, but also the amount the state provides per student.  Property tax only makes up 25% of the total amount we get in funding.  You will see that Orem brings in, on average: $6,140 per student.  But on the spending side,  Hillcrest (no Title 1 funding) spends $8,365 per student.  Geneva (Title 1*) spends $8,062.  Scera Park spends $6,235.  In contrast, Highland spends $5,416; Cedar Ridge: $5,911; Alpine: $5,119.  The district average for elementaries is $5,741.

On the website, there is a link where you can leave your feedback.  If you have suggestions as to how to keep these Orem schools structurally sound, with greater educational options for the kids in those schools and not incur additional debt, I'm all ears!  We looked at the numbers and put together our best plan, based on those numbers.  Now, we need feedback.  Do you like the plan?  How can we improve the plan?  Is there a way to accommodate the wishes of the parents in Orem and still provide for those kids in other parts of the district?  Please pass this information along to anyone in the district boundaries.  We'd love to hear your suggestions and your ideas!  Please provide feedback before the end of October.  For more information, read on!

The Orem Plan
The facts and figures of the Orem Plan can be found here.  The original Infographic was created a month or so ago.  After public comment and discussion, there have been options that are being discussed that differ.  These are the "hotspots" but as the graphic indicates, these are current considerations, meaning that nothing has been decided yet.  The board is looking at making a decision by the first November meeting.

Orem has a declining enrollment which has been going on since 1998.  Orem also has many older schools with seismic (Geneva, Hillcrest, Scera Park) and other maintenance issues. Because of these considerations, the Board has considered consolidating some of the schools, and doing boundary changes and, in some cases, a rebuild of some of the schools.  There are a few benefits to doing this consolidation. The first is to allow schools to have full grade levels and more than one or two classes per grade. This allows for teachers to work together.  It also allows for more options for specialty classes.   The second reason is so we can educate all the kids in our district in an equitable fashion.  We can only spend each dollar one time.  If we spend it in keeping older schools with declining enrollments open, that means we can't spend it on additional resources for those kids in Orem or in other parts of the district.  The overhead in opening and maintaining an elementary school is around $780,000 per year.  Two other things to keep in mind are class sizes and employees. The overall class size shouldn't increase much at all.  A Hillcrest-Scera Park combination shows a projection of between 23 - 28, depending on the grade.  And no employees will be let go.  We have so many employment needs throughout the district that any employees in the consolidated schools would simply be able to find employment in another school in the district.  As for the teachers, they could move with their class.  So, most, if not all, of the teachers who are currently at Hillcrest and Scera Park would continue to work at the consolidated school.






So, back to why you should care: wherever we spend one dollar means we can't spend it somewhere else.  That means, we can maintain and rebuild schools in Orem with 350 - 450 students (even though they were originally built for 700 or more).  If we do that, we will need to raise property taxes in a subsequent bond AND build the necessary schools in the high growth areas like Lehi, Saratoga Springs, and Eagle Mountain.

The majority of parents who responded to a survey in Geneva want to stay together.  There isn't room in any of the existing schools to keep them all together.  So it would require a rebuild of Geneva alone or an addition to or a rebuild of an existing school like Suncrest.  Hillcrest wants its school fixed and then a rebuild of Scera Park, without consolidation.  Incidentally, Scera Park parents appear to be in favor of consolidation.  If we were to consolidate and sell the Hillcrest property, then we could put that money toward the rebuild of Scera Park.  I don't remember the amounts, but it would allow for a portion of the cost to be paid outright.  The remaining amount could be taken from other parts of the budget, without waiting for a bond and without incurring debt. From a fiscal perspective, this makes the most sense.  On the flip side, rebuilding all the elementaries would require significant cost and a new bond.  A new elementary school is $16 -18 million.  That's an additional $16 million that would need to be added to a bond for EACH of those schools.  (Arguably, Hillcrest's seismic needs are less than $16 million, but they are probably close to half of that.)  So, whatever amount is necessary for Lehi and the West and on-going maintenance in the rest of the district, without consolidation, we would have a minimum of $32,000,000 more and possibly closer to $40,000,000 more to maintain these Orem schools as they are.  Additionally, the soonest any of those schools could be rebuilt (without consolidation) would be 2021, assuming the passage of a 2020 bond.  That leaves a minimum of 4 years with students in schools that have structural issues.  I'm not comfortable with either of those scenarios.  So, help us figure out what the best options are.  Make sure to fill out the Feedback form and to share it with your friends and neighbors in the district!

*Title 1 monies are federal funds that assist low income schools.  I am unsure whether these Title 1 funds are included in the chart on the website or not.  Title 1 could account for some of the increased expenses for those schools that receive Title 1 funding.

Money, Money, Money: Budgets and Bonds

BUDGET HEARING TODAY
Today, June 21, 2016, is our annual budget hearing at 6:00 pm at the district office in American Fork.  A public hearing will take place for 1) the final budget for 2015-2016 and 2) the proposed budget for 2016-2017.  Most of the time, very few people come to comment on the budget unless there is a tax increase proposed.  But if you have comments about the budget, you can comment at the appropriate time.  If you have comments on other issues, there will be a public comment period at the beginning of the meeting, as well.  Here is a link to the budget: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4LZ8teFSo0fNUd1WEVYZzZRekFLQ1JSQ3hQWXU2U1BlSUZj/view

A few things to note:
p. 8: Great Graph on 1) Where the money comes from and 2) How it is spent.  Total federal funding this year is 6.32% ($39 million total federal revenues)
p. 15: General Fund: This is where most of the 'school-related' activities are funded: teachers, principals, etc.
p.23: District Leadership: The board and other district leadership have their association dues paid for by you.  The vast majority of this total amount ($57,999) is for dues for the Board's Utah School Boards' Association. (Note: Only teachers do not have their dues paid for by the taxpayers.)
p. 23: District Leadership Supplies and Materials: This amount is significantly higher than last year because we will be including the Superintendent's discretionary spending fund (for items that arise during the year that only he can approve) here for greater transparency. 
p. 39: Nutrition Services: This is where a huge chunk of our federal revenues come in.  51.74%  ($11.472 million) of our food budget is federal.  Note also, this pays for the free school lunches in the summer, as well.
p. 51: Tax Increment Fund (RDA's): This is the amount of taxation that is being diverted to developers under the RDA sections of state code, to incentivize development in exchange for reduced tax rates to those entities that can successfully lobby us to give them tax breaks.  This is a new requirement from the State Auditor's office.  This year, $15 million is projected to be given back to developers.
p. 57: Alpine self-insures for medical workers' compensation.  This outlines the spending and revenues for that program. 

Non-budget items that may be of interest:
p. 66: Enrollment projections through 2020 (hint: 80,885 students by 2020)
p. 71: Actual employee counts, per department, over the last several years.
p. 73: New employee counts for this year specifically.

BOND DISCUSSION--JUNE 27 @ 12:00pm
Additionally, on June 27 @ 12:00 pm at the District Office, the Board will meet to discuss the various bond projects that we would like to see on the upcoming bond.  The vote on the bond will take place at the August board meeting.  If you have bond projects that you support, want to see included, or want to see removed, please let me (and the rest of the board) know before the 27th.  This is the time to weigh in.  If you wait till August on your opinion of the bond, it will be too late, in all practicality, to influence it.

TECHNOLOGY and BONDING
My personal opinion is we should not include technology infrastructure in the bond.  Most infrastructure for technology has a short 'useful life' and should not be financed over 17 - 20 years.  It was included, in part, because the bond survey indicated a strong preference for increased use of technology, especially from our male respondents. We have put the cart way before the horse in thinking technology is the silver bullet of education. We are not fully aware of the vast implications of so much technology use in our children's lives. 

As an example, here is an article that every parent needs to read. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201508/screentime-is-making-kids-moody-crazy-and-lazy?utm_source=FacebookPost&utm_medium=FBPost&utm_campaign=FBPost)  The American Academy of Pediatrics advises no more than 2 hours per day of screen time for kids up to age 18.  I think technology can be useful in some circumstances, but it is by no means the end-all, be-all of improving education and our children's lives.  And, in fact, might be harmful, depending, as always, on its use.

And one more about how we are creating children who can't disagree. (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/02/bill-gates-admits-on-education-tech-we-really-havent-changed-outcomes/) “The digital delivery of teaching materials across Australia has had a powerful normative effect,” he [Dr. John Vallance, Headmaster, Sydney Grammar School] observed. “It’s making it quite difficult for children to learn how to disagree, how not to toe the party line, because they can’t question things – the possibility of questioning things has been taken away from them.”
Please share this information with your friends and neighbors.  We are only 7 board members, and we need your input on how you would like to see our district managed.

Why Have a School Board? Taxation without Representation

What my opponent got wrong. 

From her post:

What would our school district look like if my opponent’s votes had the support of the majority of the School Board?

Monthly bills would have gone unpaid more than 30 months in the 4 years she has served.

The Board, by law, receives a report on a monthly basis of what HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID.  Four school districts in the state do not take any formal action on the claims.  My substitute motions were always to 'accept' the claims instead of 'approving' them.  I can accept them, but I don't have enough information to approve them.  After two years, with two new board members, we now accept the claims.  I have voted 'yes' on all 'acceptance' of the claims.  I will never vote to approve something that I cannot personally stand behind and support.

No annual budgets would have been approved, so maintenance and operation funds would not be approved to be used by schools.

Annual budgets must be approved by June 22 of every year.  A budget would have been approved, but if the majority had agreed with me, we wouldn't have spent $75,000 for a party or nearly $42,000 of your money on dues for the Board and Superintendent.  Instead, we would have had more teachers and/or aides in the classroom, a lower tax rate, and discussions of important budget issues by board members BEFORE the money is allocated.

We would not have had the financial ability to accommodate growth, so class sizes would have been even larger.

This might reference the 2013-14 budget where I voted against a tax rate increase and against a salary increase for our Superintendent and our Business Administrator.  It's wrong to ask the people for more money in taxes and then pay your top administrators more.  I suggested that the Board pay the Superintendent and the Business Administrator a modest increase out of our own salaries. 

Taxes on our local residents would have to be raised to compensate for withdrawal from ANY Federal funding.

Many Federal programs cost so much to implement that there isn't a benefit.  I have never moved to get away from ANY Federal funding. Federal Special Education funds, in particular, are severely constrained by federal strings, impacting our ability to 'plug holes'.  When the federal strings impacts our kids, it's important to look at what our options are.  I have supported requests asking for an analysis of the costs vs. benefits of our different federal programs.  Our federal strings give us 6% of our budget, but control a lot more than 6% of what we do.  We need to know if the benefit of the funding is worth the cost of the strings. 

Our schools would be subjected to the federal No Child Left Behind standards and labeled as failing.

Under No Child Left Behind, all schools are failing this year.  That's not anyone's fault but Congress'.  The waiver magnanimously provided by the US Dept of Education included 'assurances' that violate No Child Left Behind.  I supported the Waiver submitted by our State Board of Education that is allowing us to get out from under the egregious penalties of No Child Left Behind and still retain our state's control over education, as legally REQUIRED under No Child Left Behind.

Extracurricular activities that serve students and address their needs would be limited to ONLY what the school board wants to offer.

If a club is illegal under state law, it is the duty of the local school board to limit or deny that club.  I asked that the Board, not just our administration, consult with legal counsel.  If the majority had agreed, we would have been able to go forward knowing, legally, where we stood, instead of hoping that someone doesn't sue us.

Benefits for teachers would be reduced or eliminated

I have never voted to reduce or eliminate benefits for teachers and I never would. I have supported every single salary increase or bonus given to teachers. 

If the Board isn't supposed to weigh in and represent the various views of the community on these many issues, then why have a school board at all?  I support public education.  I support the public, not just funding education, but having a say in what that education looks like through their local board members.  Otherwise, a board, rubber stamping whatever is proposed, is just taxation without representation.

Sources:
Utah Law: Duties of a Business Administrator
http://www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A03_030300.htm
By contrast, I have found nothing in the duties of the school board that say we have to approve all of these expenses that have already conformed to our policies.

Claims discussion:
http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=1020
(download the study session audio file)

2014 Budget Discussion:
http://board.alpineschools.org/2014/06/04/june-17-2014-board-meeting/
(Scroll down to additional media, listen to the Board meeting, my motion is at 47 min in)

No Child Left Behind
http://www.nochildleftbehind.com/nclb-law-contents.html
See Sec. 9401: Waivers (who can do them and what is required)
and Sec. 9527: Prohibitions on Federal Government...

My letter to the  Utah State School Board on the NCLB Waiver
http://www.wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2014/08/nclb-waiver-letter-to-state-board.html

Utah Law: School Clubs
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A11_120600.htm

2014 School Clubs motion for legal counsel
http://board.alpineschools.org/2014/10/09/october-14-2014-board-meeting/
(Scroll down to additional media, listen to the Board meeting, beginning at 16 min, 50 sec)

To Tax or not to Tax: Budget 2012-13

 On Tuesday, June, 19, the board will have a public hearing on our proposed budget for this coming fiscal year.  Please attend at 6pm and comment at the district office in American Fork.

Budget 2012-13: Increase Tax Rates?  Don't Increase Tax Rates.
First, I would highly recommend reading the first few pages of the budget, found here.  Using the pdf pages, go to pg. 9 - 10 to read the summary on the tax rates, and then 11 - 14 to see the "Big Picture" of the overall budget.  It should take you less than 10 minutes.  If you are interested in the employee changes, see pg. 82.  Pg. 83-88 contain a glossary.  You can also see the Board, Superintendent and total principal salaries and benefits outlined on pg. 26.  We are planning on an additional 2,076 students this fall, and adding 66 full-time employee positions and 3.5 counselors to accommodate that growth.  (Incidentally, the state has mandated a certain counselor to student ratio.  Alpine is behind on this ratio, and we send a letter every year telling the state we are working on complying with their mandate.  I, personally, would err on the side of having more teachers, but that decision isn't in my hands.) 

At the board meeting, last month, we reviewed the proposed budget which included an increase in property tax rates.  This would require a Truth in Taxation hearing in August.  The rationale behind the increase was to "recoup" the property tax amount that goes to charter schools in our area.  About 4 or 5 years ago, the legislature changed charter school funding from entirely income-tax based to getting a portion from local property taxes.  The actual funding formula (other than overall increase in per pupil funding for ALL public school students), as far as I can tell, hasn't changed; just the combination of pots has changed.  At the time of this change, many school districts increased their property tax amount to accommodate the loss of property tax revenue.  Alpine did not.  We were planning on a bond, and we try to be more conservative in our approach to taxation.  At the time, the amount deferred from property taxes was $500,000.  It is now up to $1.2 million.  (It is based on the number of students going to charter schools, and the payout is 25% of the per student--including charter students--property tax amount. Email me if you want more details.) Our administration and most of the board found the argument compelling that the money should have been ours and wasn't anymore.  In my opinion, the money is the taxpayers' and whether or not we pull from one pot or another doesn't necessarily entitle us to that money.  I do agree with the idea that the amount of property taxes sent to charter schools should be clearly identified on the property tax notice (which was a bill that never came before the State Senate this year but passed in the House).  I also find property tax the least fair and the most egregious method of taxation.  For that reason, I would be opposed to a property tax increase except as a last resort.  I wouldn't base it on an appeal to fairness.

That being said, in the last month, our budget staff, Jim Hansen and Teresa Newman, and our Business Administrator, Rob Smith, have received more concrete information from the county.  It appears that due to 1)increased property values, 2) more people paying their taxes, and 3) the legislature consolidating property tax revenues and shifting from one pot of property tax to another pot, the district will be receiving $1.5M additional revenue from the state over our originally proposed budget.  Due to this increase, they are recommending that we not increase the current property tax rates.  (The board could, at any time, still decide to increase rates, but, most likely, won't without the recommendation of our administration.) However, despite a lack of tax rate increases, we have budgeted for 30 full-time teaching positions.  There may be some flexibility in this: more teachers that are part-time or whatever is seen as necessary.  The Obama EduJobs program from two years ago, allowed us to hire 26 teaching positions.  That money is no longer available, and so those 26 positions were to be eliminated.  Due to some good budget work and the reasons I mentioned above, we will be able to retain all 26 positions and add 4 more, in addition to the teachers required by additional student growth.  This is phenomenal!  In January, the board expressed a desire to reduce class sizes.  We have had several parents (and less publicly, teachers and administrators) comment on the need to reduce class sizes.  The original, original budget included only 8 additional teaching positions.  But, since this has been a high priority for the board, I have been impressed with the ability to come up with 30 positions.  With 79 schools in the district, it is a drop in the bucket, but, like anything, it is a big step in the right direction.  I would recommend an email or a comment at the budget hearing, if you are pleased with the reduction in class sizes and/or the static property tax rate.  I can't thank our business office enough for all their hard work on the budget and for looking for ways to not increase property tax rates, but to decrease class sizes.  Our business department has very good people, and I appreciate their efforts on our behalf.

Some additional items on the budget that might be of interest. 

1. Health care costs went up nearly 16%, which would have added $8.6M to our budget.  The collective bargaining agreements (also on this meeting's agenda: See Action Items: Certified, Classified, and Administrative Agreements) include five different health plans, ranging from current-level coverage (that would have increased the district's costs $8.6M) to a Health Savings Account.  Employees requesting the current level of coverage will need to pay a portion of the premium.  Those opting for the Health Savings Account will receive the difference between their reduced premium amount and the amount the district is paying for everyone else into their Health Savings Account.  The other three plans fit in between those two extremes.  As is, our health care costs didn't increase very much.  I applaud our administration and our associations for their creative approach in solving this dilemma. 

2. Federal Revenues make up 8.2% of our total budget.  For our general fund (day-to-day maintenance and operations), it is only 7%, or $28M out of $377M.  Due to the failure of the Congressional Super Committee, overall Federal Revenues will be cut 9% in January.  So, Federal Revenue is a figure we need to keep an eye on.  For Nutrition Services, Federal Revenues make up nearly 48% of of the budget, or $10.9M out of $22M.  A lot of this money is for Free and Reduced lunches, but all student lunch are subsidized, either by the state or the Feds, or both.  I was unaware of this information until a year ago. 

3. Pg. 18 shows a pie chart of the expenditures in the General Fund.  You can see that 70% of our expenses are on Instruction. 

4. Our collective bargaining agreements include funding "step and lane" which is the salary schedule.  As employees get more education and are with the district longer, their salaries are increased.  This requires an increase in the budget to accommodate those increases.  Also, there will be a 2%, one-time bonus given to all employees out of last year's budget, which came in under projected expenses.

5. The Common Core math textbook purchase is being taken out of Fund Balance (essentially our savings) from this past fiscal year (2011-12). It will be about $1.2 - $1.5 M.

6. The Collective Bargaining Agreements change our requirement to negotiate with the associations from them needing to have a majority of employees (State Law) to having the "greatest number". 

7. And lastly, the budget includes $1.5 M for the purchase and implementation of a new financial/purchasing system.  Our current system is 30-years old and has been modified in-house multiple times.  Those who are familiar and comfortable with the system are few and far between.  The financial system will be discussed and voted on in the July board meeting.

Superintendent Reappointment
The Agenda includes the reappointment of our superintendent, Dr. Vernon Henshaw, for another two years.  There is no formal contract, but the benefits include the same health and retirement benefits as our other employees.  The budget includes a raise for both Dr. Henshaw and our Business Administrator, Rob Smith.  Dr. Henshaw is a very good and competent administrator.  I have seen him ably implement whatever direction he is given from the board. 

Common Core/State Board of Ed Update
The State Board of Education will be voting in August on whether or not to remain a governing member, to change to advisory member or to withdraw completely from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia (SBAC), which is creating the state tests all Utah public school students (district and charter) will take come 2014-15, along with 30 other states.  (What is tested is what will be taught.)  Our original agreement with SBAC, as included in our federal Race to the Top application, Phase 1, was just a non-binding memorandum.  In the Race to the Top, Phase 2 application, this non-binding memorandum was replaced with a signed, legally-binding contract. (See page 286 for the signed contract with SBAC.) Additionally, the SBAC consortium signed a legally-binding cooperative agreement with the Federal Department of Education.  So, via our contract with SBAC and their agreement with the Feds, our state tests are subject to Federal control and supervision.  Interestingly, the state board never discussed or voted on this contract with SBAC.  State Board President, Debra Roberts stated in a public forum on April 26 that the contract was not legally binding because the board never voted on it.  However, it was signed by the Board President, the Governor, and the State Superintendent.

It was suggested during the June meeting that a letter be sent changing Utah's status from Governing Member to Advisory Member.  The Board was told that Advisory status would alleviate our obligations to the consortium.  State Board Member Dave Crandall read the contract and indicated that our obligations would be the same with the exception of losing our vote in the consortium.  Based on Member Crandall's information, Board President Roberts declined to sign the letter, since there was no apparent advantage.  Kudos to Mr. Crandall for his follow-up!  Because of this, the full board will be voting on whether to withdraw completely from SBAC this August.  Without the direct obligation from the consortium to the Dept of Ed, Utah can adopt the Common Core standards and still determine it's own tests.  Currently, there are no financial penalties for this course of action.  There is, however, concern that we may not receive our (illegal) No Child Left Behind waiver if we pull out of the testing consortium.  Once we are granted the No Child Left Behind waiver, we are obligated, as far as I can tell, to maintain the Common Core standards and SBAC testing until such time as the Federal government determines we need to do something ELSE in education. 

Additionally, the State Board is reviewing Social Studies standards.  If you are like me, you will want to pay close attention to this process and give a lot of input.

Why I Voted Against the Budget

Board Meeting: Budget Approval--June 21
The Board Meeting was held on June 21, and included approval of the final budget for 2010-11 and the tentative budget for 2011-12.  The formal budget was available online as of June 1, and I received a hard copy about that same time.  We had 3 weeks to review the budget.  Throughout the year, different items are brought up that impact the budget, and the board more or less approves them at the time.  Also, there are a few budget committee meetings that narrow down and prioritize items to be addressed in the budget, e.g. building maintenance requirements.  However, I would like to see a shift to allow the board and the public more time to address issues in the budget and see revisions, much before the June 22 approval date, as required by law.  Ideally, the proposed budget would be made public near the beginning of May.  The May board meeting would allow the board to discuss different options. I'd, also, suggest having  a public input meeting to take place in May.  Then any changes or suggestions could be incorporated in a revised budget, available June 1.  (Highland City followed this procedure and had a public Open House in May, just before a City Council meeting where the budget was discussed.  I commend them for this step and borrowed liberally from their process.)


My main issue, besides the overall budget schedule, was $860,000 for Common Core implementation.  As you've read previously, I am concerned with the lack of local control that will come with Common Core.  The way it works is the State Office of Education has decided all Utah Schools (district and charter) will adopt the Common Core (including the out-sourced, US Dept of Ed-financed assessments).  What is tested, determines the curriculum.  At the time of the budget adoption, the Board had never discussed Common Core.  We were allocating funds because the State Office said as much.  They dictate, we fund.  The Common Core training began the day before the budget was approved, and about $70,000 was put into the budget to be spent (post-July 1) to pay those teachers participating in the week-long training.  Because this is a fundamental shift of educational responsibility, I felt the board needed to at least address Common Core before allocating funds.  I asked that the $860,000 be "held in abeyance" until the board could discuss Common Core.  I was outvoted on setting that money aside.  As such, I felt I wasn't doing my due diligence in approving the $860,000, even if it was only 1/400 of the budget.  It represents such a large potential change, it didn't seem right for me to approve something that hadn't even been discussed.  I was the only "Nay" vote.  My fellow board member, Paula Hill, voted to abstain, with a comment that she was doing so because of the nearly $1M for Common Core implementation. 

Eagle Mountain Middle School Property
The board approved the purchase of a property for the proposed Middle School in Eagle Mountain.  The decision was between two different pieces of property.  The board weighed the overall costs, necessary improvements, transportation, power, etc. in making this decision.  It was not a decision made lightly, and there was a lot of community input.  In short, when all the different factors were laid out, the SITLA property was the best deal.  One nice thing is that our agreement includes the improvements to be made on the property.  They will make the improvements to our specifications and with our approval prior to closing on escrow.  And the overall price came in lower than the other option. 


Collective Bargaining and Trust Lands Funds
Also approved were the various agreements with the associations: Administrators, Teachers, and Education Support Services.  One of the biggest issues was the healthcare cost increase, due to the "ObamaCare" mandates.  It amounted to about $4M for the year.  The other issue was the board approved a 2% increase for teachers who were not due an increase due to 'step and lane'.  Essentially, the district pay schedule has different lanes that teachers are on, depending on education level.  For example, a teacher with a Bachelor's degree is on a particular lane.  Another teacher with a Master's Degree is on a different lane.  Both start at step 1, if they are brand new.  But the lane for the Bachelor's degree pays less for Step 1, than does the Master's Degree lane.  After so many years, they advance to Step 2, and so forth.  If you are somewhere between Step 1 and Step 2, for example, this year, you will get a one time 2% bonus (probably in November). 

The individual school's submitted their trustlands plans, and the board approved them.

Meeting with Lt. Governor
On July 5, various teachers, employees, administrators, board members, and legislators met with Lt. Gov. Greg Bell and the Governor's education advisor, Christine Kearl.  Different members of the administration outlined some of the things Alpine is doing well:

• Modified Extended Day schedules:  Many of our elementary schools are set up with AM and PM students.  The AM students come at 8 and leave at 2:15; the PM kids come at 9:15 and leave at 3:30.  This allows each teacher to have smaller class sizes for 150 min each day.
• Productivity: Teachers who teach more students in a class--whether through modified extended day, or more classes/day--are paid 14 - 23 % more
• Extended Day Kindergarten (OEK): Kindergarten students who score below a certain level are given the option of attending full day kindergarten.  The class size is an average of 16 students, as compared with 24 or so in the regular kindergarten classes.  Students in OEK out-perform their peers in the regular Kindergarten classes. 

Sen. Howard Stephenson commented on how well ASD does with its finances, as recognized by the Utah Taxpayers' Association.  Board members comments ranged from putting the 'flexible WPU' as an 'above the line' item in the budget (reimburse the districts for what they actually spend on SS and Medicare with state monies, and not just lump that amount into a 'discretionary' category when SS/Medicare are anything but discretionary), experimentation with technology, recognition that ASD does a great job with large classes and a growing population, but it would be better to have smaller class sizes, and my comment: more local control--do not legislate and dictate what the local boards can/should do.  Either we want local control or we don't, but let's not pay lip service to local control.

Agenda for Board Training on July 18--Timberline Middle School
Twice a year, the board has a retreat/training for most of a day.  This is the second one I will be participating in.  Since this meeting constitutes a quorum of the board, it is an open, public meeting.  As a board, we have been asked to submit our comments/suggestions for the Boardmanship discussion, as well as the afternoon discussion items.  You may want to check out the links from the district website for more information on the Code of Conduct and the Board, itself.  Also, if you haven't had a chance to review the Common Core FAQ's, please do so...see especially the final question about Federal involvement.   I welcome your comments and feedback both prior to and after the training.
 
8:30 – 9:00 a.m. Common Core Review & Discussion: Syd Dickson, USOE


9:00 – 10:00 Discussion of Board Issues: Debbie

10:00 – 10:15 Break

10:15 – 11:15 Continue Discussion of Board Issues

11:15 – 12:00 Review History of District Mission, Vision, Values, Goals: Vern / Debbie

12:00 – 12:45 p.m. Lunch

12:45 – 2:00 Boardsmanship: Debbie

2:00 – 2:15 Break

2:15 – 3:30 Board Training – Discussion of Leadership by Sully: Barry Graff
 
Board Meeting Agenda: July 19--District Office
 
STUDY SESSION


4:00 P.M.

The purpose of the study session will be to (1) review details for the November 2011 bond, (2) for Board inservice and (3) to discuss other current issues.

REGULAR BOARD MEETING

6:00 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Debbie TaylorPresident

REVERENCE

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

MINUTES

CLAIMS FOR JUNE :Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent

ROUTINE BUSINESS

1. Budget Report: Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent

2. Personnel Reports

3. Alpine Foundation Report

4. Resolution 2011-011 – Contract with Orem City for Law Enforcement Officers

5. Resolution 2011-012 – Easement Agreement with UDOT for Property Adjacent to Vineyard Elem.

ACTION ITEMS

1. 2013-2014 School Calendar: Vernon Henshaw, Superintendent

BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S Debbie Taylor, Board President


INFORMATION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Common Core, Budget, New Property and Lots More

Common Core

Before you read on, I ask you to do one thing.  Please view this video on the Common Core. Once you view it, please pass the link on to at least 4 other people.  Common Core is taking place, and we, the people, have yet to have the debate over the pros and cons.

"Ever since the Federal Government, in the mid-sixties, became heavily involved in public education, we've been consistently fighting that battle over standardization versus freedom.  Freedom should be our goal."
--Utah Congressman (and former public school teacher) Rob Bishop



My fellow board member, Paula Hill, has written an excellent piece on the Common Core.  Click here to see her comments.  She states it very well, and adds the perspective of a school teacher. 

Americans have a history of prizing and valuing local control, especially when it comes to the education of our children.  We want an educated populace, but we take seriously the responsibility that parents have of doing just that.  At the top of my blog, you will see a quote from Jefferson about turning education of children over to "any other general authority of the government". Jefferson's opinion was that parents needed to manage the schools, and that believing government could do it better was a complete fairy tale (his words "a belief against all experience").  The responsibility for education rests with the parents.  Our schools exist to aid parents in this responsibility.  Common Core takes this idea and allows us to turn the responsibility and the accountability over to another pseudo-government entity, unelected, and unaccountable to you as a parent.  As the teacher in the above video mentions, if she has concerns with what her children are being taught, she can't go to the school, the district, or even the state anymore.  This is a fundamental transformation of the responsibility, the accountability, and the power associated with educating our children. 

Budget/Agenda for 6/21/11

The 2011-12 budget for the school district is on the agenda for Tuesday's Board meeting (along with Trustlands plan approvals, and association (teachers, school support services, and administrators) labor contracts.  For full agenda, please see below or click here.  I would like to see more public, as well as board, involvement in the budget process earlier on.  I have discussed this subject with the administration, but will be discussing it with the full board, hopefully, during the study session.  Associated with the Common Core thread, from above, the proposed budget contains $860K for implementation of the Common Core. 

New Property for Junior High in Eagle Mountain

On the Agenda for Tuesday's meeting is the proposed purchase of property for the new Junior High in Eagle Mountain.  There have been two properties under consideration, and many of you have written to express your thoughts about the different options.  We have taken into account, bussing costs, infrastructure costs, power needs, as well as the overall land prices.  The bottom line is when all these things are accounted for, the proposal for the Mid-Valley location makes the most sense, both financially and logistically.  I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about why I will be supporting this purchase.

Meeting with Eagle Mountain City

Wednesday, I had the opportunity to meet with the Mayor and City Council Members of Eagle Mountain City, along with my fellow board members.  It was good to get their perspective on their growing population.  We discussed the needs the district has when looking at properties for new schools.  The city often requires large developers to include plans for school sites as they present their plans to the city for approval.  We discussed when would be the appropriate time for the district to be involved in that process.

Agenda

STUDY SESSION

4:00 P.M.

The purpose of the study session will be to receive an overview of the proposed 2011-2012 M&O budget and an update regarding the proposed November 2011 bond.

REGULAR BOARD MEETING

6:00 P.M.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REVERENCE

RECOGNITIONS

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

MINUTES

CLAIMS FOR MAY

ROUTINE BUSINESS
1. Budget Report

2. Personnel Reports

3. Alpine Foundation Report

4. Student Releases

5. Student Expulsion

6. Student Reinstatements

7. Property Items

A. Resolution 2011-009 – Purchase of Property in Eagle Mountain

B. Resolution 2011-010 – Sale of Property in Saratoga to LDS Church

ACTION ITEMS
1. Adoption of Bond Resolution and Designated Officer

2. Public Hearing – Approval of the 2010-2011 Final Budget

3. Public Hearing – Approval of the 2011-2012 Tentative Budget

4. Approval of the 2011-2012 School Land Trust Plans

5. Approval of the 2011-2012 Certified Negotiated Agreement

6. Approval of the 2011-2012 Classified Negotiated Agreement

7. Approval of the 2011-2012 Administrative Agreement

DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM
1. Proposed Change of Date for August Board Meeting – to August 16

DISCUSSION ITEM
1. Revised 2013-2014 School Calendar

REPORTS
1. Membership Report

BOARD MEMBERS’ AND SUPERINTENDENT’S INFORMATION ITEMS

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT

Proposed 2012 Budget

The proposed budget for this next fiscal year can be downloaded from the district's website here.  I am personally thrilled that it is listed as one of the 'revolving' items on the main page of the website.  Thanks to our district staff for getting this information out to the public in such an easily accessible format!

Please take a moment to peruse the budget and give me your feedback.  A printed, bound copy was delivered to me yesterday. 

District Redistricting, Budget, and Prime Rib

School District Redistricting

UPDATE NOTE: The County Elections Office will draw the boundaries, but the County Commissioners will need to approve the boundaries.  If the district's boundaries did not cross city lines, the city would be responsible for the redistricting.

I had a call from a constituent who was concerned about the board's input into the redistricting process.  The concern had to do with the current structure with so much board representation being in Orem.  The redistricting is supposed to be fairly uniform and contiguous.  However, there is a lot of latitude and power associated with redistricting.  Do you maintain the individual board members in each of their respective districts, and just make long, convoluted districts?  Or do you simply try to make so many miles square and let the chips fall where they may?  Following the growth patterns, the Orem folks will, most likely, lose a representative on the board, making the ratio 2 Orem to 5 others, down from 3 Orem to 4 others.  Boards, unlike other representatives' districts are limited in size.  More population doesn't equate to more representation, only different representation.

Since school boards are limited to seven members, the current board boundaries need to be shifted to accommodate the greater growth both West and North in our district.  Currently, Orem has 3 board members and 1 board member each for PG/Lindon, AF, Alpine/Highland/Cedar Hills/Draper/some Lehi, most Lehi/Eagle Mountain/Saratoga Springs.  The County Commissioners (see update note) will redraw the boundaries before June.  Should a sitting board member's area be swallowed up into another area, that member will be an 'at large' member and represent the "new" area until their next election.  At that next election, it is entirely possible (although the county may try to avoid this) to have 2 incumbent board members running against each other.  As a fan of opposition in all things, I think this is a fine scenario. 

In reading some articles about other school districts, they are working with their County to help redraw the precinct lines.  In asking about our involvement, I was told the County Commission would draw the lines, and then present it to us for our comments. 

If you are interested in how your representation will be affected, I recommend you contact the County Commissioners and the Elections Office to discuss this process and to provide your input.  I assume, by June, when the boundaries have already been drawn, it may be too late to have any impact.   The official boundaries will be set in stone in January 2012.   By way of information, two of the three County Commissioners do not live within ASD 's boundaries.   Certainly, if you live in the West or the North, you should contact the County Commissioners about what you believe to be fair redistricting.  For myself, as close to so many squares as possible would be the ideal.  I am tired of gerrymandered districts that make absolutely no sense.  Go with population, and leave the incumbents' concerns about reelection to their new constituents.

Budget

I attended the operations budget committee meeting.  The district administrators have submitted their requests for budget items that 1) change (usually increase) resources over current allocations or 2) compensate for areas that lost funding from the last legislative session.  The committee meeting was meant to be a prioritization meeting.  From those priorities, I assume, an actual budget will be proposed.  The board will, then, review this proposal, ask questions, and modify it, if necessary.  The board must have a final budget approved by June 22 of each year.  The budget will not include potential bond amounts and/or projects, since the bond must be approved by the voters. 

Two items of interest. 

First, there is a portion of property tax, levied by ASD, that is, by law, sent to the charter schools.  This was interesting to me because when I was involved with a charter school, there was no property tax component to the funding.  In speaking with my State Rep, charter school funding seems to change from legislative session to legislative session.  As it stands, 25% of the property tax allocated per student going to a charter schools is given to their respective charter schools.  The caveat is that the charter enrollment information comes from two years prior to the current year.  The question I have is how do new charter schools get funding, and what if a charter school's enrollment increases or decreases significantly in that 2-year time frame?  I need to find out why the lag in data projections.  Also, the concern from the district is two-fold.  1) This year it will amount to over $1M (last year and the year before, the amounts were $850K and $950K roughly) and 2) the board are the people who must appear before the taxpayers during the truth in taxation hearings to account for any increases in property tax.

Second, due to the Obamacare mandates in health insurance, our district's health insurance premiums will increase by about $3M this next year.  In addition, because employees can now opt to cover their dependent children (married on not, but not spouses and their children) to age 26, there is an estimated $854,000 in additional premiums for those dependents. 

The capital budget will appear on the April 19 board meeting agenda, and the operations budget, I assume, will be on the May agenda.  Even though, a truth in taxation hearing may occur in August/September should the board approve a tax rate increase, the time to give input on the budget is now through June.  It's kind of a backwards process where you put together a budget and approve it (and start using it on July 1, if I understand correctly), but ask for feedback from the people in August.  By August, it's too late.  I look forward to your input on the budget over the next two months.

Prime Rib (aka ESP Association Dinner)

The term ESP doesn't mean what you think it means in this context.  ESP stands for Education Support Professionals.  In the district, there are 3 employee associations: teachers (Alpine Education Association), administration (don't know the name of that one), and ESP (formerly called classified employees).  The ESP's are all the non-teachers in the district.  Within the association, there are different groups who elect their own officers to represent their interests to the ESP officers as a whole.  For example, some of the groups are: Food Services, Transportation, Custodial Staff, Secretaries, Nursing, and Media Specialists.  The dinner was hosted by the ESP officers and the group presidents.  The board and district cabinet members were invited to attend.  It was strictly for the purpose of getting to know each other.  Under Utah Law, the district must negotiate collective bargaining with any association that has a majority membership among the employee group.  See the Utah Code here. 

Vineyard URA, Bond, New School Names, New Board Member 3/22/11 Meeting

Vineyard URA Update

On March 23, 2011, the Vineyard URA held a public input meeting.  Legal Counsel for the Alpine School District read a statement at that meeting.  Board members were advised to allow legal counsel to attend and speak on their behalf.  I appreciate all of you who attended the hearing, who wrote letters, and shared the information with your friends and neighbors.  I will keep you updated as things progress. To read and view the Fox13 report, please go here.  This hearing begins the official 30-day window for appeal of the URA, according to the report.  

March 22, 2011 Work Session and Board Meeting at Cedar Ridge Elementary School

Work Session

Bond Update

The board received a list of the suggested projects for the bond.  At this time, this list is just a DRAFT.  Public and Employee meetings will be held in April and May to receive feedback on the bond, itself, as well as the suggested projects.

One of the concerns has been Lehi High, which is over 50 years old.  The board investigated purchasing property near where the high school is currently located, building a brand new high school on the new property and selling the old Lehi High buildings and property.  My understanding was this was a preferred option for the City of Lehi.  Unfortunately, the current site could not be sold for anywhere near enough to make this plan financially feasible.  So, the current plan is to start on Phase II (there is a master plan for all the major construction projects in the district and this plan will be available at the Public bond input meetings) for rebuilding part of Lehi High on its current location.  However, this will all depend on the public feedback.

Please attend one of the meetings and help get the word out to those who do not have children in ASD.  All of the PTA/SCC meetings and the public input meetings are open to the everyone.  The presentation will be the same.  You may choose whichever meeting is most convenient for you.  For a list of those meetings, please go here.

Capital Budget Meeting

Last week, I attended the Capital (anything with a "useful life" greater than one year) Budget Meeting, which was reviewed during the work session.  This is the PROPOSED budget, but hasn't been approved by the board at this time.  As I mention the budget in this context, bear in mind this is the proposed budget, but I will omit the modifier 'proposed' for the rest of this discussion.

A few items of interest.  First, all of the district's bonds are done over 15-years.  It saves much in interest (just like a 15-year home mortgage does).  Also, the district staggers its debt so we repay all of a particular group of bonds by the time we start another set of bonding.  This way, we keep our debt repayment amount mostly constant, instead of increasing it.  We will be paying $33M in principal and $15M in interest this year.

There is a budget for remodeling/upgrading existing facilities.  This year it is set for $4M.  The physical facilities department has a 10-year plan of items that need to be addressed, including the seismic issues discussed in previous posts.  This plan is prioritized, and some of the schools that appear on this list will not be included in the bond projects, as the amounts are either small enough to included here or the need is so great that it must be done right away.  There are $3M worth of specific remodel/upgrade (non-bond) projects for this coming fiscal year.  In addition, $1M is set aside in various 'emergency' accounts, such as roofing, boiler, etc to accommodate unforeseen expenditures that crop up during the year.  An example of this was over Thanksgiving, a fire alarm panel malfunctioned, calling the fire department 6 times in a matter of days.  The funds for its replacement were taken from these 'emergency' funds called control accounts.  If there is any money left over in these accounts at the end of the fiscal year (and their is usually only some change), it reverts to the general capital fund and must be reallocated by the board the next year.  The Capital Fund balance (i.e. left over savings from the previous budget) has no legal limit on it; whereas, the general fund does have a legal limit.

Computer Rotation:  The district policy is for teachers to receive new computers every four years.  It used to be done every three years, as the computers come with three-year warranties.  It has been found to be more economical to go for four years, and allocate some money for repairs that fourth year.  Also, as technology changes, this allows us to keep up with technological advancements.  So, one-fourth of the teachers get a new computer this year.

There is also an allocation to upgrade networking equipment, and an amount for tech support.

Last year, there were no new buses purchased.  This year, the plan is to purchase 2 special ed buses, and 6 regular ed buses.  Also, it is recommend that we spend $60,000 to install a new fuel tank at the bus depot.  This will save us $.20/gal or about $200,000 this coming year. 

Finally, there is a budget item for instruction.  This would be for things like classroom furniture.  There is a set amount per school, and then so much per student.

This budget will be on the agenda for tentative adoption in April.  The board, by law, must approve a budget by June 22 of each year.  However, if we adopt the capital budget in April, the district will be able to order supplies and get construction contracts right away.  This way, these projects will be ready to begin as soon as school lets out for the summer.

Legislation

Rob Smith and JoDee Sundberg were instrumental in giving information to our legislators on how HB2 (the main appropriations bill) would impact schools, in general, and our district in particular.  There were quite a few good things that occurred because of this, and for that, we are appreciative.  One thing that may have some unintended consequences is that students that are enrolled in ASD and MATC (Mountainland Applied Technology Center) will now only generate funding for EITHER ASD or MATC, not both.  Until now, the schools in the district have tried to consolidate class offerings with MATC, so there is not duplication of resources.  If the schools are to lose money by sending their students off to MATC, there is incentive to duplicate those classes at the high schools.

The State Office of Education will be putting together a booklet of all the new education legislation and list what the State Office will need to do to accommodate the legislation and what the local districts will be required to do as well.  One of the issues is if a teacher has a child at a school in the district, that teacher is not allowed to serve on his/her child's school's SCC as a parent.  The teacher may still serve at their school of employment as a teacher rep on the SCC.

Board Meeting

Cedar Ridge Recognitions and Reports

Cedar Ridge Elementary recognized 8 students.  The Alpine Foundation also recognized 2 teachers, 2 support personnel, and 2 volunteers.  We heard reports from the SCC, PTA, and Principal Bruner.  The principal was going to be spending the next day on the roof of the school, as the prize for additional math practice.  Good thing the weather was nice (as opposed to the rain/snow we are having as I type this).

 New School Names


The two new schools in Saratoga Springs, along with the Special Ed school attached to the South School were named.  The North School is Riverview Elementary School.  The South School is Thunder Ridge Elementary School.  The Special Ed School is Horizon School. 

Elementary Schools Report

The four district administrators, supervising the elementary schools, provided a report to the board of the 50+ elementary schools in the district, along with basic information, the Math and Language Arts CRT scores, and the UPASS scores. 

Board Reports

The Curriculum Committee discussed Common Core, ASD's online school for home schoolers, and the preschool program.

Four board members attended the Leadership Conference, sponsored by BYU's CITES department.  A keynote speaker at the conference said, "We need to teach learners how to learn."  Also, the technology presentations were very good.  I would have liked to have seen more emphasis on the role of parents in their children's education.  I will have a more in-depth blog post on this conference in a few days.

Open Board Member Position

There are FOURTEEN candidates for the open board position.  We will be interviewing all of them on Tuesday, March 29 from 1pm - ????.  This meeting is open to the public.  Each candidate will have 15 minutes: an opening statement, 2 questions, and a closing statement.  The two questions will be the same for each candidate.  The board spent some time discussing those questions and how best to determine who should have the position.   One of the main concerns is that, despite differences, the board members are able to discuss and maintain a level of trust among each other.  I brought up the idea that we need to keep in mind that we are trying to find someone to represent the voters of the PG/Lindon area, not just someone we can get along with.  It's important to keep that in mind.

The two questions are:
1. We have read through the information you have submitted highlighting your experiences and qualities. How would you use these to contribute to and strengthen our Board?
2. As Board members we are advocates for Alpine School District, public education and for all children. How do you see yourself in this role?
The candidates are:

Julie Adamic
Bruce Armstrong
Mark Bezzant
Mark Bishop
Mark Clement
Karie Cooper
Niels Fugal
Stephen Graham
David Holdaway
Jeremy Hurren
Linda Nelson
John Olsen
Stephen Swenson
Paul Wangemann

After the interviews, the board will convene in a closed session to discuss the character and competence of the candidates.  The board will then reconvene on Wednesday, March 30 at 4pm to vote on which candidate should have the open position.  After the vote, the new board member will receive the oath of office.