Upload
albert-telfair
View
219
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Low Enrolment & Underutilization
in the KPRDSB’s 4 city high schools in Peterborough
A Tax Payer’s Perspective
Bill Templeman, www.ascentassociates.ca Nov. 24, 2011
Introduction
This presentation examines only the implications of Board decisions for Peterborough tax payers.
The Numbers
The numbers in this presentation were provided to the ARC process by the KPRDSB.
The Numbers
While these numbers are not new, the analysis and implications in this presentation have not been seen before.
The Numbers
• Selected maintenance and capital costs• Enrolment (actual & projections)• A few questions
Maintenance Question?
As maintenance cost at PCVS are less than the other 3 schools and half of the same cost at TASSS, why are we turning away from the lowest cost provider?
SCHOOL RENEWAL CAPITAL Custodial, Maintenance, Utilities and Renewal Costs from KPRCostStats.pdf
2006 2007 2008 20090
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
PCVSTASSSKennerAdam Scott
Capital Question?
So why are we walking away from a school (PCVS) in good repair upon which we spent over $2,700,000 in plumbing upgrades in 2008?
Enrolment
The tax payer absolutely understands the Board of Education’s problem and wants them to fix it as best they can
2010/2011 actual
2011/2012 actual
2012/2013 projected
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3058
2871
2627
1013
1200
1444
The tax payer does not like the current situation Change it
enrolmentunderutilization
71% today
The tax payer dislikes underutilization
• The simplest fix is close a school• There were 4 schools in the ARC:– ASCVI– KCVI– PCVS– TASSS
projected
close PCVS
close KCVI
close ASCVI
close TASSS
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
846
918
1017
1290
The tax payer wants utilization of tax dollarsClose a school
enrolmentunderutilizationcapacity removed
Best Utilization
Worst Utilization
The Board has decided to close PCVS
• This maximizes underutilization which the tax payer does not like.
• The current situation, 71%, better not happen for a while
• Using the Board’s numbers here is 2014…
2012/2013
2013/2014
2014/2015
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
598
761
922
With PCVS closedThe tax payer does not want to come back here
enrolmentunderutilization
71% in 2014
The Board can change its decision
• The tax payer knows the elected officials, the trustees, are in charge and responsible
• The trustees represent the tax payers• The trustees are the tax payers• The trustees are local tax payers
What about other paths?
2012/2013
2013/2014
2014/2015
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
154
317
478
With TASSS closedThe tax payer likes this!
enrolmentunder utilization
Details – What happens at the schools?
• Suppose KPRDSB stay on its track:– close PCVS– move IAP students to TASSS– distribute the other students to the surviving 3
schools– assume no attrition from the public system
• Result– KCVI and TASSS will be below 65% capacity by
2014
KPRDSB Enrolment ModellerMicrosoft Office Excel Worksheet
KPRDSB Enrolment Modeller
In closing, tax payers have four questions for the Board:
Unanswered Questions
1) Why are we closing a school with the lowest operating costs?
Unanswered Questions
2) Why are we closing a school after recently investing $2.7M tax dollars in upgrades?
Unanswered Questions
3) Why are we closing a school that will not solve the low enrolment problem for the long term?
Unanswered Questions
4) Is the Board spending our tax dollars effectively for the long term?
Unanswered Questions
We request a 1-year postponement of any school closure decisions to allow for careful analysis to ensure maximum tax-dollar effectiveness
A Tax Payer’s Perspective
• Bill Templeman, www.ascentassociates.ca Nov. 24, 2011
• Slide presentation and supporting data available for review from Donna Bested per policy
• Right click and Open Hyperlink to study data:
Microsoft Office Excel Worksheet