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