Tag Archives: Fiscal Responsibility

WPSD BOE votes to give entire Middle School building to Merit Academy, and cut fees charged to Merit

The August 9th school board meeting contained a vote on changes to the Contract and the Facilities Usage Agreement with Merit Academy. The board did not read the changes, did not present them in the meeting, and did not make them publicly available prior to the meeting. Nevertheless, the board packet contained very detailed redlines of the proposed changes, as learned via a recent CORA request.

When you look at the actual changes, it becomes pretty obvious why the board hid this information. Their decision to move 6th grade out of the Middle School this past March created quite a stir…and if people realized what the board did for Merit, I suspect there’d be even more of an uproar. Here’s what the new FUA says:

As Merit grows, the new FUA gives them whatever space they need, with no regard for the 7/8th graders currently occupying that portion of the building. They’re currently expanding one grade level per year as each cohort moves up; they might add preschool in the future. The BOE put in place a legal agreement which will squeeze the 7/8th graders out of that building. More importantly though, they have not disclosed any plan for what will happen to the 7/8th grades currently in that building.

Here’s the currently floorpan for this ’23-24 school year:

On the financial side of things, the BOE gave Merit two sweet deals. First, Merit will no longer be asked to share the district facilities costs on a per-pupil basis. Instead, their share will be computed based upon the square footage they are using.

The district has unused building space, but Merit won’t have to help shoulder the cost of that – they get the benefit of using a district building rent-free, but get special treatment compared to the tenants (schools) of the other buildings. Second, their administrative withholding decreases from 5% to 3.5% (this is expected to give Merit about $61k, though final amount depends on pupil count).

Obtained via CORA, you can view the new Facilities Usage Agreement or the new Contract.

District hires Gessler Blue to appeal CORA lawsuit

As a followup to my earlier post about District Legal Expenses, it has come to light that in March, the district hired law firm Gessler Blue LLC, and as the contract states, this is for the express purpose of appealing the CORA case where the court ordered the district to release surveillance video (which was leaked to NBC here). Principal Partner Scott Gessler bills his time at $425/hr (other lower staff billable rates are mentioned in the contract). Gessler is a former Colorado Secretary of State, was an attorney on Trump’s 2020 re-election campaign, and was also the target of an ethics investigation which ended up costing the state over $515,000 in legal fees (Gessler was found guilty).

Thanks to the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), you can read his contract with our district here.

District Legal expenses

The current board has greatly expanded the use of outside legal counsel, compared to previous boards. Here’s the data:

  • In the ’19-20 fiscal year, the district spent $15,608.48 on legal expenses (link).
  • In the ’20-21 fiscal year, the district spent $63,532.14 on legal expenses (link). This was the year the district reviewed the charter school application from Merit Academy.
  • In the ’21-22 fiscal year, 7 months of which were under this current board, the district replaced legal counsel with Brad Miller’s office and spent $145,872.56 on legal expenses (link1, link2).
  • In the ’22-23 fiscal year, the district spent $171,250.21 on legal expenses (link1, link2).

What is the board spending our money on? It’s hard to say, they’re pretty secretive as the attorney invoices get heavily redacted. Here’s one from April of last year. What sort of information is being hidden from us? A bit of insight can be gained by looking at the invoice from May of last year, which is the only one received in unreacted form. That will show you the sort of information the district is choosing to keep secret. Judge for yourself if it’s appropriate. One thing you’ll note is soon after Miller came on, the board started using lawyers to redact CORA requests, something done by district employees previously. That’s just a small portion of overall legal fees, but does raise the question of why the board felt necessary to include lawyers in all of those documentation reviews.

The cost of PACE membership

As previously reported here, next year the district will auto-enroll staff into  the Professional Association of Colorado Educators (PACE). PACE is a state chapter of the Association of American Educators (AAE); referred to by some as the ‘anti-union union’.

New details obtained via the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) shed some more light on this topic. This will be costing our district approximately $40,000. The discussions with PACE took place before contracts were sent out to staff, but the announcement was made after those contacts were sent. It’s possible (likely?) that contracts may have been signed and returned before the announcement was made.

Yet another large expenditure of taxpayer money made behind closed doors and without stakeholder input.

Transportation Cost Sharing – part 2

My first stab at writing about this topic ended up being a bit long – read it here – so I thought I’d try to do a better job of summarizing this (see that link for source material for data here)

Transportation Costs in Woodland Park RE-2 School District – ’22-23 school year

  • Expenses
    • $1,563,177
  • Source of funds to cover expenses
    • Carryover fund balance from RE-2 previous year: $104,758
    • Transportation fees collected from parents: $20,000 ($50 per kid)
    • State Reimbursement: $235,000
    • Grants: $1,000
    • Money to be used from RE-2 General Fund: $1,202,419

The point here is, the bulk of the money comes from the RE-2 General Fund – and Merit Academy is not being required to share that portion of the cost when they participate in this program next year.

Transportation costs in the Woodland Park School District RE-2

I think we all love the idea of students from Merit Academy being able to take the bus to school…I’ve heard zero complaints about that. The question though, is money. Are Merit kids being asked to pay the same amount as kids in the public schools (or as the board likes to say ‘traditional public schools’)? Is our school board and interim superintendent treating all students fairly? The answer, I believe, is a resounding ‘no’.

To participate in the bus transportation to/from schools, parents pay $50 per child, or a maximum of $100 per family. The district’s signed agreement with Merit Academy, from April 12, 2023, ensures that all parents of all schools abide by these same guidelines, which seems fair on the surface. Perhaps some people view $50 as too high, but the district found in the past that if a nominal fee weren’t charged, many parents would sign up with a ‘just in case’ or ‘why not’ attitude, which resulted in challenges to determine actual capacity and routes required.

Let’s look at what the district has budgeted for transportation expenses in the current ’22-23 school year. If you pour through our ’22-23 budget, you’ll find the board has allocated $1,202,419 from the General Fund, $1,000 from the Grants fund, and $359,758 from the Transportation Fund, for a total Transportation Budget for ’22-23 of $1,563,177. Of that money, they budget for only $20,000 to come from the fees paid by parents (that $50 fee mentioned above). $235,000 is expected to come from the State as a reimbursement (I believe, but am not certain, that this is due to the rural nature of our district). With the 1676 student enrollment in our (traditional) public schools, that works out to $779.94 per student ($1,202,419 from General Fund and $104,758 from current fund balance), being used to cover transportation costs in the district in the ’22-23 school year.

The board put in place an agreement with Merit where Merit students pay $50 if they want to use the service, $0 if they don’t – there is no cost sharing beyond that $50 fee. The students in the (traditional) public schools will be paying $829.94 if they opt in to the bus service, $779.94 if they don’t use the service (due to money being taken out of their General Fund to pay for the transportation costs). Of course, this money doesn’t come directly from the students – but it is money from the general fund that could otherwise be used to fund teachers or counselors in the public schools.

If the board were to split costs equally amongst all students, that would equate to $651.31 per pupil in base fees coming out of each school’s General Fund, plus the $50 for each kid who opts in. To look at it another way, if the district split the base transportation cost based on enrollment numbers at each school, that would result in $215,583.25 more money in the General Fund for the (traditional) public schools, money which could be used to pay for some of the lost counseling/social worker positions.

I recognize this is an approximation – precise costs for the ’23-24 school year would require us to know:

  • Actual costs of Durham services, which per contract can increase 2.5-4% per year
  • Actual enrollment in all schools
  • Number of parents from each school participating (this will impact the $20,000 revenue estimate)
  • State reimbursement ($235,000 for the current school year)
  • Costs of transportation of field trips (which should not be a shared expense)

So keep that in mind…but when we’re comparing $779.94 to zero, those details are just noise, lost in the bigger picture here. The issue here is the foundation of this cost sharing agreement and the inequity it imposes upon the students in this district.

Why did the Woodland Park School Board not ask Merit Academy to share in the transportation expenses? Merit is funded on a per-pupil basis just like the district public schools…why is the board asking our public schools to subsidize transportation costs for Merit Academy? This isn’t fair to the public school children, and isn’t fair to Merit Academy as it might make them look bad when this is the WPSD board’s decision, not theirs.

(if you notice any errors with my math, please reach out to me using the Contact form)

Why did the public schools buy a playground for the charter school?

Merit Academy is its own business entity…they have their own board, their own budget. So tell me, why did the WPSD buy a playground for them? Why didn’t Merit buy it themselves?

Their new playground, designed for ages 5-12, cost $75,347 (invoice 1, invoice 2), and as far as we can tell from the payment records, was paid for entirely by the WPSD. According to CDE data, district enrollment, not counting Merit, is 1676 students. So in other words, each student in the (traditional) public schools paid $44.96 out of funds that could otherwise have been used for their education…while Merit kids paid exactly $0.00.

Why are students of the (traditional) public schools paying for a playground to be used solely by students in a charter school? That is a question I posed to the interim superintendent, and also our school board president, but both refused to answer. So draw your own conclusions.

It’s also worth noting that this appears to be a violation of the Facilities Usage Agreement signed last spring. Section B(b) says, “The School shall be solely responsible to perform and bear the costs associated with the School Improvements.” Section H says, “All School Work performed by School pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed by School and at the School’s sole cost and expense.” It appears the WPSD school board and administration violated the Facilities Usage Agreement, to the benefit of Merit Academy and the detriment of the (traditional) public schools.

Grant info for the ’23-24 school year, compared to previous

I’ve been working to better understand what effect refusing grant money will have on our district (see this story). New data has been received via CORA, all grant applications for the ’23-24 school year as of 4/2/2023 (links to applications are included). I’m not sure if programs like the Title 1A funding would be secured later in the year; it’s possible the actual ’23-24 grant picture will have additional funds added beyond what’s shown here.

WPSD grant applications, ’23-24 School Year:

For comparison, WPSD grants, ’22-23 School Year:

  • Newmont CC/V Goldmine Grant – Bldg Level Educational Programs ($ 47,017)
  • Summit Elem. NLK Security Grant – Bldg Security ($ 2,019)
  • Project Lead The Way HS-Lockheed Martin – HS PLTW ($ 2,200)
  • Child Care Relief Grant – Preschool ($ 7,772)
  • Colo. Ed. Initiative SERN Grant – Social Emotional Redesign Network ($ 15,413)
  • Jadenator Donation Grant – Student Needs-Athletics ($ 2,150)
  • CDHS Child Care Oper Stabil Grant – After School Care ($ 60,688)
  • Colo. Health Foundation – Student Wellness ($ 11,376)
  • CDHS Workforce Sustain – After School Care ($ 13,144)
  • Local Donations/some Dist. funds – Auditorium Upgrade ($ 55,000)
  • School Counselor Corp Grant – Counseling ($ 489,989)
  • State Library Grant – School Libraries ($ 5,000)
  • School Health Professionals Grant – Cohort 5 (Elem) – Substance Abuse Prevention ($ 266,618)
  • School Health Professionals Grant – Cohort 6 (Sec) – Sustance Abuse Prevention ($ 216,786)
  • WPHS Advanced Placement Pilot Program – HS AP ($ 4,558)
  • Career Development Incentive Programs – HS Instructional ($ 32,944)
  • Kindergarten Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment – Kndg. Fixed Assets ($ 19,485)
  • Read Act Grant – Literacy ($ 53,409)
  • AP Exam Fee Reimbursement – AP Exams ($ 1,500)
  • Concurrent Enrollment – Concurrent Enrollment ($ 10,000)
  • WPHS SWAP – School to Work alliance Program ($187,606)
  • Suicide Prevention Grant – Suicide Prevention ($ 5,000)
  • URHN-Substance Abuse Prevention Grant – Sustance Abuse Prevention ($ 169,999)
  • Title IA – Language Arts and Math ($ 401,234)
  • Carl Perkins Consorsium – Vocational ($ 11,115)
  • Title III ELL flow Through – ELL ($ 4,151)
  • Title IIA (combined with Title IV for budgeting) – Instructional Resource ($ 92,846)
  • Title IV (combined with Title IIA for budgeting) – Combined with Title IIA ($ 25,133)
  • Supply Chain Assistance Grant, School Food Svc. – School Food Service ($ 32,178)
  • Summit Elem. Distinctive Schools Award – Title I Educational Program ($ 10,000)

Also in the ’22-23 school year were federal Covid relief funds; these are expiring on their own so I’m separating them out:

  • ESSER 3 Grant (Instr Impact) – Covid Pandemic ($ 320,436)
  • ESSER 2 Grant – Covid Pandemic ($ 306,592)
  • ESSER 3 Grant – Covid Pandemic Loss of Learning ($ 1,173,946)

Regarding those ESSER funds, the district’s Use of Funds Plan for that money can be viewed here (thanks to CORA).

Ken Witt’s contract details

In the interest of transparency, we wanted to make available Ken Witt’s contract with the district, and to summarize some key points here.

  • Salary: $155k (on an annual basis) from our district (Neal was compensated at $152k)
  • Cell phone allowance: $100 per month
  • Auto allowance: $500 per month
  • 15 days of paid vacation per year
  • Termination without cause requires 120 days advance notice and financial compensation equivalent to four months of base salary.
  • Contract allows Witt to continue to work as Executive Director of ERBOCES.
  • $4000 annually provided for professional growth/development

In addition to Witt’s contract with Woodland Park RE-2, his contract with ERBOCES remains in effect. Under the terms of that contract, Witt receives:

  • Salary: $155k (annual) plus up to 12% bonus (his bonus paid in May 2022 was $15,500).
  • Auto allowance: $500 per month
  • Cell phone to be provided at ERBOCES’ cost
  • 22 days of paid vacation per year, plus 10 days of paid sick leave per year
  • Termination without cause requires 30 days advance notice and financial compensation equivalent to 90 days.
  • $2400 annually provided for professional growth/development

So combined, taxpayers are paying Witt:

  • $310k annual salary, plus a bonus of up to $18,600
  • Free cell phone, plus $100 a month
  • $1000 monthly auto allowance
  • $6400 for professional growth/development
  • 37 paid vacation days per year (though it’s not really 37 total days, as it’s combined between two full time jobs…), plus 10 sick days

Sources: