Tag Archives: Fiscal Responsibility

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: