Presentation on theme: "Low Enrolment & Underutilization in the KPRDSBs 4 city high schools in Peterborough A Tax Payers Perspective Bill Templeman, www.ascentassociates.ca Nov."— Presentation transcript:
Low Enrolment & Underutilization in the KPRDSBs 4 city high schools in Peterborough A Tax Payers Perspective Bill Templeman, Nov. 24, 2011www.ascentassociates.ca
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
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 Educations problem and wants them to fix it as best they can
The tax payer dislikes underutilization The simplest fix is close a school There were 4 schools in the ARC: – ASCVI – KCVI – PCVS – TASSS
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 Boards numbers here is 2014…
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?
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 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 Payers Perspective Bill Templeman, Nov. 24, 2011www.ascentassociates.ca Slide presentation and supporting data available for review from Donna Bested per policy Right click and Open Hyperlink to study data: