In the course of conducting the business of Salmon School District, I am often asked, "What are your priorities for the District?" I welcome the chance to respond to this question here in print.
First, I believe it is the role of the District Staff to support our schools, who in turn support our teachers, who are there for our students. Our entire system is about the students who attend Salmon District schools. I invite you to take a few minutes and watch the following TED video by Ken Robinson. Just click on the link:
Ken Robinson on Education
Second, we are a public agency. We are entrusted with public funds. It is therefore the responsibility of the District to conduct our business in an open and transparent manner. We must strive to see that the limited funds are utilized to make a difference for our students. That means we must maintain safe and inviting environments in which our students can learn. It is critical that we provide the necessary tools for our teachers to be able to make a difference for the students we serve. It means we have the responsibility to make fiscal decisions not the basis of public pressures, but on the truest and most accurate information available to the Board of Trustees. This means it is critical to gather information in a timely manner, and to seek input from multiple reliable sources. Finally, it means that we must be fully transparent in sharing that information with the public we serve.
Third, we must operate with standards and accountability. Standards must be clear, understandable, and readily accessible. In order to hold students, parents and staff members accountable, the standards must be known and understood. We have the responsibility to articulate the standards, review them as needed, and then be absolutely consistent in administering those standards. This is true in all areas, from budget and finance, to dress code, to student and teacher conduct. If we continually make exceptions to our rules, then the exceptions become the rule and there is no standard.
As we move forward, It is my hope that we can make these three priorities a reality in Salmon School District. We are not perfect. We make our share of mistakes. However, as we now move forward, it is without excuses and with our focus not on what's wrong with the District but on what can be right for the District. As noted in the video clip, it is critical that we focus on what is best for our students.
All of our staff members will have viewed this clip prior to the start of the 2013-14 school year. We will have reviewed our budget together. We will emphasize accountability and review standards for all employees and for our students. We invite you to join in supporting this effort as we move forward to make a difference for the students of our District.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
State Cooperative School Construction Fund
State Program for School District Building Construction
Idaho Code §33-909
Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program
Summary
This section of Idaho Code defines a funding process for School Districts that seek to replace unsafe school buildings. The process may be initiated either by a local Board of Trustees or by the administrator of the State Division of Building Safety. In either case, a new school proposal is submitted to the Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program panel. The panel reviews the proposal and may approve, modify, or reject it. If approved or modified, the proposal then goes to local voters in a Bond Election. If voters fail to approve the bond, the Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program will initiate funding, designate a district supervisor to oversee the project, and complete the approved or modified plan for the district’s new school. The Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program administrators will then levy taxes on the school district community to repay the cooperative funding program for the new school project.
Eligibility
Any school district that has failed to approve at least one (1) or more bond levies for the repair, renovation or replacement of existing unsafe facilities, within the two (2) year period immediately preceding submission of the application is eligible to apply for Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program funds.
Process Sequence – District Initiated Proposal
1. Local Board of Trustees identifies unsafe school conditions.
(a) Building Inspections
(b) Engineering Evaluations/Reports
2. Local Board of Trustees submits proposal, including:
(a) The identified school building safety hazards and such other information necessary to document the deficiencies [engineering reports and inspections];
(b) The school district's plan for abating the defects, including costs and sources and amounts of revenue available to the school district [DesignWest proposal];
(c) The market value for assessment purposes of the school district [total tax base for district tax valuation]; and
(d) A detailed accounting of all bond and plant facility levies of the school district and the revenues raised by such levies.
3. Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program panel reviews the proposal and either approves, modifies, or rejects the plan.
4. If the plan is approved or modified, Local Board of Trustees submits funding for the plan (Bond Proposal) to district voters.
5. If the Bond proposal is approved, the Local Board of Trustees moves forward with the Bond and new school construction.
6. If rejected, “the state board of education shall appoint a district supervisor for interim state supervision of the local school district. The district supervisor shall be responsible for ensuring that the project, as approved by the panel, is completed and shall regularly report to the panel in a manner as determined by the panel upon approval of the project.” (IC §33-909) A State-appointed construction manager is appointed to oversee the Salmon District project.
7. Taxes will then be levied by the state on the local district tax base to repay the cost of the project.
Process Sequence – State Division of Building Safety Initiated Proposal
Steps 1 and 2 above are initiated by the administrator of the State Division of Building Safety. Steps 3-7 proceed as listed above, using the plan proposed by the administrator of the State Division of Building Safety.
Implications for Salmon District #291
- We currently have both engineering studies and inspection reports necessary to initiate a proposal.
- We have run multiple failed Bond elections in the past two years.
- We have a cost-effective plan for consolidating two unsafe schools (along with CDC and Life Skills buildings) into a single ADA compliant facility.
- Once application is made, the District has no control over modifications State fund administrators may make on the plan we submit.
- Once the plan is approved or modified, the District has no control over supervision of the completion of the plan.
- The Salmon Community will ultimately pay for the project whether approved as a Bond or completed under direction of the State Board’s appointed supervisor. We are currently investigating the actual tax impact (term and levy amount) if the State initially funds the project, then sets repayment rates for our community.
Idaho Code §33-909
Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program
Summary
This section of Idaho Code defines a funding process for School Districts that seek to replace unsafe school buildings. The process may be initiated either by a local Board of Trustees or by the administrator of the State Division of Building Safety. In either case, a new school proposal is submitted to the Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program panel. The panel reviews the proposal and may approve, modify, or reject it. If approved or modified, the proposal then goes to local voters in a Bond Election. If voters fail to approve the bond, the Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program will initiate funding, designate a district supervisor to oversee the project, and complete the approved or modified plan for the district’s new school. The Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program administrators will then levy taxes on the school district community to repay the cooperative funding program for the new school project.
Eligibility
Any school district that has failed to approve at least one (1) or more bond levies for the repair, renovation or replacement of existing unsafe facilities, within the two (2) year period immediately preceding submission of the application is eligible to apply for Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program funds.
Process Sequence – District Initiated Proposal
1. Local Board of Trustees identifies unsafe school conditions.
(a) Building Inspections
(b) Engineering Evaluations/Reports
2. Local Board of Trustees submits proposal, including:
(a) The identified school building safety hazards and such other information necessary to document the deficiencies [engineering reports and inspections];
(b) The school district's plan for abating the defects, including costs and sources and amounts of revenue available to the school district [DesignWest proposal];
(c) The market value for assessment purposes of the school district [total tax base for district tax valuation]; and
(d) A detailed accounting of all bond and plant facility levies of the school district and the revenues raised by such levies.
3. Public School Facilities Cooperative Funding Program panel reviews the proposal and either approves, modifies, or rejects the plan.
4. If the plan is approved or modified, Local Board of Trustees submits funding for the plan (Bond Proposal) to district voters.
5. If the Bond proposal is approved, the Local Board of Trustees moves forward with the Bond and new school construction.
6. If rejected, “the state board of education shall appoint a district supervisor for interim state supervision of the local school district. The district supervisor shall be responsible for ensuring that the project, as approved by the panel, is completed and shall regularly report to the panel in a manner as determined by the panel upon approval of the project.” (IC §33-909) A State-appointed construction manager is appointed to oversee the Salmon District project.
7. Taxes will then be levied by the state on the local district tax base to repay the cost of the project.
Process Sequence – State Division of Building Safety Initiated Proposal
Steps 1 and 2 above are initiated by the administrator of the State Division of Building Safety. Steps 3-7 proceed as listed above, using the plan proposed by the administrator of the State Division of Building Safety.
Implications for Salmon District #291
- We currently have both engineering studies and inspection reports necessary to initiate a proposal.
- We have run multiple failed Bond elections in the past two years.
- We have a cost-effective plan for consolidating two unsafe schools (along with CDC and Life Skills buildings) into a single ADA compliant facility.
- Once application is made, the District has no control over modifications State fund administrators may make on the plan we submit.
- Once the plan is approved or modified, the District has no control over supervision of the completion of the plan.
- The Salmon Community will ultimately pay for the project whether approved as a Bond or completed under direction of the State Board’s appointed supervisor. We are currently investigating the actual tax impact (term and levy amount) if the State initially funds the project, then sets repayment rates for our community.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Responding to Threats
Memorandum
TO: Salmon District Employees
FROM: Joey Foote – Superintendent
DATE: March 8, 2012
RE: Harassment/Intimidation or Threatening Behaviors
HARASSMENT means knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct such as this would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. (Salmon District Board Policy #3295)
The provisions of this policy shall also apply to the threatening or intimidating display or use of any item capable of causing death or serious bodily harm. (Salmon District Board Policy #3305)
Once again we witnessed the disturbing events surrounding a school shooting, this time in Ohio. A timely review of policy is in order.
Let me clarify the difference between suspension and expulsion. A student who is suspended returns automatically in 1-5 days, depending on the circumstances. A student who is expelled is given conditions on which to return. Expulsion is automatic when any weapon is used in a threatening or intimidating manner. Expulsion is generally a long-term exclusion from school attendance.
Idaho State Law and Salmon School Board Policy expressly state that is our responsibility to deal with any threat, whether it seems viable or not. Each school site has the responsibility to be sure the following are incorporated into their discipline procedures:
1.Any threat of harm or injury is to be reported to the building administrator immediately.
2.Building administrator is to determine if any student or students are in imminent danger. If so, law enforcement is to be contacted and threatening student expelled. If there is no likelihood the threat will be acted on, the threatening student is still suspended.
3.Communicate disciplinary decisions as appropriate. Parents of any student making a threat will be notified via the suspension/expulsion process. It is critical that parents of any student(s) toward whom threats may have been directed are notified as well.
I stress the importance of this last item: Communication. It is essential that parents be contacted and informed of any threats made by or against their students. Law enforcement must be contacted in the case of any viable threat.
Please take time to review Series 3000 in Salmon School Board Policy. Focus particularly on #3295 and #3305 as reference for the above notes.
TO: Salmon District Employees
FROM: Joey Foote – Superintendent
DATE: March 8, 2012
RE: Harassment/Intimidation or Threatening Behaviors
HARASSMENT means knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person and which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct such as this would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. (Salmon District Board Policy #3295)
The provisions of this policy shall also apply to the threatening or intimidating display or use of any item capable of causing death or serious bodily harm. (Salmon District Board Policy #3305)
Once again we witnessed the disturbing events surrounding a school shooting, this time in Ohio. A timely review of policy is in order.
Let me clarify the difference between suspension and expulsion. A student who is suspended returns automatically in 1-5 days, depending on the circumstances. A student who is expelled is given conditions on which to return. Expulsion is automatic when any weapon is used in a threatening or intimidating manner. Expulsion is generally a long-term exclusion from school attendance.
Idaho State Law and Salmon School Board Policy expressly state that is our responsibility to deal with any threat, whether it seems viable or not. Each school site has the responsibility to be sure the following are incorporated into their discipline procedures:
1.Any threat of harm or injury is to be reported to the building administrator immediately.
2.Building administrator is to determine if any student or students are in imminent danger. If so, law enforcement is to be contacted and threatening student expelled. If there is no likelihood the threat will be acted on, the threatening student is still suspended.
3.Communicate disciplinary decisions as appropriate. Parents of any student making a threat will be notified via the suspension/expulsion process. It is critical that parents of any student(s) toward whom threats may have been directed are notified as well.
I stress the importance of this last item: Communication. It is essential that parents be contacted and informed of any threats made by or against their students. Law enforcement must be contacted in the case of any viable threat.
Please take time to review Series 3000 in Salmon School Board Policy. Focus particularly on #3295 and #3305 as reference for the above notes.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Responsibility to Act
There is a debate raging in some parts of our community about the decision to exclude a former coach from this year's wrestling program. I would like to provide some notes for public clarification. In the interest of consistent communication, please consider:
1. The infractions that were documented and admitted to were serious enough to warrant exclusion from the program: Hence, the action taken. (Note: Parents excusing the infractions does NOT lessen the severity of those infractions when considering consequences.)
2. No action was taken on the basis of a single report from any single individual or family. A thorough investigation was conducted.
3. Failure for the school and district to act once infractions were documented, would subject the district to sanctions which may have included loss of our wrestling program, disciplinary action against all personnel who had knowledge of the infractions and did not act on that knowledge, and civil liability for any present or future consequences of the infractions.
The conflict that is being perpetuated in the community is not good for our students. It is not good for our wrestling program. The decision will not be reversed. Improper choices have consequences. I appeal to all that is good within the individuals on both sides of this debate: Stop the conflict! Let our boys wrestle. Move forward.
1. The infractions that were documented and admitted to were serious enough to warrant exclusion from the program: Hence, the action taken. (Note: Parents excusing the infractions does NOT lessen the severity of those infractions when considering consequences.)
2. No action was taken on the basis of a single report from any single individual or family. A thorough investigation was conducted.
3. Failure for the school and district to act once infractions were documented, would subject the district to sanctions which may have included loss of our wrestling program, disciplinary action against all personnel who had knowledge of the infractions and did not act on that knowledge, and civil liability for any present or future consequences of the infractions.
The conflict that is being perpetuated in the community is not good for our students. It is not good for our wrestling program. The decision will not be reversed. Improper choices have consequences. I appeal to all that is good within the individuals on both sides of this debate: Stop the conflict! Let our boys wrestle. Move forward.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Wyden Funds Sunsetting
Looking at our future financial picture as a School District, I presented the following information to the Board of Trustees for consideration:
Financial Considerations
Maintenance of Existing Buildings v. New PreK-Grade 8 Facility
1. HB 743 State mandate for building maintenance
- Existing buildings @ 83,394 sq. ft. with current annual cost of $133,430.40
- New Facility @ 78,615 sq. ft. with NO required mandate for first 10 years, then est. $125,784.00 annually.
Savings over first 10 years: $1,257,840.00 ($126,000.00 per year) with annual cost savings thereafter est. $7,647.00 per year.
2. Utility savings (excluding electrical), including propane, water/sewer, and custodial supplies at $62,394.00 per year.
3. Wyden Forest Funds sunset this year. I have placed an annual cap on expenditures from Wyden funds at $325,000.00 this year and the next two years, for a total of three years of operating costs. This represents the majority of our maintenance budget, including utilities, salaries, and building repairs. No major projects are in the budget for the next three years. This leaves our budget in the 2013-14 school year short by the above amount. This leaves the district with some difficult options:
A. Absorb the M&O costs into the budget by cutting programs/salaries.
B. Reduce M&O costs by closing one or more of our schools.
C. Reduce M&O costs by replacing existing schools with a new facility.
D. Hope for an economic upturn that increases state revenue to the district in the above amount.
Note that these options are based on expenditures remaining constant, not increasing.
4. Major repair projects (exceeding $100,000) could potentially shorten the three-year time frame in item 3 above. For example, the cost of replacing the Middle School roof (a current and relatively urgent need) is $280,000.00 to $300,000.00 and would shorten the window for Wyden funds by one year.
5. Certain catastrophic failures (plumbing/electrical) that in a more modern building would not represent a major repair cost do carry a high price tag in the existing buildings and could become major repair projects.
In short, we have a limited window in which to consider options. It is critical that the School Board develop a plan with the community to plan for the pending financial situation brought about by the loss of Wyden Forest funds and/or the imminent need for major project repairs on the existing buildings.
The School Board will be discussing a strategic plan for temporary and permanent closure of buildings based on safety and cost in the October work session, October 24th at the Salmon Middle School.
Financial Considerations
Maintenance of Existing Buildings v. New PreK-Grade 8 Facility
1. HB 743 State mandate for building maintenance
- Existing buildings @ 83,394 sq. ft. with current annual cost of $133,430.40
- New Facility @ 78,615 sq. ft. with NO required mandate for first 10 years, then est. $125,784.00 annually.
Savings over first 10 years: $1,257,840.00 ($126,000.00 per year) with annual cost savings thereafter est. $7,647.00 per year.
2. Utility savings (excluding electrical), including propane, water/sewer, and custodial supplies at $62,394.00 per year.
3. Wyden Forest Funds sunset this year. I have placed an annual cap on expenditures from Wyden funds at $325,000.00 this year and the next two years, for a total of three years of operating costs. This represents the majority of our maintenance budget, including utilities, salaries, and building repairs. No major projects are in the budget for the next three years. This leaves our budget in the 2013-14 school year short by the above amount. This leaves the district with some difficult options:
A. Absorb the M&O costs into the budget by cutting programs/salaries.
B. Reduce M&O costs by closing one or more of our schools.
C. Reduce M&O costs by replacing existing schools with a new facility.
D. Hope for an economic upturn that increases state revenue to the district in the above amount.
Note that these options are based on expenditures remaining constant, not increasing.
4. Major repair projects (exceeding $100,000) could potentially shorten the three-year time frame in item 3 above. For example, the cost of replacing the Middle School roof (a current and relatively urgent need) is $280,000.00 to $300,000.00 and would shorten the window for Wyden funds by one year.
5. Certain catastrophic failures (plumbing/electrical) that in a more modern building would not represent a major repair cost do carry a high price tag in the existing buildings and could become major repair projects.
In short, we have a limited window in which to consider options. It is critical that the School Board develop a plan with the community to plan for the pending financial situation brought about by the loss of Wyden Forest funds and/or the imminent need for major project repairs on the existing buildings.
The School Board will be discussing a strategic plan for temporary and permanent closure of buildings based on safety and cost in the October work session, October 24th at the Salmon Middle School.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Liability Question
The question of district/personal liability for injury resulting from building failure was raised in the discussion about delaying the next school bond vote until March 2012. Upon further investigation, this question was discussed in October 2009 after a failed safety inspection of our buildings. An inspector apparently mentioned that failure to act on the information brought to light in the inspection could result in personal liability.
With the Salmon Board of Trustees' actions moving forward with school bond attempts, it is difficult to make any argument for inaction on the part of the Board or District. We will proceed as planned and do our best to keep the buildings safe for our students and to keep the public informed as decisions are made regarding the buildings.
With the Salmon Board of Trustees' actions moving forward with school bond attempts, it is difficult to make any argument for inaction on the part of the Board or District. We will proceed as planned and do our best to keep the buildings safe for our students and to keep the public informed as decisions are made regarding the buildings.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Citizen Feedback
I had a conversation at the Fair yesterday with a citizen active in our community. The individual shared an interesting perspective with me. As a parent, this individual had driven by the Pioneer and Middle School daily for a number of years. With the pending Bond Election and public debate about "need," the individual determined to drive by the facilities and look closely at the real condition of the buildings. It was quite an awakening, seeing exposed rebar protruding from the crumbling concrete around the foundation. The roof of the Middle School seemed poised to drop at the least disturbance. Indeed, what this individual had grown accustomed to seeing on a daily basis took on a new appearance upon closer review.
I reiterate that the reason the School Bond continues to come to the people of Salmon for a vote is that the need has not gone away. Feel free to stop by and take a closer look. See what new people arriving in our community see as they look critically at our school facilities. Ask a teacher about the teaching conditions within the buildings.
Our students deserve better. Our community deserves better.
I reiterate that the reason the School Bond continues to come to the people of Salmon for a vote is that the need has not gone away. Feel free to stop by and take a closer look. See what new people arriving in our community see as they look critically at our school facilities. Ask a teacher about the teaching conditions within the buildings.
Our students deserve better. Our community deserves better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
