Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Questions from Budget Workshop Retreat CO(I)) MEMORANDUM DATE: August 12, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and Town Council FROM: Tom Brymer,Town Manager/CEO Westlake Academy Amanda DeGan, Assistant Town Manager Joel Enders, Management Intern SUBJECT: Response to Questions from Budget Workshop Retreat on May 27, 2015 At our budget retreat, staff fielded several questions that required research and follow- up for the Mayor and Council members. Below you will find the main topic areas: Capital Improvement Plan and Correlation to Strategic Plan Question: Are the projects that we are funding in line with the strategic plan? In researching this topic, staff reviewed the significant capital projects that were shown in our CIP over the past 10 years and found that we have implemented major investments in the community that directly align with our current and previous strategic planning documents. As we have limited resources for the funding of major projects, we are fiscally conservative in our CIP recommendations, and can show the correlation to a strategic objective, perspective, or theme for the Town. Please see the attached response and strategic planning chart. Academic Data and Fundine Question: 1. Based on current trends, when might primary boundary students comprise 30%40%50%or more of our total Academy enrollment? 2. What will Westlake`s total population look like when primary boundary students comprise 30%,40%,50% etc. of Academy enrollment? 3. How will Blacksmith funding levels change as a result of primary boundary student enrollment increases? 1 We reviewed the trend data provided in our academic budget documents, enrollment growth studies, the Comp Plan, and data from the Census Bureau to arrive at the numbers and predictions found in Figure C1. The information uses current trends in population growth, household size, and average number of WA students per household to estimate the following: (1) proportional growth in primary boundary enrollment over the next 24 years and (2) changes in donation levels as the number of primary boundary students increases relative to total enrollment. It is projected that primary boundary students could potentially comprise 30% of total enrollment by as early as SY 16/17, and reach 50% of total enrollment by SY 23/24. Donation levels are projected to rise from 1.1 million dollars currently to 1.8 million dollars by SY 33/34, assuming current total enrollment and donation amounts remain steady. It is important to note that these numbers are dynamic and are subject to movement based on actual trends in development and the state of the economy. 4. How has municipal financial support of WA changed overtime? The response to this inquiry has been mapped in Figure C2. Debt service has been the primary driver of municipal support costs, comprising 70% or more of total funding in each fiscal year since the opening of the school. A breakout has been provided indicating the percentage of the total support expenditures for General Fund, General Maintenance & Repair, debt service and indirect costs. It is important to note that in FY 10/11, facilities and maintenance expenses were moved from the Town General Fund and relocated to the Academy's budget and Town GMR Fund. This is reflected in the General Fund reduction of support costs from FY 09/10 to 10/11. 5. How does WA compare to surrounding school districts in expenditures per pupil? Staff has compiled three separate charts that compare WA per pupil operating expenditures to regional public school districts and state averages. *Please note that operating expenditures do not include debt service or capital outlay. Figure C3.1 compares our spending to regional school districts based on data published by the Census Bureau. Note that Census Bureau figures may vary slightly from our in- house calculations. 3 Village Circle, Suite zoz Westlake, Texas 76z62 Metro: 817-430-0941 - Fax: 817-430-181z - www.westlake-tx.org Figures C3.2 & C3.3 compare our spending against state averages and examine per pupil expenditures over the last ten years. We are currently investing at a higher rate than Texas, Colorado, Florida, Oklahoma, etc. The Academy has invested more money per pupil than Keller, Carrol, and Northwest schools over the last four years, and has spent between $500 and $700 more per student than the Texas average. Please note that the substantial rise in per pupil expenditures in the 13/14 school year was due to staff increases and related costs, while estimated per pupil costs decreased in 14/15 as a result of enrollment increases. The most recent National Education Association estimates show that Texas schools spent an average of $9,559 per student in the 14/15 school year; by comparison, WA spent $9,901 per student. Per pupil expenditures in the upcoming school year are projected to be nearly identical to the previous year at$9,891. Benchmark Data for Comparable Communities Question: 2. Review our staffing levels based on daytime population(only)that is similar to our community. Does the ratio change as a result of the population during the day? Staff was also asked to gather data based on comparable cities and their daytime populations. As we progressed with this project, we expanded the data to include potential benchmark communities, which could be used to create baseline or to further review our performance. We felt this more comprehensive approach was needed to make meaningful comparisons, not least because of Westlake's many unique characteristics. We have identified 15 municipalities that are comparable to our community in one or more of 18 different dimensions including FTE per capita (both overnight and daytime population), predominant land uses and key economic sectors, blend of services (in- house, contracted, or by agreement), median home value, educational attainment, primary sources of revenue, and property tax rate. Although we have not yet been able to fully analyze the collected data, there are a few preliminary takeaways from the benchmarking study that we would like to share with Council. 1. When considering only the overnight population, Westlake"s FTE per capita rate is relatively high, mainly due to economies of scale. However, when daytime population is factored in, Westlake has relatively low staffing levels. 2. Westlake compares very favorably to most, if not all of the subject municipalities when it comes to the level and mix of municipal services offered versus the property tax rate. 3 Village Circle, Suite 202 Westlake, Texas 76262 Metro: 817-430-0941 - Fax: 817-430-1812 - www.westlake-tx.org We intend to further develop the data and provide the Council with a thorough update at a future workshop. Attachments 1. Capital Projects &Strategic Planning 2. C.1 -WA Enrollment & Contribution Analysis 3. C.2 - Municipal Costs in Support of WA 4. C3.1-Census Bureau Benchmark Data 5. C3.2-State of Texas Per Pupil Expenditures 6. C3.3 -WA Cost Per Pupil 3 Village Circle, Suite zoz --Westlake, Texas 76z62 q Metro: 817-430-0941 - Fax: 817-430-1812 " www.westlake-tx.org Capital Projects and Strategic Planning, FY04/05 to FY14/15 Question posed at the Council workshop: Are the capital projects we fund in line with the strategic plan? We reviewed the significant capital projects listed in our Capital Improvement Plan (for the previous 10 year period) and compared those investments to the goals and objectives defined in our current Balanced Scorecard and Strategy Map. Not all of the projects listed were completed before the current strategic plan was set in place, but many of our investments are similar in nature and do lend themselves to alignment with our long-term vision for the community. As we are at times constrained by funding levels, each project is reviewed to ensure the maximum impact to the quality of life of the community and do not stray into areas that would be considered unnecessary for the Town. Municipal Projects - The following presents a summary of capital improvement projects that have been completed in the last ten years or are currently funded but not yet completed. As mentioned, Westlake's focused staff and council, small size, and defined needs have produced capital projects that are well aligned with strategic priorities. For our purposes, capital projects can be broken into six groups: (1) road and drainage improvements, (2) water and sewer related projects, (3) municipal buildings, (4) Westlake Academy expansion/improvements, (5) trail extensions/pedestrian improvements, and (6) other. *Note that vehicles and equipment are excluded. Water, sewer, road and drainage capital projects track well with several strategic objectives, including the Improvement of Technologies, Facilities, and Equipment, and Preserving Westlake's Desirability and Quality of Life. Clean, reliable water, well-paved streets and proper drainage ensure health, safety, and property values, which also leads to an Increase in Citizen, Student, and Stakeholder Satisfaction. Timely infrastructure improvements also maximize efficiency over the long-term by keeping maintenance costs in check and minimizing downtime. Recently completed FM 1938 street and landscape improvements track particularly well with the Town's strategic theme of High Quality Planning, Design, and Development. Road and drainage projects include: • FM 1938 reconstruction and improvements (2014-15) • FM 1938 underpass (2014) • Dove Road reconstruction and drainage improvements (2012) • Roanoke Road reconstruction and drainage improvements (2012) • Stagecoach Hills reconstruction and drainage improvements (2012) • Mahotea Boone reconstruction and drainage improvements (2011) • Aspen Lane reconstruction and drainage improvements (2011) Water and sewer related projects include: • Fidelity water line extension (2005) • Ottinger Road water line (2006) • Waterline to OHS water tower (2004) • Stagecoach Hills water line#1 and#2 (2013) • Ground storage tank(2014) • Water meter automation equipment (2015) • SCADA replacement(2014) Trails fall under the strategic theme of Natural Oasis- with a desired outcome to preserve and maintain a perfect blend of the community's natural beauty. They help further several strategic objectives, including the Encouragement of Westlake's Unique Sense of Place, Quality of Life and Community Desirability, and the Increase in Citizen, Student, and Stakeholder satisfaction. The installation and maintenance of our park / trail system continues to be an important component of our residential survey with it being listed as number 3 in the `major categories of town services that residents felt were most important'. The trail system is also mentioned in our municipal vision statement. Since 2002, the Town has added approximately five miles of trails. Trail Extensions/improvements include: • Terra Bella- Glenwyck Farms extension (2008, 0.6 miles) • Hillwood- Dove RD extension (WA to Vaquero,completed 2013, 1.2 miles) • FM 1938 pedestrian underpass (2014) • Granada extension (Glenwyck to FM1938, 2015, 1.3 miles) • Trail and park improvements (playground equipment,benches, etc., funded FY15 CIP) The recently installed outdoor warning system helps Preserve the Desirability and Quality of Life in Westlake. This capital item also furthers the strategic objective of Improving, Technology, Facilities and Equipment. Other includes: • Outdoor warning system (2015) Academic Projects: Academy expansion and improvements follow three of Westlake strategic themes: (1) "Exemplary Service and Governance - delivering unparalleled municipal and educational services," (2) "High Quality Planning, Design, and Development -desirable, well planned, high quality community that is distinguished by exemplary design standards," and (3) "Exemplary Education - an international educational leader." These projects help further several strategic objectives, including the preservation of quality of life and community desirability, the increase of customer satisfaction, the improvement of technology, facilities, and equipment, and WA's ability to attract, recruit, retain, and develop the highest quality workforce. Academy expansion and improvement projects include: • Art/Science building (2008) • Phase 1 academy expansion (2014) • Football field (2011) • Dining hall improvements (2012) • Water well for WA irrigation (2011) Potential Projects: Both the future fire station and Town Hall projects support many areas of our strategic planning document. Including, our strategic objectives, Improving Technology, Facilities and Equipment, Preserve Desirability and Quality of Life, and will also assist in the objective of Maximizing, Efficiencies, and Effectiveness. They also align with the strategic theme of High Quality Planning, Design, and Development and the perspective of enhancing our Financial Stewardship. They will assist us in providing our residents with the level of service and resources they have come to expect from their municipality. Future Municipal building projects include: • Fire station • Town Hall building Exemplary Service High Quality Exemplary Natural Oasis and Governance Planning, Design, Education- and Development Westlake Academy Preserve and We set the standard We are a desirable, Westlake is an maintain a perfect by delivering well planned,high- international blend of the unparalleled quality community educational leader community's natural municipal and that is distinguished where each beauty. educational services by exemplary design individual's potential at the lowest cost standards. is maximized. Citizens, Students,and Stakeholders Preserve Desirability and Quality of Life Increase CSS Satisfaction Financial Stewardship Increase Financial Capacity and Reserves Increase Revenue Streams Maximize Efficiencies and Effectiveness Municipal and Academic Operations Encourage Westlake's Unique Sense of Place Increase Transparency,Accessibility, and Communications Attract, Recruit, Retain,and Develop the Highest uali Workforce People, Facilities,and Technologies Improve Technology, Facilities,and Equipment Optimize Planning and Development Capabilities CI Estimated Westlake Academy Primary Boundary Enrollment Growth &Donation Levels Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of Enrollment @ .63 total enrollment total enrollment total enrollment total enrollment Year Population Households WA students/household at 832 Contribution Total at 1000 Contribution Total at 1200 Contribution Total at 1500 Contribution Total 13/14 1096 334 211 14/15 1173 358 225 27% $1,185,800 15/16 1255 383 241 29% $1,203,286 16/17 1343 409 258 31% $1,221,996 26% 17118 1437 438 276 33% °26% $1,410,996 210% $1,635,996 1700 $1,973,496 18/19 1537 469 295 33% $1,242,016 28/0 $1,431,016 2310 $1,656,016 18/0 $1,993,516 5% $1,263,437 30% $1,452,437 25% $1,677,437 20% $2,014,937 19/20 1645 501 316 3 20/21 1760 537 338 41% $1,286,358 32% $1,475,358 26% $1,700,358 21% $2,037,858 21/22 1883 574 362 43% $1,310,883 34% $1,499,883 28% $1,724,883 23% $2,062,383 $1,337,124 36% $1,526,124 30% $1,751,124 24% $2,088,624 22/23 2015 614 387 47% $1,365,203 39% $1,554,203 32% $1,779,203 26% $2,116,703 23/24 2156 657 414 50% 24/25 2307 703 443 53% $1,395,247 410 0 $1,584,247 35% $1,809,247 28% $2,146,747 5/25 2468 753 474 57% $1,427,395 44% $1,616,395 37% $1,841,395 30% $2,178,895 25/26 2641 805 507 61% $1,461,792 4700 $1,650,792 40% $1,875,792 32% $2,213,292 /0 27/28 2826 862 543 65% $1,498,598 51% $1,687,598 42% $1,912,598 34 $2,250,098 $1,537,979 54% $1,726,979 45% $1,951,979 36% $2,289,479 28/29 3024 922 581 70% 29/30 3236 986 621 75% $1,580,118 58% $1,769,118 48% $1,994,118 39% $2,331,618 30/31 3462 1056 665 80% $1,625,206 62% $1,814,206 52% $2,039,206 41% $2,376,706 31/32 3704 1129 712 86% $1,673,451 66% $1,862,451 55% $2,087,451 44% $2,424,951 32/33 3964 1208 761 92% $1,725,072 71% $1,914,072 59% $2,139,072 47% $2,476,572 33/34 4241 1293 815 98% $1,780,307 760 0 $1,969,307 630 0 $2,194,307 51% $2,531,807 34/35 4538 1384 872 98 /o $1,839,409 81% $2,028,409 68% $2,253,409 54% $2,590,909 35/35 4856 1480 933 112% $1,902,648 87% $2,091,648 73% $2,316,648 58% $2,654,148 36/37 5196 1584 998 112% $1,970,313 93% $2,159,313 78% $2,384,313 62% $2,721,813 37/38 5559 1695 1068 120% $2,042,715 100% $2,231,715 83% $2,456,715 67% $2,794,215 $2,120,185 107% $2,309,185 89% $2534,185 71% $2,871,685 *Assumes 7%population growth/year *Assumes average Westlake resident contribution of$2,234 per child *Assumes average household size of 3.28 *Assumes average non-Westlake resident contribution of$1,125 per child *13/14 population&household numbers from 2013 Census ACS *Contribution numbers do not include any corporate match dollars *SDS,Census,&Resident surveys show approximately 50%of residents have children *.63 students/household calculated from SDS&Petty reports,citizen surveys,&Census reports. %it.. GMR Fund municipal LOSES in support of WA Indirect Costs TOTAL iY General Fund GMR Fund Debt Service Indirect Costs TOTAL 03/04 3,151 13.4% - 101,565 104,716 04/05 156,665 100.0% 1,028,104 183,530 1,368,299 05/06 174,231 11.6% 1,378,634 175,945 1,728,810 06/07 155,044 0.0% 1,334,656 188,503 1,678,203 07/08 188,087 73.8% 1,318,944 118,106 1,625,137 08/09 166,642 19.2% 1,501,587 338,360 2,006,589 09/10 169,031 100.0% 1,499,369 362,857 2,031,257 10/11* 3,995 41,037 1,528,620 373,305 1,946,957 11/12 4,146 110,747 1,620,028 480,514 2,215,435 12/13 3,272 118,044 3,785,424 511,262 4,418,002 13/14 7,435 310,126 2,033,434 556,611 2,907,606 14/15 1,633 393,800 2,294 658 579,537 3,269,628 FY 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 ercentage Breakdown of Municipal Costs in Support of WA by Year cameral Fund GMR Fund Debt Service Indirect Costs TOTAL 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 97.0% 100.0% 11.4% 0.0% 75.1% 13.4% 100.0% 10.1% 0.0% 79.7% 10.2% 100.0% 9.2% 0.0% 79.5% 11.2% 100.0% 11.6% 0.0% 81.2% 7.3% 100.0% 8.3% 0.0% 74.8% 16.9% 100.0% 8.3% 0.0% 73.8% 17.9% 100.0% 0.2% 2.1% 78.5% 19.2% 100.0% 0.2% 5.0% 73.1% 21.7% 100.0% 0.1% 2.7% 85.7% 11.6% 100.0% 0.3% 10.7% 69.9% 19.1% 100.0% 0.0% 12.0% 70.2% 17.7% 100.0% u.1/u4 U4/U!) u5/ub 06/07 _ 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11" 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 R; n GMR Fund General Fund Indirect Costs Debt Service C3.1 US Census Bureau 2013 Annual Survey of School System Finances Per Pupil Amounts for Current Spending (PPCS)of Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems in the United States by School ISD PPCS Total Fort Worth 8,840 WA 8,715 Dallas 8,566 Denton 8,301 Caroll 8,282 Northwest 8,200 Lewisville 8,018 Carrollton-Farmer's Branch 7,989 Coppell 7,570 Keller 6,640 Per pupil amounts based on: Current Spending: Comprises current operation expenditure (as defined below),payments made by the state government on behalf of school systems, and transfers made by school systems into their own retirement funds. This classification is used only in Census Bureau education reports in an effort to provide statistics for users who wish to make interstate comparisons. It is not used in other government finance reports to avoid double counting expenditure between levels of government and funds. Current Operation: Direct expenditure for salaries, employee benefits,purchased professional and technical services,purchased property and other services, and supplies. It includes gross school system expenditure for instruction, support services, and non-instructional functions. It excludes expenditure for debt service, capital outlay, and reimbursement to other governments (including other schools stems). Also excluded are payments made on behalf of the school system by other governments including employee retirement payments made by state governments to state retirement funds and to social security. Employer contributions made by those few school systems that have their own retirement systems (such as the Chicago Board of Education and the Denver Public School System) into their own retirement funds are excluded. Current operation expenditure is a standard classification item used in all Census Bureau government finance reports. C3.2 State New York 19,818 Total C3.2 States Ranked According to Per Pupil Current Spending, FY 2013. US Census Bureau,Annual Survey of Alaska 18 175 School System Finances. D.C. 17,953 New Jersey 17,572 *Per Pupil Current Spending includes current operating Connecticut 16,631 " expenditures(salaries, employee benefits, purchased Vermont 16,377 professional and technical services, purchased property and Wyoming 15,700 other services, and supplies. Excludes expenditure for debt Massachusetts 14,515 service, capital outlay, and reimbursements to other Rhode Island 14,415 governments), payments made by the state government on Pennsylvania 13,864 behalf of school systems, and transfers made by school Delaware 13,833 Maryland 13,829 New Hampshire 13,721 Illinois 12,288 Maine 12,147 North Dakota 11,980 Hawaii 11,823 Nebraska 11,579 Ohio 11,197 West Vir inia 11,132 Minnesota 11,089 Wisconsin 11,071 Virginia 10,960 Michigan 10,948 Montana 10,625 Louisiana 10,490 Iowa 10,313 Kansas 9,8228 Washington 9,672 Missouri 9,597 Indiana 9,566 Oregon 9,543 South Carolina 9,514 Arkansas 9,394 Kentucky 9,316 California 9,220 Georgia 9,099 New Mexico 9,0122 Alabama 8,755 Westlake Academy 8,715 Colorado 8,647 South Dakota 8,470 Florida 8,433 North Carolina 8,390 Nevada 8,339 Texas 8,299 Tennessee 8,208 Mississippi 8,130 Oklahoma 7,672 Arizona 7,208 Idaho 6 791 Utah 6,555 C3.3 Per Student Funding Comparison Fiscal Year Enrollment Audited Operating Expenditures WA CPP KISD CPP CISD CPP NWISD CPP 13/14 697 7,143,678 10,249 7,686 8,674 8,498 12/13 658 5,734,722 8,715 7,082 8,336 8,264 11/12 630 5,777,600 9,171 6,538 8,137 8,175 10/11 530 4,752,699 8,967 6,322 8,130 9,085 09/10 491 4,138,875 8,429 6,551 8,314 8,806 08/09 417 3,722,705 8,927 6,348 8,546 8,238 07/08 379 3,305,220 8,721 6,620 8,247 8,046 06/07 346 2,672,698 7,725 6,325 7,266 7,845 05/06 324 2,249,998 6,944 6,052 7,702 8,116 04/05 264 1,877,398 7,111 5,747 7,790 8,025 WA Unaudited Per Pupil Expenditures Fiscal Year Enrollment Estimated Operating Expenditures WA CPP 14/15 812 8,039,615 9,901 Fiscal Year Projected Enrollment Projected Operating Expenditures WA CPP 15/16 832 8,228,953 9,891 *Enrollment and expenditure figures are based on respective district's financial audits. *Calculations are based on operating expenditures, which include general and special revenue funds, but exclude objects of debt service, capital outlay, and intergovernmental charges. *Per pupil increase from 12/13 to 13/14 was due to staffing increases and associated costs. M