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