- Elizabeth Larson
- Posted On
Upper Lake school district boards approve next set of criteria in unification process
UPPER LAKE, Calif. – Upper Lake's two school district boards met jointly on Wednesday night to continue the work of reviewing and approving the criteria for a possible unification.
The two boards – for the Upper Lake Union High School District and the Upper Lake Union Elementary District – met for nearly two and a half hours, with an audience of about 20 audience members, including Lake County Superintendent of Schools Brock Falkenberg and Lake County Board of Education members David Browning, Mark Cooper and Patricia Hicks.
Falkenberg and his board will play significant roles in the process starting this summer if the two boards take separate June votes to go forward with the unification.
If approved, the unification which would take place in the 2016-17 school year. With just over 800 students, it would still be the smallest unified district in the county, according to district officials.
The two districts must consider 10 criteria before taking those June votes. At a March 4 joint meeting, the boards approved the first three criteria: the reorganized districts will be adequate in terms of number of pupils enrolled; the districts are each organized on the basis of a substantial community identity; the proposal will result in an equitable division of property and facilities of the original district or districts.
They also discussed the next three, which staff presented reports on Wednesday night.
Upper Lake High Principal/Superintendent Patrick Iaccino, Upper Lake Elementary Principal/Superintendent Valerie Gardner and Lucerne Elementary Principal/Superintendent Mike Brown have been preparing the criteria analysis to present to the boards.
Although Lucerne Elementary has indicated that it would not participate in a unification, because its students attend Upper Lake Brown has been taking part in the meetings and participating in information gathering.
On Wednesday, Iaccino presented the fourth criteria, which addresses the potential for segregation and discrimination in a unification process.
Iaccino said the proposed unification would cause no change to the ethnic makeup of the student bodies of the schools.
“In reality the three schools remain the same. There's nothing that's changing other than the proposed unification of the two districts,” he said.
Brown presented criteria No. 5, which addresses whether there will be substantial increases in costs to the state.
“Funding would basically stay the same from the state,” said Brown, with no projected drop in funding due to unification.
In discussing criteria No. 6, regarding a sound educational program, Gardner said that district officials have been asked a lot about what unification would do. “What doors would it open?”
Gardner said unification would provide the new district with a common vision for educating students, and offers “the opportunity to think out of the box.”
While Gardner said the elementary district has had tremendous improvements, she questioned, “Are we cohesive in how we're meeting the needs of our kids?”
She said unification isn't just about increasing articulation in curriculum and development staff. “It's really about a much bigger plan.”
Regarding the sixth criteria, Upper Lake High Board President Keith Austin explained how his board gets updates on the work of The Hub, a program that provides educational, social and health support services for students and families in need.
He said The Hub has opened his eyes to what the two districts can accomplish when they put their heads together and share resources.
Upper Lake Elementary Board member Diane Plante questioned why the analysis on the sixth criteria wasn't stronger. “It just seems like this is really generic.”
Gardner said it could be expanded, with programs like The Hub added into it. Austin said he liked the idea about adding in details, but pointed out that the criteria is very simple, as was the answer.
In looking at samples from other districts, Gardner said they didn't get into detail when submitting answers to the criteria to the state. Plante said she was OK with the analysis if it met the criteria.
The two boards then unanimously approved those three criteria before hearing presentations on the next three.
Iaccino described the seventh criteria, which covers school housing costs. He said the elementary district owes no bonds while the high school district does for the significant campus revitalization done a few years ago. However, there are no plans to add a new school or take out another bond.
Regarding the eighth criteria, increase in property value, Gardner said there is no anticipated impact on property values as a result of unification.
Brown introduced the ninth criteria regarding fiscal management and status, which Austin said was the elephant in the room. “It's the thing we're worried about.”
The high school and elementary district fiscal officers – Sue Milhaupt and Becky Jeffries, respectively – presented an overview of the numbers.
Milhaupt said the state and county want to make sure a unification move will be sound financially, and that the districts aren’t in financial trouble and trying to unify merely to improve their situations.
The two women led the boards through a review of the districts' current finances. Their report begins on page 12 of the agenda packet posted below.
The report showed that both districts had $4.4 million in general fund restricted/unrestricted expenditures in 2014. They also went over fiscal trends for the districts over the last several years.
“Both districts are very stable,” said Milhaupt.
In addition, both districts have built up healthy reserves. The elementary district is required by the state to have a 4-percent economic uncertainty reserve while the high school district must have a 5-percent reserve. The reserves for each of the districts are 8 percent.
The fiscal report also touched on health insurance caps and negotiation agreements before moving into projected one-time startup costs for unification.
Milhaupt and Jeffries estimated those costs would total $27,000 for attorney fees, new signage, board policy development, new letterhead and other printing, district Web site development, board stipends and data merging.
Other tasks that would need to be accomplished – including development of a mission statement and goals, a new logo, development of new union contracts, review and consolidation of all contracts, and consolidation of deeds and pink slips – didn't have an estimated cost. Jeffries said many of them could be done in-house with existing staff.
Milhaupt and Jeffries also presented different staffing scenarios, emphasizing they were only examples, with the final organizational structure to be determined by the new district's board.
The scenarios included the current situation for both districts, with a total of 84.35 full-time employees, of which 46.3 are credentialed – or teaching – positions, and 38.05 classified positions, which include secretaries, support staff, janitors and cafeteria personnel.
Over fiscal years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the analysis showed that total staff costs for the two separate districts would grow from just over $6 million to $6.4 million.
In the two alternate scenarios, the number of teaching positions remains the same but they estimated a drop in classified positions to 33.97.
The first of those two alternate scenarios shows staff costs for fiscal years 2016-17 through 2018-19 ranging from $6.1 million to $6.2 million and back to $6.1 million in the third year.
The second scenario estimates that over the first three years the new district would have staffing costs of just over $6 million, rising to $6.2 million and then rolling back to a little more than $6 million.
Gardner said that school districts have to analyze their workflow year by year. Because the law requires that in a unification scenario classified positions are protected for two years, she said that would give the district time to assess its workload and determine how many positions it would need.
Rich Swaney, an Upper Lake High Board member, said Jeffries' and Milhaupt's presentation was excellent. He acknowledged there will be hidden costs and the board will need guidance.
“I don't see any adverse financial effects,” he said.
The two boards will next meet jointly on April 22. A 10th criteria – which covers any additional issues that may be required by the boards – is still to be discussed.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
032515 Unification Board Packet