Yosemite, Coarsegold districts study unification

If approved, school districts would become one by

2004-2005 school year

Lacey Rees - lrees@sierrastar.com

 

COARSEGOLD — The financial advantages to unifying Coarsegold and Yosemite High school districts were presented to a fact-finding committee Tuesday night at the Coarsegold School library.

If unification were to take place, it would not take effect until the 2004-2005 school year. Unification would only involve Yosemite and Coarsegold and would exclude feeder districts such as Bass Lake and Raymond.

“From a management standpoint, it would simplify and reduce some of the management because you can consolidate services,” said Bill McCabe, superintendent of both Coarsegold and Yosemite High school districts.

Srini Vasan, business manager for the two districts, showed the committee through a somewhat-complicated state Department of Education formula, how the unification of the districts would increase the revenue limit over what would be generated by the two districts separately. In fact, he projected that while Yosemite’s revenue, based on today’s revenue limits, by 2004-2005 would increase by $38 per ADA (average daily attendance of a student), Coarsegold’s revenue would increase by $908 ADA if they were unified.

The state has a provision that allows the school districts to level up salaries so there is “no disincentive” to unify the districts, said Mr. McCabe.

Salaries of both certificated and classified employees of Coarsegold would be brought up to the level of their Yosemite counterparts. The state would kick in funds to help make up the difference. Unified, the districts would generate almost $1 million more in revenue than they do separately now, according to the calculations.

The meeting is the second in a series of semi-monthly meetings to determine the pros and cons of unification. The committee is comprised of 20 persons representing the two school boards, a parent and superintendent from Bass Lake School District, teachers and classified employees from both school districts and citizens of the community.

The first meeting in January outlined the state’s 10 criteria for reorganization of a school district. It was determined that the unification easily met most of the criteria, and the committee decided to zero in on two of the items — whether the educational programs would be disrupted and whether there would be a substantial negative effect on the fiscal status of the districts.

“Any change is disruptive,” said Bill McCabe, superintendent of both Coarsegold and Yosemite districts, but it is minimal because the districts are currently so intertwined. Be­sides sharing a superintendent and business manager, the districts also share administration and cafeteria supervision. The principals and other employees, as well as transportation, would not be negatively affected.

The school districts currently receive state revenue under the Necessary Small School [NSS] funding. Even combined they would still be under the 2501 ADA limit until at least 2012-2013. Once the 2501 ADA were reached, the NSS funds would be cut off, but since the growth could be anticipated, legislation could be used to help out the district, suggested Mr. McCabe.

Within the next 10 years, it is expected that the Coarsegold area will gain students while Yosemite will lose students to Golden Valley School District as well as to Chawanakee, once it builds its Minarets High School.

It was also explained that the bonds held by the two districts — $11.6 million for Yosemite and $2 for Coarsegold — would continue to be paid by the voters in the territory covered by the respective schools. For instance, Coarsegold residents would continue to pay the Coarsegold bond and voters in Yosemite’s boundaries will continue to pay Yosemite’s bond. Only voters within the boundaries of a new elementary school or new high school would be taxed for that school.

Developer fees would remain as they are now with 40 percent going to the high school and 60 percent going to the elementary schools.

Because the new unified district would still be a NSS district, it would qualify for bus replacement help under one of several plans.

The committee asked Mr. McCabe to help them find other districts in the state which had unified under similar circumstances to see what their experiences have been. If a district had decided not to unify, they also want to know why.

A few years ago, a committee looked into the possibility of unifying all Mountain Area school districts. The idea was soon discarded when it was determined that NSS funds would be lost because of the high ADA, that the district would not be able to afford to level up the numerous elementary school teachers’ salaries to Yosemite levels, and the duplication of administrative responsibilities would necessitate the loss of jobs.

This time, says Mr. McCabe, the situation is completely different.

“It looks like it will be financially feasible to do,” said Curt Campbell, committee chairman, at the end of the meeting.

The committee has set a timetable of May 1 to give its recommendations to the school boards and have them approve (or deny) unification. Both school boards must agree or plans cannot continue.

A vote to continue would see a petition describing adherence to the nine criteria (the 10th criterion is a catchall for the state Board of Education to prescribe further rules) go to the Madera County Committee on School District Organization for approval. If approved, it would go to the state Board of Education and then, ultimately, to the voters. A denial at any step would kill the unification plans.

The next meeting of the fact-finding committee on reorganization will be held in the board room at Yosemite High School on Wednesday, February 26 at 6 p.m.