HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeasibility Study of Consolidation for Idaho Falls (91) and Bonneville (93) School Districts Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study Draft 1
FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CONSOLIDATION FOR
IDAHO FALLS (91) AND BONNEVILLE (93)
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
August 2011
101 SW Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
1-800-547-6339 503-275-9500
www.educationnorthwest.org
Acknowledgements
Education Northwest would like to thank the Idaho Falls and Bonneville staff for
assisting in framing the study, obtaining necessary data, and providing feedback on the
report. Appreciation goes to Idaho State Department of Education and Boise and
Meridian school districts for providing staffing and financial data for comparative
purposes. Finally, thank you to Cameron Arial and his colleagues at Zions Bank Public
Finance for conducting analyses to estimate the impact of consolidation on future bond
debt.
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study Draft i
Executive Summary
The current study is in response to patron questions about potential cost-savings and
efficiencies that may be gained from consolidation. The findings are summarized by the
three major questions framing the study.
Study Methods
Analysis of existing 2008-2009 and 2010-2011 national, state, and local financial and
staffing data
Review of district and state documents
Interviews with district personnel
Focus groups with key stakeholder groups from both districts
What are the potential savings or costs in a combined district of
20,000+ students?
1. In total, Idaho Falls and Bonneville have significantly smaller administrative
structures than the national average and compared to districts of 20,000 or more
students in the State of Idaho.
2. Actual total expenditures associated with certified administrative base salary costs are
approximately 37 to 39 percent higher in Boise and Meridian school districts than in
Idaho Falls or Bonneville districts, and between 15 and 45 percent higher for non-
certified salaries. Average administrative salaries are approximately 20 to 25 percent
higher in the Boise and Meridian than in Idaho Falls and Bonneville.
3. If the new consolidated district adopts an administrative structure of a large district
like Boise or Meridian (FY 2009), there will be significant costs to consolidation
ranging from $1.36 to $2.45 million. If an administrative structure similar to those
used in districts serving between 20,000 and 25,000 students is used, the minimum
projected additional cost is approximately $582,000 and can range up to
approximately $2.4 million.
4. The study projects additional annual costs of approximately $1 million (at minimum)
associated with creating salary equity in a consolidated district. On average, Idaho
Falls teachers and non-certified staff have higher salaries than Bonneville, while
Bonneville administrators on average have somewhat higher salaries than Idaho Falls.
5. Consolidation will double the tax base funding for the consolidated district and has
the potential to either reduce or increase the tax impact for bonds depending on
whether the two districts passed bonds separately or together. Bonds passed after
consolidation will likely increase the tax impact for both districts’ patrons. In
addition, it is more beneficial for Idaho Falls to have a fixed amortization schedule
ii
and for Bonneville to have an amortization schedule wrapped around their existing
debt.
6. Both Idaho Falls and Bonneville have future building needs because of growing
enrollment. In addition, there is a concern that current facilities for operations,
warehousing, transportation, and central offices may not have sufficient capacity to
hold combined administrative staff, equipment, and supplies.
What current and prior actions have both districts taken to reduce
cost and increase efficiency?
1. In the last three years, approximately $6 million each in staffing/payroll and program
cuts have been made to both districts’ general fund in response to reductions in state
funding. It should be noted that access to ARRA funding from the federal government
mediated the cuts made—without this one-time funding, cuts to expenditures would
have been significantly greater.
2. The two districts have engaged in cost-sharing activities such as a shared
professional-technical coordinator, technology backup systems, and participating in
state joint purchasing agreements.
3. Other potential cost-reduction or efficiency strategies might include additional joint
purchasing agreements and coordinating some services and programs such as
athletics, extracurricular activities, advanced and vocational technical courses, and
staff development and recruitment, although more extensive study of the actual costs
should be conducted.
What are stakeholder perceptions and concerns about consolidation?
1. The community is generally satisfied with both districts’ responsiveness to concerns
and openness to parent and community involvement in decisionmaking—however,
some concerns exist about the level of preparation for college and career after high
school.
2. Resource constraints and an ever-changing policy environment are seen as significant
challenges to both districts, and district efforts to work under severely under-
resourced conditions are noted and commended.
3. The understanding of consolidation and its implications is widely varied across
stakeholder groups. Many members of the community understand issues of
consolidation from a superficial perspective.
4. Three major values appear to underlie the community discussion about consolidation:
(1) fiscal conservatism and an interest in efficiency of spending tax dollars; (2)
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study iii
consolidation decisions must be made with the best interests of the students as the top
priority rather than simply cutting costs; and (3) a strong sense of community identity
and desire for local control.
Summary and Recommendations
Overall, the limited set of cost analyses summarized in this report suggests that
consolidation will incur substantial costs. Both districts already operate at an
administrative level below state guidelines. Combining districts is not as simple as
having a single superintendent or a single transportation supervisor. Doubling the size of
the district means that there are twice as many students to serve, and even at current
levels, Idaho Falls and Bonneville are serving students more efficiently than larger
districts in the state.
Adoption of the other models of consolidation may result in additional costs related to
facilities parity and potential impacts on local tax rates and levies. Consolidation
decisions should take into account the specific needs of students to be served, rather than
adopting a model based on cost alone.
Rather than consider full consolidation, it might be beneficial to undertake efforts to
consolidate district services similar to efforts that already exist, like sharing technology
backup and a professional technical coordinator between the two districts. Promising
candidates for service consolidation might include revisiting joint purchasing agreements
for goods and services; contract service for custodial, technology, or grounds keeping;
and combining aspects of programs, such as professional development, recruitment, and
specialized programs, and options for students, such as those suggested in the state
services consolidation report (ID OPE, 2009).
If the districts decide to move forward to a more in-depth exploration of consolidation,
more extensive cost analyses should be conducted, and should include a projection of the
revenue under ID statute § 33-1003 that allows districts to keep their individual funding
formula amounts and half the associated savings, as well as comprehensive analysis of
facilities and staffing costs. It is likely that these more comprehensive analyses may
uncover additional costs and savings that are beyond the scope of the current study.
iv
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study v
CONTENTS
........................................................................................................................................ Page
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i
Study Methods ................................................................................................................. i
What are the potential savings or costs in a combined district of 20,000+ students?...... i
What current and prior actions have both districts taken to reduce cost and increase
efficiency? ....................................................................................................................... ii
What are stakeholder perceptions and concerns about consolidation? ........................... ii
Summary and Recommendations .................................................................................. iii
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
Scope and Purpose of Study ....................................................................................... 2
General Study Methods and Data Sources .................................................................. 3
Study Findings .....................................................................................................................3
What are the potential costs or savings of different administrative structures in a
combined district of 20,000+ students? .......................................................................... 3
Reasonable Administrative Structure ......................................................................... 4
Costs/Savings Associated with New Administrative Structures ................................ 5
Characteristics of Comparison Districts ..................................................................... 7
Stage 1: Base Salary Costs for Certified Administrative Staff .................................. 7
Stage 2: Non-Certified Staff Administrative Base Salary Costs ............................... 9
Comparing Existing Structures and Actual Costs ..................................................... 12
Potential Costs/Savings with Alternative Models..................................................... 14
Salary Equalization ................................................................................................... 16
Parity of Taxes, Bond Debt Structures, and Facilities .............................................. 17
Adequacy of District Facilities ................................................................................. 19
What current and prior actions have both districts taken to reduce cost and increase
efficiency? ..................................................................................................................... 20
Additional Options for Reducing Cost and Increasing Efficiency ........................... 21
What are stakeholder perceptions and concerns about consolidation? ......................... 23
Community Perceptions of the Districts ................................................................... 24
vi
Stakeholder Perceived Costs and Benefits of District Consolidation ....................... 25
Summary and Recommendations ......................................................................................27
Appendix A ..........................................................................................................................1
Appendix B ..........................................................................................................................5
Bond Levy Impact Projections.............................................................................................5
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 1
Introduction
Education Northwest was commissioned by the school boards of Idaho school districts,
Idaho Falls (D91) and Bonneville (D93), to study potential benefits and consequences of
consolidating the two districts. The districts pooled their resources allocated from the
state of Idaho to investigate the feasibility of consolidation ($10,000 for each district, for
a total study cost of $20,000). The study is in response to patron questions about potential
cost-savings and efficiency that may be gained from consolidation.
The two districts (Idaho Falls and Bonneville) serve the majority of students who live in
Bonneville County, while Bonneville also serves a portion of students in Bingham
County. Over the last three years, both districts have undergone significant growth in
their student enrollment, and expect to continue to grow (current enrollments are
approximately 10,700 and 10,300, respectively). Idaho Falls expects to experience a
significant growth in elementary and middle school enrollment, and anticipates needs for
additional elementary and middle school space in the near future. Bonneville is
experiencing most rapid growth in high school and middle school, but expects to need
additional elementary space as well.
Idaho Falls currently provides instruction in twelve elementary schools (including one
math/science magnet school), three junior highs (serving grades 7-9), two high schools,
one alternative high school, and programs for special needs students. Idaho Falls also
provides in collaboration with Bonneville, a professional technical coordinator at the high
school level. Bonneville has thirteen elementary schools (K-6), two middle schools (7-8),
and two high schools. In addition, Bonneville administrates an online high school and an
online home schooling program; alternative programs for middle and high school; and
programs for special needs students.
The context of this study is set in a period of steep reductions in Idaho’s education
budgets. Since FY 2010, the state has seen a 7 percent decrease in education funding.
Districts also experience these cuts in revenue are translated to the districts who must find
ways to trim costs and increase efficiencies while maintaining high standards for student
learning. For example, revenue has declined 8 and 6 percent in Boise and Meridian, the
two largest districts in the state—prompting cuts of staff and programs. Neither large
district has passed a new supplemental levy. Similar constraints have been felt in Idaho
Falls and Bonneville districts, where the districts have cut approximately $12 million in
staff and programs-- $6 million each to offset a 5 to 12 percent decrease in state funding.
These cuts and increased efficiencies have been extensive and represent real efforts to
curb costs and operate within state revenue parameters (see discussion under study
question 2 for more detail about specific cuts).
As a potential cost-cutting measure, Idaho statute provides incentives for districts to
consider consolidation as an option for reducing costs:
2
The state will provide $10,000 per district to study the feasibility of district
consolidation (Idaho Code § 33-310B)
In the event of consolidation, consolidating districts keep the continued individual
funding formula amounts allocated to them for seven years, and half of the savings
for every year thereafter (Idaho Code § 33-1003)
As incentive for eliminating the duplication of certain functions, severance packages
are available for district employees who are willing to give up their duplicative
position (Idaho Code § 33-521)
Idaho Falls and Bonneville are unique in that they are relatively large districts with
respect to consolidation considerations—a consolidated district will be in excess of
20,000 students. A national search of consolidated districts turned up only two examples
of similar-sized districts consolidating—however, in both cases, consolidation brought
together elementary and secondary districts, rather than two separate districts. The vast
majority of consolidations occur in much smaller districts, and most of the time in more
rural areas (a copy of the more comprehensive survey and literature review can be
provided upon request). Positive savings that have been found typically occur when very
small districts consolidate (1,500 or fewer students) and not with larger districts, because
economies of scale are already in place in larger districts. However, it is possible that
consolidation of some or all aspects of the two districts might yield savings.
Scope and Purpose of Study
It is important to note that the scope of this study was not to conduct a comprehensive
study of all potential cost savings and consequences of consolidation, rather it was to
provide an overview of some of the more pressing and important issues to consider in a
full-scale consolidation study. Another important factor in conducting the study was to
minimize the impact on the time and resources of the districts in identifying some of
these issues. Therefore, the scenarios and issues presented in the report are not
exhaustive, but intended to be representative of the larger range of issues that must be
considered. To define and maintain a useful and manageable set of study activities, we
focused our study methods on three research questions:
1. What are the potential costs or savings in a combined district of 20,000+ students?
2. What current and prior actions have both districts taken to reduce cost and increase
efficiency?
3. What are stakeholder perceptions and concerns about consolidation?
To further refine our study scope, we did not examine self-sustaining programs (e.g.,
child nutrition) that are supported through cost reimbursement or fee-for service. In
addition, we did not address issues related to federal programs such as Title II, special
education, or Title I, as these programs are governed by regulations beyond the scope of
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 3
the local school boards and districts, and therefore are less amenable to efficiency
changes.
Second, no “projections” of costs or savings were conducted. Because of the complexity
and many factors that can influence the cost of many aspects of consolidation (such as
joint purchasing agreements, curriculum development, etc), it is difficult to project these
costs reliably. Rather, cost analyses are based on models with explicit assumptions and
that can be answered using existing data sources. We state our assumptions, where
appropriate, as well as limitations for interpreting our analysis findings based on those
assumptions.
This report provides a summary of findings addressing each of the three questions set out
above. The sections are organized by first describing the data and assumptions used in
answering the study question(s). Next we provide a brief description of the data and
findings, followed by a general summary and discussion of limitations.
General Study Methods and Data Sources
We employed a variety of research methods to answer our questions about the feasibility
of a consolidation between Idaho Falls and Bonneville school districts, including analysis
of existing financial and staffing data, district and state documents, interviews with
district personnel and focus groups with key stakeholder groups from both districts.
Existing national, state, and local data were used to answer questions about potential
additional costs or savings, as well as expenditure reductions already enacted. Finally,
document review, interviews with district staff, and focus groups with key stakeholders
were used to provide data for to examine other options that might lend themselves to
coordination, as well as stakeholder perceptions and concerns about consolidation. We
describe the specific methods within each section below.
Study Findings
What are the potential costs or savings of different administrative
structures in a combined district of 20,000+ students?
To address this research question, the first step is to determine a reasonable
administrative structure for a district of 20,000+ students. For comparative purposes, it is
helpful to compare a hypothetical Idaho Falls/Bonneville consolidated district to other
districts of similar size. There are three potential scenarios for this consolidation.
Scenario 1: Use half of the administrative structure of the combined district,
essentially eliminating any duplicate positions.
4
Scenario 2: Use all of the administrative structure of the combined district,
essentially keeping the functions of each individual district intact
Scenario 3: Create an alternative structure where functions are mapped to roles
needed for serving a district of 20,000+ students. This option may require combining
some existing roles, or distributing certain functions across multiple personnel.
To make judgments about which of these approaches is appropriate, it is useful to
examine (1) how much administrative structure is reasonable for a 20,000+ district; and
(2) what is the cost of this new administrative structure with respect to the number of
positions and the increased salary demand for a larger district.
Reasonable Administrative Structure
To assess the adequacy of administrative structure size, values are compared to (1)
national averages for districts between 20,000 and 25,000 students, and (2) to Idaho
school districts serving 20,000 or more students (Boise and Meridian).
Finding 1: In total, Idaho Falls and Bonneville have significantly smaller
administrative structures than the national average and compared to districts of
20,000 or more students in the State of Idaho.
Using 2008-09 1
to have consistent comparative data both nationally and across the state:
Idaho Falls and Bonneville each had 11 certified administrators (22 total) and 21.5
and 14.0 non-certified administrators and support staff, respectively (35.5 total).
The average district-level administrative staffing in districts serving 20,000 to 25,000
students across the nation is 18 certified administrators, and 73.8 non-certified
administrators and support staff.
Boise had a total of 29 certified administrators and 60.8 non-certified administrators
and support staff (Table 2 and Table 4). Meridian had a total of 32 certified
administrators and 53.4 non-certified administrators and support staff (Table 2 and
Table 4).
Scenario 1: In this scenario, the hypothetical consolidated district would have an
administrative structure consisting of 11 certified administrators and 17.5 non-certified
1 A major challenge with the study was the ability to obtain clean and reliable data from the state and
districts that could be used for comparative purposes. Multiple efforts were conducted to obtain comparable
data from individual districts, as well as staff and district level existing data files from the state. As a result of
these challenges, the existing salary cost data used in the study includes state data files from 2008-091 that
report staff positions, salary, and full-time equivalent (FTE). By using this data, we were able to make
standard comparisons across districts using common definitions and reporting standards1 with data that can
be verified. By using 2008-09, we were also able to compare staffing levels to national averages using the
Common Core Data from IES.
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 5
administrators and support staff. This translates to 61 percent of the national average for
certified administrators, and 23.7 percent of the national average for non-certified
administrators and support staff—a structure that is likely to be inadequate for meeting
the needs of 20,000+ students. The hypothetical consolidated district using Scenario 1
would have an administrative structure between 30 and 40 percent of the structures in
Boise or Meridian.
Scenario 2: In this scenario, the hypothetical consolidated district would have an
administrative structure consisting of 22 certified administrators, and 35.5 non-certified
administrators and support staff. These numbers translate to four more certified
administrators than the national average and 48 percent of the national average for non-
certified administrators and support staff. In total, this administrative structure is still 63
percent less than the national average of total roles. The hypothetical consolidated district
using Scenario 2 would have an administrative structure between 60 and 75 percent of the
structures in Boise or Meridian.
Because both of these scenarios yield administrative structures that are approximately 1/5
to 2/3 of the national average administrative structure size and between 30 and 75 percent
of Boise and Meridian, they are likely to be inadequate for serving a student population
of more than 20,000 students. Because of this discrepancy nationally and within the
state, our cost analyses in the next section are based on several iterations of Scenario 3,
which project costs for several examples of administrative structures aligned to functions.
Costs/Savings Associated with New Administrative Structures
To assess whether or not consolidation might produce additional administrative costs or
savings, we analyzed staffing costs using 2008-09 staffing data obtained from the Idaho
State Department of Education (SDE), the most recent, publically available state data at
the time the study began 2
. It is important to note (as discussed in study question 2 below)
that both districts have made significant reductions and changes to staffing since this time
and these data represent relative costs among districts, not actual current costs (which are
substantially lower because of expenditure reductions since that time).
All administrative cost analyses were conducted using the following assumptions:
Compensation levels were computed from base contract amounts for certified
administrators’ staff to standardize the salary comparisons. For non-certified
personnel, the annual compensation level was computed by multiplying the hourly
rate by the number of weekly hours, and the number of weeks in the contract. For
example, $13 per hour for a 40-hour week for 50 weeks equals an annual
compensation level of $26,000. We did not include extended duty contracts in our
analyses since these varied across districts.
2 Since the inception of the study in March 2011, the state has made available data from 2009-2010.
6
Certified staff full-time equivalent (FTE) levels were taken from base contracts where
one FTE is equal to the full number of days specified in the master contract. For non-
certified personnel, FTE levels were calculated as the number of hours per week
times the number of weeks divided by 2080 hours (ID SDE, 2011). For example, 40
hours times 50 weeks equals 2,000 hours, which translates into an FTE of .96
(2,000/2,080). Again, extended duty contracts were not included.
We only examined salary comparisons for certified administrative staff at the district
level. No comparisons were made for certified building administrators, since the
focus of the study is at the district level.
Similarly, we examined salary comparisons for non-certified staff at the district level,
but not at the school level. In addition, we focused on supervisors and a subset of
district support personnel categories (office, business, and human resources) as these
categories were most comparable across districts. Transportation,
building/grounds/custodial, and food service support staffing practices varied across
districts, so these costs were not calculated, but would certainly factor into an overall
cost comparison.
All personnel were classified using the assignment, activity, and classification codes
determined by the state. Costs were estimated within these pre-determined categories.
It should be noted that similar functions were sometimes coded in different categories
across districts. For example, technology directors might be coded as a certified
director, or as a non-certified technology role. In pulling out specific role salary costs,
we relied both on the personnel data provided by the state and on identifying key
personnel from district websites.
In calculating costs for a “large” Idaho district (defined as 20,000 or more students)
as a metric for comparison, we averaged actual costs and FTEs of the two largest
districts in the state, Boise Independent School District (Boise) and Meridian Joint
School District (Meridian). Boise and Meridian were chosen as comparison districts
because their size and structure are more comparable to size and structure of a
20,000+ consolidated district. These averages were used as general salary estimates
for different personnel levels to project potential costs in our model analysis at the
end of this section, and to make general descriptive comparisons between the two
large districts and Idaho Falls and Bonneville.
Our analyses focused on three areas:
1. Comparison of salary costs for certified district administration across the two largest
Idaho districts (Boise and Meridian) and Idaho Falls and Bonneville
2. Comparison of salary costs for non-certified supervisors, and selected district support
staff categories of general office, business, and human resources support across the
two largest Idaho districts (Boise and Meridian) and Idaho Falls and Bonneville
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 7
3. Estimates of cost savings for two generic administration models synthesized from an
analysis of administrative structures for districts between 20,000 and 25,000 students
in Oregon, Washington, and Utah, along with administrative structures for Boise and
Meridian school districts in Idaho
Characteristics of Comparison Districts
In FY 2009, Boise and Meridian school districts enrolled the largest number of students
in the state (Table 1). Annual revenues were near $250 million for both large districts,
and between $73 and $94 million for Idaho Falls and Bonneville, respectively.
Table 1
Characteristics of Comparison Districts (FY 2009)
Boise Meridian Idaho Falls Bonneville
Student Enrollment 25,205 34,105 10,442 9,888
Teacher FTE 1449.9 1739.6 520.3 461
Student/Teacher Ratio 17.4 19.6 19.8 20.2
Administrator/ Student
Ratio 1:525 1:533 1:475 1:396
Total Revenue $246,959,933 $246,876,060 $73,984,381 $94,135,283
Total Expenditures $273,292,063 $266,147,672 $72,697,455 $72,110,426
Stage 1: Base Salary Costs for Certified Administrative Staff
The first stage in our analysis of personnel costs was to assess the actual total base salary
expenditures for the four district administrative categories set by the state.
1. Superintendent
2. Deputy or Assistant Superintendent
3. Director—administrator of a district-wide program
4. Supervisor/Coordinator—educator with responsibility for specified subject or area of
service
We summarized actual costs and FTEs within each category for each of the four districts.
To calculate values that could be used in later analyses projecting costs using different
administrative models, we created average salaries and total FTEs for the group of two
“large” districts (Boise and Meridian), and for the hypothetical “consolidated” district by
summing actual salary costs and FTEs for Idaho Falls and Bonneville. Tables 2 and 3 on
the next page present the comparison of administrative salaries (actual 2008-2009 costs)
and FTE for (1) the four individual districts, (2) Boise and Meridian combined, and (3)
Idaho Falls and Bonneville combined.
8
Table 2
Total Certified Administrative Salary Costs and FTE by District (Based on FY 2009
Actual Costs)
Category Boise Meridian Idaho Falls Bonneville
Salary
Superintendent $171,478 $140,919 $115,566 $104,985
Deputy Superintendent NA $111,875 NA $95,926
Director $882,994 $1,743,669 $299,745 $336,598
Supervisor/ Coordinator $1,924,761 $902,080 $490,170 $375,283
Total (across categories) $2,979,233 $2,898,543 $905,481 $912,792
FTE
Superintendent 1 1 1 1
Deputy Superintendent 1 NA NA 1
Director 7 20 4 4
Supervisor/ Coordinator 20 11 6 5
Total (across categories) 29 32 11 11
Source: 2008-2009 staffing data requested from ID SDE on May 22 2011.
Finding 2: Actual total certified administrative base salary costs are
approximately 37 to 39 percent higher in Boise and Meridian school districts than
Idaho Falls or Bonneville districts.
For example, Boise and Meridian superintendent salaries are $171,478 and $140,919
respectively, compared to Idaho Falls and Bonneville superintendent salaries of $115,566
and $104,985, respectively (Table 2). Additionally, directors in Boise and Meridian
make $90,575 compared to directors in Idaho Falls and Bonneville (with an average
salary of $70,705). This discrepancy ranges from 3 percent higher for
supervisor/coordinator salaries to 29 percent higher for superintendent salary (Table 3).
In addition, Boise and Meridian also have a significantly greater number of certified
administrators (25 to 32 percent more) than the two smaller districts (between two and a
half and three times as many) (Table 2).
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 9
Table 3
Average Salaries for District Groupings (Based on FY 2009 Actual Costs)
Category Average Salary for
Boise and Meridian
(Large)
Average Salary for
Idaho Falls and
Bonneville
(Consolidated)
Ratio of Consolidated
to Large District
Salaries
Superintendent $156,199 $110,276 .71
Deputy Superintendent $111,875 $95,926 .86
Director $90,575 $70,705 .78
Supervisor/ Coordinator $74,391 $72,121 .97
Source: 2008-2009 staffing data requested from ID SDE on May 22 2011.
Stage 2: Non-Certified Staff Administrative Base Salary Costs
The second stage of our analysis involved calculating actual salary levels and FTEs for a
set of non-certified administrative and support categories (Tables 4 and 5 on the
following pages). We chose to focus on specific personnel categories for two reasons:
1. The non-certified supervisory categories were largely aligned with the categories in
our models for projecting hypothetical costs; and
2. The support categories were relatively consistent across the four districts.
Non-certified support categories for transportation, custodial and buildings/grounds
personnel, and food service staff were not consistently categorized across districts,
suggesting that different staffing practices exist in the four districts selected. Therefore
these categories were not included in the calculations, but would potentially have an
impact on the overall cost estimates for base salaries.
Finding 3: In general, Boise and Meridian spend between 15 and 45 percent more
on total expenditures for non-certified salaries and hire between 40 and 50 percent
more personnel to perform their non-certified administrative support functions
than do Idaho Falls and Bonneville combined (Table 4 on next page).
In most cases, the total salary expenditures for non-certified personnel categories are
higher in Boise and Meridian than for either Idaho Falls or Bonneville. For example, the
total non-certified costs estimated for the personnel categories in Table 4 indicate that
Boise spends between three and five times more for non-certified administrative costs
than Idaho Falls and Bonneville respectively, while Meridian spends between two and
three times more, respectively.
10
Both Boise and Meridian have significantly more FTE positions that comprise many of
the personnel categories, including office, human resources and business support (Table
4) than Idaho Falls and Bonneville; thus contributing to the cost differential.
Table 4
Selected Non-Certified Supervisor and Support Costs by District (Actual FY 2009
Costs)
Non-Certified Personnel
Category
Boise Meridian Idaho Falls Bonneville
Base Salary
Supervisory
Business $96,200 $77,280 $84,000 $86,400
Human Resources $121,530* $112,618* $54,080 $66,560
Buildings/Grounds $92,000 $71,040 $83,200 $70,720
Transportation $88,800 $36,000 $49,920 $49,280
Technology $101,874* $111,159* $60,480 $76,868*
Food Service $125,430 $33,840 $52,000 $71,360
Non-certified support
Public Information/
Communication
$85,100 NA $44,000 NA
Business $210,900 $267,280 $108,080 $66,560
HR $133,200 $123,496 NA NA
Office Support $1,896,790 $1,145,980 $477,220 $172,680
Total Supervisory $625,834 $405,937 $383,680 $421,188
Total Non-Supervisory $2,325,990 $1,536,756 $629,300 $239,240
Total Non-certified $2,951,824 $1,942,693 $1,012,980 $660,428
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 11
Table 4 (continued)
Selected Non-Certified Supervisor and Support Costs by District (Actual FY 2009
Costs)
Non-Certified Personnel
Category
Boise Meridian Idaho Falls Bonneville
FTE
Supervisory
Business 1 1 1 1
Human Resources 1 1 1 2
Buildings/Grounds 2.9 2.8 1 2
Transportation .9 1 1 .9
Technology 1 1 .8 1
Food Service 1.7 .9 1 1.8
Non-supervisory
Public Information/
Communication
1 NA 1 NA
Business 2.6 4.2 1 1
HR 2.7 4.8
Office Support 54.5 44.4 13 5.3
*Note: Values for these positions were coded as certified directors in the data file, but were combined in Table 4 to
present consistency across administrative functions
Source: 2008-2009 staffing data requested from ID SDE on May 22 2011.
Finding 4: Average non-certified salaries are approximately 25 percent higher in
the Boise and Meridian than Idaho Falls and Meridian across the non-certified
personnel categories included in the study (Table 5).
For example, human resource directors make an average of $117,074 in Boise and
Meridian, compared to an average of $40,213 in Idaho Falls and Bonneville. For
categories where average salaries are higher in the large districts, the differential ranges
from 2 percent to 66 percent. For categories where average salaries are higher in Idaho
Falls and Bonneville, the differential ranges from 11 to 17 percent.
12
Table 5
Average Salaries for Boise/Meridian and Idaho Falls/Bonneville Districts (Actual
FY 2009 Costs)
Personnel Group
Average Salary for
Boise and Meridian
(Large)
Average Salary
for Idaho Falls
and Bonneville
(Consolidated)
Ratio of
Consolidated to
Large District
Salaries
Non-certified supervisory
Business $86,740 $85,200 .98
HR $117,074 $40,213 .34
Buildings/Grounds $65,906 $76,960 1.17
Transportation $62,400 $49,600 .79
Technology $106,517 $75,979 .71
Food Service $53,090 $41,120 .77
Non-certified support
Public Information/
Communication $74,950 $44,000 0.59
Business $61,156 $34,928 0.57
HR $28,522
Office Support $25,356 $28,257 1.11
Source: 2008-2009 staffing data requested from ID SDE on May 22 2011.
Comparing Existing Structures and Actual Costs
To calculate potential additional costs or savings associated with adopting administrative
structures similar to Boise or Meridian, we calculated the projected costs associated with
several administrative options that might be used in a newly consolidated district. First,
we calculated the cost of simply combining the costs for Idaho Falls and Bonneville (by
summing) and compared this combined cost to the cost of Boise and Meridian’s existing
administrative structures separately.
Second, we calculated projected salary figures using the average salary and FTEs for
Boise and Meridian. The models for the projection were two administrative structure
models adapted from other administrative structures found in districts of 20,000 to 25,000
students. We estimated three cost projections with each model—one each using the
administrative and support FTEs for Boise and for Meridian separately and then using the
average FTE values across both Boise and Meridian combined.
Table 6 compares the 2008-2009 combined certified and non-certified administrator costs
for Idaho Falls and Bonneville with Boise and with Meridian’s actual costs for their
administrative structures. If Idaho Falls and Bonneville school districts simply
consolidated with no restructuring, this table represents the net cost of what Idaho Falls
and Bonneville spend together compared to Boise and to Meridian. The comparison
provides a useful baseline to examine additional models where structures are different
from those in any of the four districts. In addition, the table allows a rough estimate of
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 13
how much administrative “cost” would be associated with adopting a structure identical
to either Boise or Meridian.
Table 6
Comparison of Combined Idaho Falls/Bonneville Certified Administrative Base Salary
Levels to Boise and Meridian
Category Combined
Costs for
Idaho Falls and
Bonneville
(Baseline Cost)
Combined
Costs
Compared to
Boise
Combined
Costs
Compared to
Meridian
Certified
Superintendent $220,551 $49,073 $79,632
Deputy superintendent $95,926 $95,926 -$15,949
Director $636,343 -$246,651 -$1,107,326
Supervisor/ coordinator $865,453 -$1,059,308 -$36,627
Total certified $1,818,273 -$1,160,960 -$1,080,270
Non-certified
Supervisory $789,617 $163,783 $383,680
Non-supervisory $868,540 -$1,457,450 -$668,216
Total non-certified $1,658,167 -$1,293,667 -$284,536
Total
Total certified and non-certified $3,476,430 -$2,454,627 -$1,364,806
Note: Negative values represent projected costs to assume administrative structure of comparison district,
while positive values represent projected savings.
Source: 2008-2009 staffing data requested from ID SDE on May 22 2011.
Finding 5: If the new consolidated district adopts either Boise or Meridian’s
administrative structure (FY 2009 3
), there will be significant costs to consolidation
ranging from $1.36 to $2.45 million (Table 6).
The combined actual costs for Idaho Falls and Bonneville are significantly less overall
than either Boise or Meridian ($2.45 million and $1.36 million, respectively). Costs for
certified administrative salaries are about $1.1 to $1.2 less than Boise and Meridian.
There is more discrepancy with respect to non-certified personnel, in that Idaho Falls and
Bonneville combined is approximately $1.3 million less in cost than Boise, but much
closer to Meridian (approximately $285,000). Within categories, Idaho Falls/Bonneville
3 Because all four districts have significantly reduced their costs at approximately the same rate, projected
costs based on current data would follow a similar pattern as the 2008-09 costs.
14
show higher costs for superintendent salaries (with two superintendents—between
$49,000 and $80,000) and non-certified supervisory personnel to one per category (with
two directors/supervisors per role for a potential savings between $164,000 and
$384,000). However, these modest potential savings are quickly negated by other
categories, where Boise and Meridian have much higher costs.
Potential Costs/Savings with Alternative Models
The comparisons with Boise and Meridian reported above do not take into account
creating different structures in a new district that may better meet the needs of a
combined Idaho Falls/Bonneville district. Consolidation provides an opportunity to re-
organize into different structures, and to re-align resources to meet the needs of an
increased number of students. Therefore, we examined potential costs and savings using a
set of two additional administrative structures: One using a deputy superintendent
approach to supervise the two major areas of operations, curriculum and instruction; and
one using directors for these two roles, as well as regional or level (elementary and
secondary) directors to coordinate instruction in the school buildings.
The two administrative models were chosen as a result of reviewing 23 different
administrative structures for districts of 20,000 to 25,000 students. Organizational charts
from districts in Utah, Oregon, Washington, Missouri, and Indiana, along with the two
“large” districts were evaluated and two models that combined the most common features
were developed. Each model displays the higher-level administrative categories. The
graphic representation of both models can be found in Appendix A (Figures A.1 and
A.2).
Model 1 consists of:
One superintendent,
Two deputy superintendents (one overseeing all district operations and one
overseeing all instructional programs),
Six district program directors, including curriculum/instruction, special education
(required by federal programs), technology, student assessment, federal programs,
and student services
Non-certified directors/coordinators for business, human resources, public
information, building/grounds, transportation, and food service
Business, human resources, and district office support staff
Model 2 consists of:
One superintendent,
Three district program directors, including curriculum/instruction and two regional or
level directors to supervise instruction in the schools (could be geographic regional
directors or elementary/secondary directors)
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 15
Coordinators to administrate specific programs (such as technology, staff
development, content coordinators, professional technical education, etc.)
Non-certified directors/coordinators for business, human resources, public
information, building/grounds, transportation, and food service
Business, human resources, and district office support staff
To project the potential costs associated with each of the two models, we used Boise and
Meridian’s average salary for each administrative category. For each model, we also
used the administrator and support personnel category FTEs to evaluate different
iterations of the models. The detailed analyses for these two models can be found in
Tables A1.1 and A1.2 in Appendix A. A summary of the potential costs/savings can be
found in Tables 7 and 8.
Table 7
Potential Costs for Alternative Administrative Structures
Boise
Support FTE
Levels with
Boise/
Meridian
Average
Salaries
Meridian
Support FTE
Levels with
Boise/
Meridian
Average
Salaries
Boise/
Meridian
Average
Idaho Falls/
Bonneville
Combined
Costs
Model 1: Deputy superintendents $4,440,799 $4,619,072 $4,077,714 $3,495,281
Model 2: Directors only $4,577,590 $4,702,393 $4,640,753 $3,495,281
FY 2009 Boise and Meridian structures
(from above) $5,931,057 $4,841,236 $5,386,147 $3,495,281
Source: 2008-2009 staffing data requested from ID SDE on May 22 2011.
Table 8
Potential Costs/Savings Compared to Actual Combined Idaho and Bonneville
Costs
Boise Support
FTE Levels
with Boise/
Meridian
Average
Salaries
Meridian
Support FTE
Levels with
Boise/
Meridian
Average
Salaries
Boise/ Meridian
Average
Model 1: Deputy superintendents $945,518 $1,123,791 $582,433
Model 2: Directors only $1,082,309 $1,207,112 $1,145,472
FY 2009 Boise and Meridian structures
(from above) $2,435,776 $1,345,955 $1,890,866
Source: 2008-2009 staffing data requested from ID SDE on May 22 2011.
16
Finding 6: The minimum additional cost projected for a new administrative
structure in a consolidated district is approximately $582,000 and can range up to
approximately $2.4 million.
Model 1 projected costs range from $2.7 to $4.8 million, which represents a potential
additional annual cost of between $582,000 and $1.1 million to implement.
Model 2 projected costs range from $4.5 to $5.7 million, which represents a potential
additional annual cost between $1.1 million and $1.2 million to implement.
Boise and Meridian’s FY 2009 models (where existing district administrative
structures are used for comparison) costs range from $4.8 to $5.9 million, which
translates into additional annual cost to Idaho Falls/Bonneville of approximately $1.3
to $2.4 million.
Model 1 with a combination of deputy superintendents and district program directors
using the average Boise/Meridian support staff FTE for projection yields the greatest
benefit of re-structuring and keeping staffing levels adequate, while minimizing costs.
The additional annual cost for this model scenario is approximately $582,000.
Salary Equalization
In this analysis, we examine the potential additional costs associated with salary
equalization in the event of consolidation. We do not present analyses for building
administrators, or district/building level support and technical staff. In a larger study of
consolidation consequences, a comparative salary analysis would need to occur to ensure
parity in salary levels across positions, education, and experience levels. To that end, our
analyses present an underestimate of the true hidden costs—since a full analysis taking
into account all permutations of position, education lane, and step is beyond the scope of
this study. Table 9 shows the total FY 2011 FTE for certified teaching staff and district-
level administrators in both Idaho Falls and Bonneville districts, while Table 10 shows
the average actual FY 2011 salary differentials for each category between the two
districts.
Finding 7: There will be additional annual costs of approximately $1 million
associated with creating salary equity in a consolidated district.
Idaho Falls has somewhat higher FY 2011 teaching salaries after adjusting for education
and experience of about 3.8 percent (Tables 9 and 10). To translate this differential into a
projected additional cost associated with salary equalization after consolidation, we
multiplied this percentage by the average salary and total FTE for Bonneville, which
yielded a projected additional cost of $844,054 in base salary costs and projected
additional total compensation costs of $1,066,039. For administrative salaries, the reverse
is true—Bonneville has an advantage over Idaho Falls of 2.6 percent, which translates
into an estimated additional cost of $22,904, and an additional total compensation cost of
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 17
$28,934. These estimates are lower than they would be in reality, as similar analyses
would need to be applied to building administrators, as well as building/district technical,
professional, and support staff.
Table 9
FTE Counts for Certified Teaching and Administrative Personnel (FY 2011 Actual)
Staff Type Idaho Falls
FTE
Bonneville
FTE
Combined
FTE
Certified teaching 566.81 541.1 1107.9
District Administrative 11.5 12.5 252
1 .17 FTE deleted because salary ranges were out of bounds 2 Includes shared Professional Technical Coordinator
Source: FY 2011 staffing data provided by Idaho Falls and Bonneville administrative staff
Table 10
Salary Differentials for Certified Teaching and Administrative Personnel (FY 2011
Actual)
Staff Type Idaho Falls
Average Salary
Bonneville
Average
Salary
% Differential1 Estimated
Equity for
Total FTE3
Certified teaching2 $42,383 $41,023 3.8% $844,054
Administrative $75,699 $77,643 2.6% $22,904
1Ratios/percentatages represent Idaho Falls averages divided by Bonneville averages. Ratios greater then
1.0 or positive percentage indicate salaries are higher in Idaho Falls. Ratios less than 1.0 or negative
percentages indicate salaries are higher in Bonneville. Equity dollars per average salary calculated on
average salary for district with lowest average salary. 2Certified teaching salaries have been adjusted for experience and education. 3Does not include fringe and benefit costs.
Note: The salary differentials do not take into account differences in the calendar days in the contracts for
both districts.
Source: FY 2011 staffing data provided by Idaho Falls and Bonneville administrative staff.
Parity of Taxes, Bond Debt Structures, and Facilities
A nearly universal concern about consolidation is the impact that combining districts will
have on tax rates in the communities that will be part of the consolidated district. This
concern largely stems from differences between the districts in tax rates, bond debt, and
facilities as significant concern and challenge to consolidation. Some confusion also
exists about fiscal consequences of consolidation, for example, whether taxes would be
raised or how the bond debt would be shared between the two districts.
Both districts have differential property tax rates and pass supplemental levies of
different amounts (Bonneville passed $3 million and Idaho Falls passed $6.8 million
annually for two years in March 2011). In addition, Bonneville has been successful in
passing bonds to build new buildings, and has a substantial bond debt already existing.
18
Idaho Falls has not been able to pass a bond to improve its buildings, and recently paid
off its remaining bond debt—resulting in no debt, but with buildings that are older and in
need of retrofitting and refurbishing. This situation leads to two debt-related concerns:
1. Bonneville patrons are concerned about taking on additional debt to pass bonds to
improve Idaho Falls schools (since their current debt remains with them, if
consolidation occurs)
2. Organized opposition to Idaho Falls’ bond efforts will adversely affect the ability of
Bonneville to pass an additional needed bond to build a new secondary school in the
near future.
Concerns were also expressed about the impact of consolidation on the effective tax rates
for each of the two districts. Both districts have been able to pass supplemental levies;
however, Idaho Falls supplemental levy is more than two times the amount of
Bonneville’s. Patrons from both districts were unclear how a combined supplemental
levy will affect both the overall amount of the levy funds across the two districts, or the
tax base supporting the levies. Some respondents indicated that there seems to be some
misunderstanding about what supplemental levy funds are used for in the districts—that
they raise taxes (the last supplemental levy did not raise the tax rate) to pay for “extras”
such as extracurricular activities, music programs, or athletics, rather than for instruction.
It is very difficult to predict the impact that consolidation will have on the likelihood of
passing supplemental levies. Currently, the supplemental levies in both districts have not
raised the property tax rate.
Respondents also expressed concerns about the base property tax rates, which are
different for the two districts, and how consolidation would affect those property tax
rates. Respondents reported some community conflict in how city taxes are split—a
business district to the east funds Bonneville, even though located in in Idaho Falls city
limit.
Finding 8: Consolidation will double the tax base funding for the consolidated
district and has the potential to either reduce or increase the tax impact for bonds
depending on whether the two districts passed bonds separately or together.
Appendix B shows the potential impact of district consolidation on property taxes for
different bond scenarios. Consolidating Idaho Falls and Bonneville districts will result in
a tax base that is roughly two times as large for both school districts than either district
currently has, which could reduce the tax impact for bonds issued depending on the size
of the bond proposed. For example, if Idaho Falls is anticipating issuing $35 million of
bonds, the projected tax increase would be approximately half as large in a combined
district with a tax base that is twice as large, compared to Idaho Falls issuing bonds on its
own with its current tax base.
The scenario changes if Bonneville also has bonding needs. For example, if Bonneville
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 19
also has $60 million of additional bonding needs in the next few years, then the combined
debt of $95 million in a consolidated district ($35 million plus $60 million) would likely
result in a higher tax impact for Idaho Falls compared to if it issued bonds on its own.
Finding 9: The tax impact of issuing new bonds under a consolidated district will
also be affected by the way the bonds are structured.
For example, Idaho Falls, which has no other outstanding debt, would benefit more from
issuing bonds that have a level amortization structure, while Bonneville, which already
has many outstanding bonds, will have a lower tax impact if new bonds are structured to
wrap around its existing debt.
Adequacy of District Facilities
Finding 10: Both Idaho Falls and Bonneville have future building needs because
of growing enrollment.
Related to the topic of raising additional bond funds to renovate Idaho Falls’ schools,
other building needs exist. Because of growing enrollment, Bonneville is already
planning to conduct a bond levy to provide capital funds for a new middle school, and in
the future a new high school. The timing of any consolidation will need to take these
existing needs into account in assessing potential impacts and costs.
Finding 11: In consolidating a district office, there is a concern that current
facilities for operations, warehousing, transportation, and central offices may not
have sufficient capacity to hold combined administrative staff, equipment, and
supplies and that geographic spread of a combined district may actually increase
costs.
Transportation facilities are in variable condition across the two districts, and it is also
not clear whether building a new facility will save money in the long run. Both
community members and district staff expressed similar concerns about combined central
office space (both central office buildings are currently filled to capacity) and warehouse
space. Potential costs for renovating or building new facilities will have to be taken into
account in any consolidation decision.
Related to increasing building capacity is the issue of location of certain departments and
functions. For example, the geographic area of a combined district makes a central
facility for transportation or maintenance potentially more expensive in increased travel
costs, and decreased staff productivity if engaged in longer travel to and from a central
site.
Further study of the actual costs for combining buildings and offices would need to occur
prior to consolidation.
20
What current and prior actions have both districts taken to reduce
cost and increase efficiency?
Finding 12: In the last three years, both districts have made approximately $6
million in cuts each to their general fund in response to reductions in state
funding for a total of $12 million in expenditure reduction across the two districts.
The districts have eliminated and consolidated positions, cut services and programs, and
found efficiencies by re-structuring programs. Both districts have cut their general funds
by more than $6 million each over this time period. Expenditure reductions have
occurred in two major categories—staffing and payroll cuts, and program cuts. It should
be noted that access to ARRA funding from the federal government mediated the cuts
made—without this one-time funding, cuts to expenditures would have been significantly
greater.
Finding 13: Both districts have made significant reductions in staffing levels and
payroll over the last three years.
A total of 136.7 FTE have been eliminated from the general fund across both districts
(Table 11). Strategies for trimming staffing levels and payroll include reduction in
medical and dental benefits, reducing the length of certified contracts and adding
furlough days, non-replacement of retiring staff and other staff attrition, and elimination
of position categories. A detailed list of actual cuts by year and district can be found in
Appendix table A1.4.
Table 11
FTE Cuts from FY 2010 to FY 2012
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Total FTE
Reduction
Idaho Falls 8.7 38.2 1.3 48.2
Bonneville 18.0 7.0 63.5 88.5
Total FTE 26.7 35.2 64.5 136.7
Source: Idaho Falls and Bonneville district data
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 21
Table 12
Expenditure Reductions from FY 2010 to FY 2012
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Idaho Falls $2.1 million $4.1 million NA
Bonneville $1,8 million $1.1 million $4.4 million
Total Expenditure
Reductions
$3.9 million $5.2 million $4.4 million
Source: Idaho Falls and Bonneville district data
Finding 14: While both districts have tried to avoid cutting student programs and
services, some reductions have been necessary in response to decreased state
funding.
Examples of programs that have been eliminated or reduced include extracurricular
activities, some middle grade sports, transportation for extracurricular activities and field
trips, class size increases, curriculum and textbook purchases, intervention programs for
students, classroom supplies, health services, public communication activities, driver’s
education and secondary summer school programs, and reduced travel and general
operating budgets. Appendix A Table A1.4 lists specific program cuts and costs for each
school district.
Additional Options for Reducing Cost and Increasing Efficiency
Focus group and interview questions about additional ideas for reducing costs and
increasing efficiency beyond district consolidation were asked of district staff and of key
stakeholders. The Idaho Legislature commissioned a statewide study to examine what
savings might be realized through services consolidation—that is districts sharing
services, rather than combining into single districts. The report identified several areas
where potential program savings could occur such as coops and/or joint purchasing
agreements, the shared coordination of special programs (e.g., special education, federal
programs, food service, and some of the operations functions) (ID OPE, 2009).
Finding 15: Exploration of additional joint purchasing agreements for goods and
services may have potential to further reduce costs.
In each of the focus groups, respondents suggested the possibility of shared management
of some district functions, ranging from cost-sharing and joint-purchasing agreements
only, to a much broader range of coordinating district services and functions (e.g., food
service, transportation, federal programs, special services, finance, and human resources).
Research suggests that a more feasible and cost effective method for consolidation may
be to enter into cooperative purchasing agreements—for example, as Idaho has done with
food purchasing (IDE, 2009).
Technology. Bulk or joint purchasing agreements for software are likely not to have a
significant impact in reducing costs as districts in the region have explored savings with
22
vendors that have been commonly used in past years. For example, Lightspeed is a
system that most districts in Eastern Idaho currently use. This system provides virus
protection for all computers, web content filtering, email filtering and archiving, etc. The
cost is $7 per computer and does not decrease if districts enter joint purchasing
agreements. Many software vendors charge a certain cost per student or cost per school,
so the cost of these products should not increase or decrease. Each piece of software used
would need to be evaluated.
Further study for consolidation or coordination should inventory equipment with respect
to ratios and age of equipment for equitable access in all schools. A second consideration
would be to investigate bids for joint bulk purchasing agreements to see if hardware and
equipment costs can be reduced. This option does not require consolidation and may
represent savings for both districts. For example, districts could explore purchasing a
large quantity of computers at one time and go out for a bid. The two districts currently
‘trickle’ in their purchases throughout the year, due to rapid aging, storage space, setup
space and inadequate numbers of staff required to process large volume purchases. Joint
large quantity purchasing of computer equipment may require additional
purchasing/warehouse staff to process and manage inventory, and additional technical
staff to set up new systems. Computers that sit in storage for weeks and months could be
dated before they are put into use.
Food Service. Discussions with the food service directors suggested that further
efficiencies might not be gained by joint purchasing agreements with both districts. Both
districts currently utilize the state-negotiated purchasing plan, as well as belong to a
regional food cooperative in an effort to minimize costs and maximize food quality. It is
unlikely that a consolidated district would be able to negotiate better rates with vendors
than already in place for the state, a much larger purchasing pool.
Transportation. It may be possible to save on the purchase of buses and other
transportation equipment through a negotiated bid plan with vendors. Directors of both
district programs are exploring ways to place joint orders out to bid and strategies for
replacing inventory to gain the most efficient long-term cost savings. A detailed cost
study should be undertaken with vendor bids to further assess the potential for savings.
Another area of potential joint purchasing power is fuel purchasing, which can also be
explored through a competitive cost-bid study. Both of these possibilities can occur with
or without consolidation.
Finding 16: There may be potential savings in combining student services and
programs such as athletics, extracurricular activities, advanced and vocational
technical courses, and staff development and recruitment, although more
extensive study of the actual costs should be conducted.
In the context of the present study, focus groups and interviews asked district staff to
identify potential program services that might benefit from consolidation. While the
actual cost projections of identified services and programs are beyond the scope of this
study, there were several program coordination ideas shared which may be worth further
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 23
exploration even if consolidation does not occur.
Combining or coordinating athletic programs, extracurricular activities, music, art,
and travel to field trips
Sharing advanced courses, vocational/technical courses, and gifted and talented
programs
Inter-district magnet programs for specialized areas (e.g., arts, science, math, and
gifted and talented
Increased use of virtual learning technology in facilitated classrooms to offer
electives and advanced classes to more students
Shared vocational program for high school students
Coordination of professional development and curriculum/instruction programs
Joint teacher recruitment and induction programs
Program issues in consolidation. It is not clear that combining curriculum and other
programs would save money without in depth study; however, stakeholders did raise
concerns about bringing together two different instructional approaches, professional
development programs, and curriculum guidelines. In addition, it is hard to project the
hidden costs associated with coming to consensus about how these programs would be
changed and enacted in the combined districts. Potential costs to consider include staff
time for:
Re-aligning curriculum materials
Selecting among different programs
Developing integrated and coordinated professional development programs.
A second consideration in combining the two districts relates to the different calendars.
Idaho Falls operates on a trimester system, while Bonneville operates on a semester
system. The two districts have different vacation times, and the two high school programs
operate on different schedules—one an A/B block schedule, and one on a traditional six-
period day. There are also differences in how the secondary schools are configured. In
Bonneville, seventh and eighth graders attend middle schools, while sixth graders attend
the elementary schools, and ninth graders attend the high schools. In Idaho Falls, seventh
through ninth graders attend the junior high schools, while sophomores and higher attend
the high schools. These different schedules have not only financial implications, but also
district and community culture and value implications in the consolidation discussion.
What are stakeholder perceptions and concerns about consolidation?
Interviews and focus groups were conducted to assess stakeholders’ perceptions of how
well the districts are meeting their goals, the benefits and consequences of consolidation,
and areas where they would like more information. Focus groups were conducted with
parents, community members, business leaders, teachers, school and district
administrators, and school board members. The focus groups and interviews were
24
comprised of participants from both Idaho Falls and Bonneville. The parent focus group
consisted of six parents; three additional parents were interviewed to increase the number
of respondents. Two focus groups were held with community members (one with eight
members and one with seven members). Focus groups were also held with teachers and
administrators (with five and eight participants, respectively). Finally, one board member
from each district was interviewed.
Findings from interviews and focus groups are presented in two sections. The first section
describes stakeholder perceptions of the degree to which the two districts are meeting
community expectations and goals. The second section details stakeholder perceptions of
benefit and/or cost resulting from district consolidation, including a summary of
misconceptions and misinformation. It is important to note that all findings in this
section are based on stakeholder perceptions and opinions.
Community Perceptions of the Districts
Finding 17: The community is generally satisfied with both districts’
responsiveness to concerns and openness to parent and community involvement
in decisionmaking.
Respondents reported general satisfaction with both districts’ responsiveness to
community suggestions for improvement, and felt that both district superintendents were
very approachable and solicited considerable input in decision-making. Several
participants in both districts praised the districts for being open to parental involvement
in district and school decisions, as well as in the education of the students. Respondents
felt the levels of parent involvement in both districts was quite high, and combined with a
sense of local control, supported education in the community to help compensate for
resource restrictions and reductions.
Finding 18: Concerns exist about the level of preparation for college and career
after high school.
Respondents identified concerns about the level of students’ preparation for career and
college after finishing high school. There is a general concern that students do not have
the necessary problem-solving, research, or written and oral communication skills to be
successful after high school, and that this deficit is compounded by district responses to
state accountability systems in the form of teaching to the test and reduction in teaching
creative problem-solving. There was also concern (two respondents) that the level of
expectation and course rigor was not the same as in other states.
Finding 19: Resource constraints and an ever-changing policy environment are
seen as significant challenges, and district efforts to work under severely under-
resourced conditions are noted and commended.
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 25
Community members expressed significant concerns about the resource constraints
facing both districts as a result of reduced state and federal revenue. In particular, patrons
from both districts highlighted large class sizes, lack of textbooks and materials, ill-
maintained buildings and grounds, and growing cuts in art and music programs and in
extracurricular programs such as athletics at middle grade levels. The respondents also
reported that they felt the districts, while under resource and other constraints, were
making a commendable effort to provide children with a high quality education. Four
people stated that the superintendents were continually and publicly thinking about new
and innovative ways to meet the needs of students in an environment with significant
resource challenges, and that the districts were succeeding at providing high-quality
curriculum and instruction in the context of tightening state mandates and decreased
revenue. Two respondents indicated that there is a lot of accountability and transparency
in how resources are spent on appropriate goals and the associated outcomes.
Stakeholder Perceived Costs and Benefits of District Consolidation
Finding 21: Many members of the community understand issues of consolidation
from a superficial perspective.
When asked what the community at large thought about consolidation, respondents
reported that the average person thinks about consolidation at a superficial level—seeing
duplication in administration and services without understanding the realistic costs and
benefits of consolidation. Furthermore, six respondents felt that the issue of consolidation
has become extremely politicized as demonstrated by the public campaign to defeat Idaho
Falls’ bond levies and the more recent attempts in both districts to keep supplemental
levies from passing. Several members of each focus group expressed a desire to have
more defensible data and information to make a decision about the benefits and costs of
consolidation.
Finding 22: Fiscal conservatism and an interest in public efficiency of spending
tax dollars underlies much of the concern about consolidation.
Focus group respondents characterized the culture of both communities as fiscally
conservative, highly individualistic, and supportive of local control. The vast majority of
both focus group and interview respondents thought that finding ways to save money and
increase efficiency so that more dollars could flow to the classroom was a very good idea.
Many people were open to the idea of consolidation, if it would realize significant
savings. It is important to note that all but two expressed reservations that such savings
would actually occur.
A minority of focus group participants was adamant in claiming that consolidating the
districts would necessarily increase cost-efficiencies and reduce redundancies. As
examples, they cited large costs associated with duplicate administrative structures,
crossover in transportation routes, and lack of efficiency in purchasing goods and
services. Other respondents suggested that public education was a focal point for the “no
taxes” movement, and the push for consolidation was one of many fronts in the
26
movement to decrease taxes. Several focus group members described tension (between
individuals with children in the districts’ schools and those without) over equitable
distribution of tax burdens, and suggested the tension arose from differential willingness
to invest in public education.
Finding 23: Community members have a vested interest that consolidation
decisions are made with the best interests of the students as top priority.
Several respondents expressed concern about educational decisions, such as
consolidation, being made based on costs alone, without sufficient regard for the impact
on instruction and the students. As an example of their concern, they pointed to virtual
education (e.g., the current state push on providing laptops to all ninth graders) that may
produce cost-savings only, and wondered whether this approach actually improved
education for the children in the community. They were concerned that consolidation for
cost savings only would cut important corners, and actually decrease the quality and
opportunity of education available to students in both districts.
Finding 24: There is a strong sense of community identity and desire for local
control.
Respondents felt that a major barrier to consolidation was fear of losing community
identity. Several participants expressed pride in their local community and values and
concern that consolidation would dilute this identify. Several talked about the
consolidation of Bonneville previously, and how community rivalries and identities still
exist. Related to community identity is the idea of local control and communities making
decisions about their educational system based on their own values and priorities. Some
worried that local control would be eliminated through consolidation; while others felt
local control has already been eroded by state and federal initiatives.
Respondents raised several concerns about the impact of consolidation on combining the
school boards. Many of the focus group and interview respondents see the existing school
boards as the purest form of local government and representation. However, concerns
about losing local representation in efforts to create a reasonably sized board were
articulated by several respondents. Respondents felt that the community’s diversity of
population and perspective might not be fully covered in a smaller board. Concerns were
also expressed about the local nature of the boards, and the ability to have direct contact
between the board members and the community. For example, respondents from both
districts cited examples of being able to just call up a board member and have a concern
heard, and examples of a small group of stakeholders being able to catalyze important
changes in their schools. Many expressed concern that by having a larger district, much
of this personalization and ease-of-access would be diminished. Finally, respondents
asked questions about the costs associated with re-constituting a new board, particularly,
if a new election was held.
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study 27
Summary and Recommendations
Overall, the limited set of cost analyses summarized in this report suggests that
consolidation will incur substantial costs in establishing an administrative structure
adequate to serve a district of 20,000 students and in establishing salary parity across the
two districts. Doubling the size of the district means that there are twice as many
students to serve. Certain administrative functions will double (for example, processing
payroll and staffing), while some may be combined without loss of function (for
example, transportation or food service directors). In the cases of superintendents and
directors, it is not clear how much addition function would need to be fulfilled by other
certified or non-certified administrative roles, but it is likely these roles would need
supplemental support in a larger district since the number of schools and students served
doubles in a consolidated district.
At a minimum, it will require an additional $582,000 to change the administrative
structure to adequately run a district of 20,000+ students, and at least another $1 million
to equalize certified teaching and administrative costs between the two districts. These
projected costs are an underestimate of the real costs involved in examining staffing at all
levels and categories of personnel. In addition, it is important to note that these
additional costs are annual—that is they will recur each year as staff members are
allocated to specific roles and structures.
Adoption of the other models of consolidation may result in additional costs related to
facilities parity and potential impacts on local tax rates and levies. Consolidation
decisions should take into account the specific needs of students to be served, rather than
adopt a model based on cost alone.
Rather than consider full consolidation, it might be beneficial to undertake efforts to
consolidate district services similar to efforts that already exist, like sharing technology
backup and a professional technical coordinator between the two districts. Promising
candidates for service consolidation might include revisiting joint purchasing agreements
for goods and services, contract service for custodial, technology, or grounds keeping,
and combining aspects of programs, such as professional development, recruitment, and
specialized programs and options for students, such as those suggested in the state
services consolidation report (ID OPE, 2009).
If the districts decide to move forward to a more in-depth exploration of consolidation,
more extensive cost analyses should be conducted, and should include a projection of the
revenue under ID statute § 33-1003 that allows districts to keep their individual funding
formula amounts and half the associated savings, as well as comprehensive analysis of
facilities and staffing costs. It is likely that these more comprehensive analyses may
uncover additional costs and savings that are beyond the scope of the current study.
28
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study A-1
Appendix A
A-2 t
Figure A1-1
Deputy Superintendents and Directors (Model 1)
Board
Superintendent Clerk
Deputy Superintendent
Operations
Technology Student
Services
Public Information
HR Curriculum
Instruction Business
Deputy Superintendent
Instruction
Facilities
Operations
Federal
Programs Assessment Special
Education
Principals
Transportation
Food Service
Buildings/Grounds
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study A-3
Figure A1-2
Directors and Supervisors (Model 2)
Special Education
HR
Regional Director
Board
Superintendent Clerk
Director
Operations
Technology
Professional
Development
Public Information
Curriculum
Business
Buildings/Grounds
Transportation
Food Nutrition
Curriculum
Instruction
Director
Regional
Director
Federal Programs
Assessment
Student Services
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study A-1
Table A1.1
Administrative Model Deputy Superintendents (Model 1)
Personnel Category
“Large
District”
Average
Cost
Boise
Support
Levels
Meridian
Support
Levels
Average
Boise/
Meridian
Support
Levels
Superintendent $156,199 $156,199 $156,199 $156,199
Deputy Superintendent
Operations $111,875 $111,875 $111,875 $111,875
Curriculum/Instruction $111,875 $111,875 $111,875 $111,875
Directors (Certified) Other
Curriculum/Instruction $90,575 $90,575 $90,575 $90,575
Special Education $100,995 $100,995 $100,995 $100,995
Technology $106,517 $106,517 $106,517 $106,517
Regional/Level Directors $90,575 $181,150 $181,150 $181,150
Supervisors/Coordinators (Certified)
Others $74,391 $1,264,647 $1,487,820 $1,376,234
Assessment $74,391 $74,391 $74,391 $74,391
Federal Programs $74,391 $74,391 $74,391 $74,391
Student Services $74,391 $74,391 $74,391 $74,391
Curriculum $74,391 $74,391 $74,391 $74,391
Professional Development $74,391 $74,391 $74,391 $74,391
Operations $90,575 $90,575 $90,575 $90,575
Business $86,740 $86,740 $86,740 $86,740
HR $117,074 $117,074 $117,074 $117,074
Buildings/Grounds $65,906 $65,906 $65,906 $65,906
Transportation $62,400 $62,400 $62,400 $62,400
Food Service $53,090 $53,090 $53,090 $53,090
Public Information/ Communication $74,950 $74,950 $74,950 $74,950
Business $61,156 $159,006 $256,855 $207,930
Human Resources $28,522 $77,009 $136,906 $106,958
Office Support $25,358 $1,382,011 $1,125,895 $1,254,714
Total Costs $4,440,799 $4,619,072 $4,077,714
A-2
Table A1.2
Administrative Model Directors (Model 2)
Personnel Category
“Large
District”
Average
Cost
Boise
Support
Levels
Meridian
Support
Levels
Average
Boise/
Meridian
Support
Levels
Superintendent $156,199 $156,199 $156,199 $156,199
Directors (Certified)
Curriculum/Instruction $90,575 $90,575 $90,575 $90,575
Special Education $100,995 $100,995 $100,995 $100,995
Technology $106,517 $106,517 $106,517 $106,517
Student Services $90,575 $90,575 $90,575 $90,575
Assessment $90,575 $90,575 $90,575 $90,575
Federal Programs $90,575 $90,575 $90,575 $90,575
Supervisors/Coordinators (Certified) $74,391 $1,710,993 $1,934,166 $1,822,580
Operations $90,575 $86,740 $86,740 $86,740
Business $86,740 $117,074 $117,074 $117,074
HR $117,074 $65,906 $65,906 $65,906
Buildings/Grounds $65,906 $62,400 $62,400 $62,400
Transportation $62,400 $62,400 $62,400 $62,400
Food Service $53,090 $53,090 $53,090 $53,090
Public Information/ Communication $74,950 $74,950 $74,950 $74,950
Business $61,156 $159,006 $256,855 $207,930
HR $28,522 $77,009 $136,906 $106,958
Office Support $25,358 $1,382,011 $1,125,895 $1,254,714
Total Costs $4,577,590 $4,702,393 $4,640,753
Table A1.3
FTE values for Model tables
Personnel Category Boise Meridian
Boise/
Meridian
Average
Supervisor/Coordinator Model 1 17 20 18.5
Supervisor/Coordinator Model 2 23 26 24.5
Business support 2.6 4.2 3.4
Human resources support 2.7 4.8 3.8
Office support 54.5 44.4 49.5
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study A-3
Table A1.4
Detailed Staffing and Program Cuts for Idaho Falls and Bonneville since FY 2010
Idaho Falls Bonneville4
Reducing teacher contracts from 190 days to
184 days, equivalent to a 3.2 percent pay cut
A reduction of three days to nine days for other
staff, including administrators and classified staff,
equivalent to a pay cut of between 3.2 percent to
3.6 percent
$850,000 in cuts to the annual medical stipend
paid to all full-time employees, a reduction from
$1,500 to $750.
An additional $900,000 in savings through
attrition
$1 million in cuts to supplies, training,
professional development and other services
$1.25 million by eliminating, reorganizing and
consolidating some programs, services and
positions
$257,484 for class-size reduction aides in grades
1-3
$73,759 for elementary school health tech aides
who perform minor first aid for students, help
with vision screenings, dispense medication, etc.
$350,000 from extracurricular activities, including
the reduction/elimination of some coaching
stipends, cuts in transportation for extracurricular
activities, and the elimination of all 7th & 8th grade
sports
$250,000 from the district’s curriculum budget,
which pays for textbooks
$248,663 from the intervention budget, which
funded programs to help students who need
additional academic support
$100,000 for all field trips
$96,215 for school companions to support
students who need help managing their
behaviors
$96,000 for classroom supplies
$72,000 for in-school suspension and transition
classroom
Elimination of 18 FTE including 2 administrative, 5
certified and 11 classified
Eliminated nine days from school calendar
Two to six furlough days for classified staff;
equivalent to a 1 to 3.5 percent pay decrease
Eliminated aide positions in multi-grade level
classrooms
5 percent reduction in stipend compensation for
extra duty assignments
20 percent reduction in extended day assignments
for certified staff working beyond 190 day contract
Five furlough days for administrators, certified, and
classified employees working 240-260 days,
equivalent to a 2.6 percent pay decrease
Reduction in extended day assignments for certified
staff working beyond 190-day contract, for a 1 to 3
percent reduction
Instructional aides work hours will be reduced by 30
minutes per day, equivalent to a 7 percent pay
decrease
Fast ForWord and Media aides work hours will be
reduced to 3.9 hours per day, equivalent to a 44
percent pay decrease
50 percent reduction in summer maintenance staff
District no longer pays insurance premiums for
dependent dental coverage
$400,000 in reduced textbook purchases
$30,000 from eliminating district level printed public
communication
$11,000 from reducing secondary summer school
programs
$41,000 from eliminating Driver Education program
4 Other significant events for Bonneville included using one-time ARRA payments of $550,000 and $2 million
to reduce the fund balance. In addition, a bond was passed to build a new elementary school.
A-4
Table A1.4 (Continued)
Detailed Staffing and Program Cuts for Idaho Falls and Bonneville since FY 2010
Idaho Falls Bonneville5
• $2.8 million in energy savings since adoption of
the Energy Education Inc. program in 2006
$50,000 from reducing transportation costs for field
trips, extracurricular/co-curricular activities and
district vehicle use
$300,000 from reducing energy expense through
Energy Education Program
$87,000 from reducing travel budgets (20 percent
reduction) and general operating/supply budgets (20
percent reduction)
$42,000 from eliminating high school swimming
program and elementary water safety program
$55,000 from eliminating public relations contract
5 Other significant events for Bonneville included using one-time ARRA payments of $550,000 and $2 million
to reduce the fund balance. In addition, a bond was passed to build a new elementary school.
Idaho Falls/Bonneville District Consolidation Study A-5
Appendix B
Bond Levy Impact Projections Bond levy tax impact analyses were conducted by Zions Bank Public Finance. Please contact Cameron Arial at 208.344.9522 with questions about the analyses.
Idaho Falls School District No. 91
Bonneville School District No. 93
Bonding Assumptions
Idaho Falls School District No. 91
Series 2012
Par Amount $60,000,000
Dated Date: March 15, 2012
1st Interest Payment September 15, 2012
Principal Payments September 15, 2013-2031
Bonneville JSD No. 93
Series 2012
Par Amount $10,000,000
Dated Date: March 15, 2012
1st Interest Payment September 15, 2012
Principal Payments September 15, 2012-2031
Series 2013
Par Amount $50,000,000
Dated Date: March 15, 2013
1st Interest Payment September 15, 2012
Principal Payments September 15, 2013-2031
Year Full Market Value % change
Taxable Market
Value % change
2010 $3,856,925,093 -1.69% $2,895,822,044 -1.73%
2009 3,923,189,640 3.04% 2,946,027,806 3.44%
2008 3,807,356,431 11.04% 2,844,615,489 10.42%
2007 3,428,722,640 11.22% 2,548,316,306 9.04%
2006 3,082,768,402 10.21% 2,317,961,085 2.91%
2005 2,797,189,052 10.27% 2,250,511,185 10.39%
2004 2,536,629,587 6.22% 2,016,591,148 6.54%
2003 2,388,141,653 2.36% 1,884,699,584 2.52%
2002 2,333,169,752 6.03% 1,837,142,203 6.19%
2001 2,200,578,634 - 1,723,380,189 -
Year Full Market Value % change
Taxable Market
Value % change
2010 $3,091,784,672 0.45% $2,296,586,618 0.16%
2009 3,077,958,405 2.52% 2,293,023,611 2.35%
2008 3,002,205,059 17.77% 2,239,057,535 15.15%
2007 2,549,170,482 17.04% 1,899,885,509 13.43%
2006 2,178,049,232 19.37% 1,644,728,444 11.07%
2005 1,824,658,801 14.87% 1,462,640,514 13.37%
2004 1,588,437,093 8.07% 1,267,122,965 7.69%
2003 1,469,820,061 10.91% 1,169,713,897 10.73%
2002 1,325,222,057 10.37% 1,044,218,077 10.13%
2001 1,200,747,271 - 938,387,049 -
Year Full Market Value % change
Taxable Market
Value % change
2010 $6,948,709,765 -0.75% $5,192,408,662 -0.90%
2009 7,001,148,045 2.81% 5,239,051,417 2.97%
2008 6,809,561,490 13.91% 5,083,673,024 12.50%
2007 5,977,893,122 13.63% 4,448,201,815 10.91%
2006 5,260,817,634 13.82% 3,962,689,529 6.30%
2005 4,621,847,853 12.04% 3,713,151,699 11.57%
2004 4,125,066,680 6.92% 3,283,714,113 6.98%
2003 3,857,961,714 5.46% 3,054,413,481 5.67%
2002 3,658,391,809 7.56% 2,881,360,280 7.62%
2001 3,401,325,905 - 2,661,767,238 -
Year
% of FMV from
SD #91
% of FMV from
SD #93
2010 55.5% 44.5%
2009 56.0% 44.0%
2008 55.9% 44.1%
2007 57.4% 42.6%
2006 58.6% 41.4%
2005 60.5% 39.5%
2004 61.5% 38.5%
2003 61.9% 38.1%
2002 63.8% 36.2%
2001 64.7% 35.3%
Consolidated District
Bonneville County
Idaho Falls School District #91
Bonneville County
Bonneville School District #93
Bonneville County
Idaho Falls School District #91
Historical Tax Rates Calculated Revenue
2010–11 2009–10 2008–09 2007–08 2006–07 2010-11
Supplemental M&O 0.002212904 0.002173230 0.002390481 0.002626731 0.002934347 6,408,176.18$
Emergency 0.000000000 0.000000000 0.000341934 0.000000000 0.000000000 -
Tort Liability 0.000034210 0.000031147 0.000028780 0.000025180 0.000019460 99,066.07
Judgement 0.000000000 0.000000000 0.000000000 0.000001356 0.000000000 -
Subtotal 0.002247114 0.002204377 0.002761195 0.002653267 0.002953807 6,507,242.26
Bond 0.000000000 0.000496540 0.000436179 0.000502169 0.000560978 -
Plant Facility 0.000979589 0.000917043 0.000904510 0.000946574 0.001007073 2,836,715.42
Total All Funds 0.003226703 0.003617960 0.004101884 0.004102010 0.004521858 9,343,957.68$
Bonneville School District #93
Historical Tax Rates Calculated Revenue
2010–11 2009–10 2008–09 2007–08 2006–07 2010-11
Supplemental M&O 0.001076476 0.001077115 0.000893233 0.001016426 0.000000000 2,472,220.38$
Emergency 0.000600000 0.000600000 0.000600000 0.000600000 0.000600000 1,377,951.97
Tort Liability 0.000055923 0.000051752 0.000051416 0.000051165 0.000041699 128,432.01
Judgement 0.000000000 0.000000000 0.000000000 0.000001162 0.000000000 -
Subtotal 0.001732399 0.001728867 0.001544649 0.001668753 0.000641699 3,978,604.36
Bond 0.003106000 0.003108585 0.003278026 0.003067748 0.003954731 7,133,198.04
Plant Facility 0.000609600 0.000610548 0.000625263 0.000711499 0.000851204 1,399,999.20
Total All Funds 0.005447999 0.005448000 0.005447938 0.005448000 0.005447634 12,511,801.60$
Consolidated District
2010-11 Tax Rates and Revenue
2010–11 Revenue
Supplemental M&O 0.001710265 8,880,396.56$
Emergency 0.000265378 1,377,951.97
Tort Liability 0.000043814 227,498.09
Judgement 0.000000000 -
Subtotal 0.002019457 10,485,846.62
*Bond
Plant Facility 0.000815944 4,236,714.62
Total All Funds 0.002835401 14,722,561.24$
*Bond Levies are not combined and Subdistricts would be responsible for their prior debt
JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93 (EAST BONNEVILLE)
BINGHAM AND BONNEVILLE COUNTIES, STATE OF IDAHO
General Obligation Legal Debt Limit And Additional Debt Incurring Capacity––As of
September 15, 2011
Section 33–1103, Idaho Code, establishes limits on bonded indebtedness for school districts in Idaho.
The general obligation indebtedness of the District is limited by State law to 5% of the market value of
taxable property in the District. The legal debt limit and additional debt incurring capacity of the District
are based on the full taxable value for 2010, and are calculated as follows:
2010 Full Taxable Value ......................................................................................... $3,091,784,672
“Full Taxable Value” time 5% equals the (“Debt Limit”) ....................................... $154,589,234
Less: current outstanding general obligation debt (77,812,426)
Estimated additional debt incurring capacity ........................................................... $ 76,776,808
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 91 (IDAHO FALLS)
BONNEVILLE COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO
General Obligation Legal Debt Limit And Additional Debt Incurring Capacity—As of
September 15, 2011.
Section 33–1103, Idaho Code, establishes limits on bonded indebtedness for school districts in Idaho.
The general obligation indebtedness of the District is limited by State law to 5% of the market value of
taxable property in the District. The legal debt limit and additional debt incurring capacity of the District
are based on the full taxable value for 2010, and are calculated as follows:
2010 Full Taxable Value ......................................................................................... $3,856,925,093
“Full Taxable Value” time 5% equals the (“Debt Limit”) ....................................... $192,846,255
Less: current outstanding general obligation debt (0)
Estimated additional debt incurring capacity ........................................................... $ 192,846,255
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
1
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
f
o
r
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
G
O
B
o
n
d
Ye
a
r
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
pS
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
p
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
To
t
a
l
D
S
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
P
a
i
d
b
y
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Ta
x
I
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
a
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ho
m
e
20
1
2
5
8
2
,
1
2
5
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
8
6
0
,
7
6
0
.
0
0
5
8
2
,
1
2
5
.
4
8
1
0
.
0
5
20
1
3
4
,
0
3
7
,
8
8
5
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
6
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
7
,
8
8
5
.
4
8
6
9
.
7
2
20
1
4
4
,
0
3
6
,
7
9
6
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
5
,
4
3
1
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
6
,
7
9
6
.
4
8
6
9
.
7
0
20
1
5
4
,
0
3
8
,
5
6
7
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
7
,
2
0
2
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
8
,
5
6
7
.
4
8
6
9
.
7
3
20
1
6
4
,
0
3
7
,
4
7
4
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
6
,
1
0
9
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
7
,
4
7
4
.
4
8
6
9
.
7
1
20
1
7
4
,
0
3
5
,
1
6
4
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
3
,
7
9
9
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
5
,
1
6
4
.
4
8
6
9
.
6
7
20
1
8
4
,
0
3
7
,
6
4
4
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
6
,
2
7
9
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
7
,
6
4
4
.
4
8
6
9
.
7
1
20
1
9
4
,
0
3
4
,
8
9
4
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
3
,
5
2
9
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
4
,
8
9
4
.
4
8
6
9
.
6
7
20
2
0
4
,
0
3
7
,
2
9
3
.
9
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
5
,
9
2
8
.
5
0
4
,
0
3
7
,
2
9
3
.
9
8
6
9
.
7
1
20
2
1
4
,
0
3
6
,
1
0
6
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
4
,
7
4
1
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
6
,
1
0
6
.
4
8
6
9
.
6
9
20
2
2
4
,
0
3
7
,
6
2
1
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
6
,
2
5
6
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
7
,
6
2
1
.
4
8
6
9
.
7
1
20
2
3
4
,
0
3
6
,
2
6
7
.
9
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
4
,
9
0
2
.
5
0
4
,
0
3
6
,
2
6
7
.
9
8
6
9
.
6
9
20
2
4
4
,
0
3
7
,
2
0
5
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
5
,
8
4
0
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
7
,
2
0
5
.
4
8
6
9
.
7
1
20
2
5
4
,
0
3
5
,
1
3
5
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
3
,
7
7
0
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
5
,
1
3
5
.
4
8
6
9
.
6
7
20
2
6
4
,
0
3
4
,
5
8
4
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
3
,
2
1
9
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
4
,
5
8
4
.
4
8
6
9
.
6
6
20
2
7
4
,
0
3
5
,
9
0
8
.
9
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
4
,
5
4
3
.
5
0
4
,
0
3
5
,
9
0
8
.
9
8
6
9
.
6
9
20
2
8
4
,
0
3
9
,
5
3
2
.
9
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
8
,
1
6
7
.
5
0
4
,
0
3
9
,
5
3
2
.
9
8
6
9
.
7
5
20
2
9
4
,
0
3
4
,
8
5
4
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
3
,
4
8
9
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
4
,
8
5
4
.
4
8
6
9
.
6
7
20
3
0
4
,
0
3
6
,
6
3
0
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
5
,
2
6
5
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
6
,
6
3
0
.
4
8
6
9
.
7
0
20
3
1
4
,
0
3
9
,
0
2
5
.
4
8
2
7
8
,
6
3
4
.
5
2
4
,
3
1
7
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
4
,
0
3
9
,
0
2
5
.
4
8
6
9
.
7
4
20
3
2
77
,
2
8
0
,
7
2
0
.
6
7
$
5
,
5
7
2
,
6
9
0
.
3
3
$
8
2
,
8
5
3
,
4
1
1
.
0
0
$
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
1
$2 ,00
0
,00
0
$2
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Id
a
h
o
Fa
l
l
s
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
Id
a
h
o
Fa
l
l
s
Se
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
$6
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Ob
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Bo
n
d
De
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
$0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$,
,
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2028 2029 2030 2031
Ye
a
r
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
J
o
i
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
3
,
I
d
a
h
o
To
t
a
l
O
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
w
i
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
o
n
d
s
Ye
a
r
Se
r
i
e
s
2
0
0
5
Se
r
i
e
s
2
0
0
7
S
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
0
9
pS
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
pS
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
Se
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
2
To
t
a
l
D
S
pS
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
3
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
pS
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
3
(B
L
E
P
)
Series 2013 Total DSTotal Debt Service Paid by District Existing Debt Tax Impact on $100k Home Proposed New Debt Tax Impact on $100k HomeTotal Tax Impact on a $100k Home
20
1
1
4
,
3
6
6
,
7
1
2
.
5
0
1
,
3
5
2
,
4
5
6
.
2
6
1
,
1
7
4
,
9
3
8
.
3
6
6,894,107.12 150.23 - 150.23
20
1
2
4
,
3
6
4
,
9
6
2
.
5
0
1
,
6
2
1
,
4
5
6
.
2
6
1
,
1
7
4
,
9
3
8
.
3
6
2
5
0
,
7
7
6
.
1
6
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
34
9
,
9
0
9
.
2
5
7,412,133.28 156.05 5.46 161.52
20
1
3
3
,
2
0
6
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
1
,
8
9
4
,
2
5
6
.
2
6
1
,
1
7
4
,
9
3
8
.
3
6
3
9
9
,
9
2
5
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
49
9
,
0
5
8
.
5
0
20
9
,
5
5
7
.
2
4
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
7
0
9
,
2
6
4
.
2
5
6,884,927.26 136.75 13.28 150.03
20
1
4
2
,
0
6
3
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
2
,
1
7
5
,
2
5
6
.
2
6
1
,
1
7
4
,
9
3
8
.
3
6
3
9
9
,
0
6
5
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
49
8
,
1
9
8
.
5
0
91
8
,
8
2
1
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
1
,
4
1
8
,
5
2
8
.
5
0
6,731,331.51 117.96 28.72 146.68
20
1
5
6
,
7
1
2
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
1
,
6
5
2
,
6
6
3
.
3
6
1
9
7
,
8
2
5
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
29
6
,
9
5
8
.
5
0
91
8
,
8
2
1
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
1
,
4
1
8
,
5
2
8
.
5
0
9,481,510.25 182.28 24.33 206.61
20
1
6
7
,
0
1
3
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
1
,
4
3
1
,
2
6
3
.
3
6
1
9
7
,
8
2
5
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
29
6
,
9
5
8
.
5
0
91
8
,
8
2
1
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
1
,
4
1
8
,
5
2
8
.
5
0
9,561,360.25 184.02 24.33 208.35
20
1
7
-
7
,
3
1
8
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
1
,
2
8
0
,
1
8
8
.
3
6
1
9
7
,
8
2
5
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
29
6
,
9
5
8
.
5
0
91
8
,
8
2
1
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
1
,
4
1
8
,
5
2
8
.
5
0
9,715,435.25 187.37 24.33 211.71
20
1
8
-
2
,
2
6
7
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
1
,
2
7
6
,
1
2
5
.
8
6
5
9
7
,
8
2
5
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
69
6
,
9
5
8
.
5
0
4,
2
1
8
,
8
2
1
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
4
,
7
1
8
,
5
2
8
.
5
0
8,359,972.75 77.21 104.96 182.17
20
1
9
-
2
,
5
8
7
,
7
8
1
.
2
1
8
0
5
,
7
8
5
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
90
4
,
9
1
8
.
5
0
4,
8
7
2
,
6
2
1
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5
,
3
7
2
,
3
2
8
.
5
0
8,266,188.10 56.39 123.74 180.13
20
2
0
-
2
,
8
2
6
,
9
6
3
.
2
6
8
0
7
,
8
7
0
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
90
7
,
0
0
3
.
5
0
4,
6
6
7
,
2
2
1
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5
,
1
6
6
,
9
2
8
.
5
0
8,302,055.15 61.60 119.31 180.91
20
2
1
-
-
2
,81
4
,28
2
.
4
8
8
0
7
,68
7
.
4
1
9
9
,13
3
.
0
9
90
6
,
8
2
0
.
5
0
4 ,66
1
,05
6
.
4
9
4
9
9
,70
7
.
0
1
5
,160 ,763.50 8 ,283 ,026.37 61.33 119.17 180.49
20
2
1
2,
8
1
4
,
2
8
2
.
4
8
80
7
,
6
8
7
.
4
1
99
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
90
6
,
8
2
0
.
5
0
4,
6
6
1
,
0
5
6
.
4
9
49
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5,160,763.50 8,283,026.37 61.33 119.17 180.49
20
2
2
-
-
2
,
8
0
8
,
1
8
7
.
5
0
8
1
0
,
5
9
4
.
9
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
90
9
,
7
2
8
.
0
0
4,
6
6
6
,
1
0
2
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5
,
1
6
5
,
8
0
9
.
5
0
8,284,884.89 61.19 119.34 180.53
20
2
3
-
-
2
,
8
0
2
,
2
9
3
.
7
5
8
1
1
,
7
7
5
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
91
0
,
9
0
8
.
5
0
4,
6
6
4
,
0
4
2
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5
,
1
6
3
,
7
4
9
.
5
0
8,278,111.64 61.06 119.32 180.39
20
2
4
-
-
2
,
8
0
8
,
0
2
5
.
0
0
8
1
1
,
1
5
6
.
9
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
91
0
,
2
9
0
.
0
0
4,
6
6
6
,
7
3
8
.
9
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5
,
1
6
6
,
4
4
6
.
0
0
8,285,920.89 61.19 119.37 180.56
20
2
5
-
-
2
,
7
9
3
,
6
3
7
.
5
0
8
0
8
,
8
0
8
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
90
7
,
9
4
1
.
5
0
4,
6
6
8
,
3
6
2
.
4
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5
,
1
6
8
,
0
6
9
.
5
0
8,270,808.39 60.88 119.35 180.23
20
2
6
-
-
2
,
7
9
4
,
4
6
2
.
5
0
8
0
9
,
7
3
8
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
90
8
,
8
7
1
.
5
0
4,
6
6
4
,
0
4
0
.
9
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5
,
1
6
3
,
7
4
8
.
0
0
8,268,241.89 60.89 119.28 180.17
20
2
7
-
-
2
,
7
8
8
,
9
8
7
.
5
0
8
0
8
,
7
1
3
.
4
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
90
7
,
8
4
6
.
5
0
4,
6
6
3
,
6
4
4
.
9
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5
,
1
6
3
,
3
5
2
.
0
0
8,261,345.89 60.77 119.25 180.02
20
2
8
-
-
2
,
7
8
5
,
3
3
7
.
5
0
8
1
0
,
8
9
0
.
9
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
91
0
,
0
2
4
.
0
0
4,
6
6
1
,
2
4
8
.
9
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
5
,
1
6
0
,
9
5
6
.
0
0
8,257,477.39 60.69 119.24 179.94
20
2
9
-
-
2
,
7
8
8
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
,
9
7
6
,
2
6
6
.
9
1
9
9
,
1
3
3
.
0
9
2,
0
7
5
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
3,
6
4
7
,
4
9
2
.
9
9
4
9
9
,
7
0
7
.
0
1
4
,
1
4
7
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
8,411,759.89 60.75 122.55 183.30
20
3
0
-
-
-
-
20
3
1
-
-
-
14
,
0
0
1
,
1
7
5
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
3
5
4
,
8
7
5
.
0
4
$
4
0
,
9
3
7
,
9
5
2
.
5
8
$
1
2
,
3
1
0
,
3
5
7
.
0
5
$
1
,
7
8
4
,
3
9
5
.
7
0
$
1
4
,
0
9
4
,
7
5
2
.
7
5
$
5
8
,
6
0
6
,
2
3
8
.
5
2
$
8
,
4
9
5
,
0
1
9
.
2
3
$
6
7
,
1
0
1
,
2
5
7
.
7
5
$ 156,210,598.19 $
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
J
o
i
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
3
$6
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Se
r
i
e
s
20
0
5
Se
r
i
e
s
20
0
7
Se
r
i
e
s
20
0
9
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
3
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
pSeries 2013 (BLEP)
$0
$2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2029 2030 2031
Ye
a
r
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
J
o
i
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
3
a
n
d
I
d
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
1
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(B
o
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
J
S
D
:
$
1
0
M
i
s
s
u
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
,
$
5
0
M
i
s
s
u
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
3
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
D
:
$
6
0
M
i
s
s
u
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
)
Ye
a
r
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
p
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
pS
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
p
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
To
t
a
l
D
S
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
p
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
pS
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
To
t
a
l
D
S
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
p
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
3
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
Bonneville pSeries 2013 (BLEP)Bonneville pSeries Series 2013 Total DSTotal Debt Service Paid by District Tax Impact on a $100,000 Home
20
1
1
20
1
2
5
8
7
,
6
9
8
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
67
2
,
6
8
2
.
0
0
80
2
,
8
6
5
.
6
0
5
7
,
8
9
4
.
4
0
86
0
,
7
6
0
.
0
0
1,390,564.53 13.40
20
1
3
5
8
8
,
3
0
9
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
3
,
2
9
3
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
6
,
1
9
2
.
4
3
2
9
0
,
3
2
7
.
5
7
4
,
3
1
6
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
3
,
4
6
6
.
7
7
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,358,371.25 7,547,969.13 72.71
20
1
4
5
8
6
,
5
0
3
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
1
,
4
8
7
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
5
,
1
7
6
.
6
8
2
9
0
,
2
5
4
.
3
2
4
,
3
1
5
,
4
3
1
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
1
,
5
0
2
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,356,406.50 7,543,182.63 72.66
20
1
5
5
8
3
,
8
9
9
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
6
8
,
8
8
3
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
6
,
8
2
8
.
5
6
2
9
0
,
3
7
3
.
4
4
4
,
3
1
7
,
2
0
2
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
2
,
5
1
5
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,357,419.50 7,543,243.51 72.67
20
1
6
5
8
5
,
1
6
1
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
0
,
1
4
5
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
5
,
8
0
9
.
0
8
2
9
0
,
2
9
9
.
9
2
4
,
3
1
6
,
1
0
9
.
0
0
2
,
9
2
9
,
4
9
5
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,354,399.50 7,540,466.03 72.64
20
1
7
5
8
5
,
1
4
6
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
0
,
1
3
0
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
3
,
6
5
4
.
4
5
2
9
0
,
1
4
4
.
5
5
4
,
3
1
3
,
7
9
9
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
0
,
7
1
6
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,355,620.50 7,539,517.40 72.63
20
1
8
58
4
1
2
6
9
3
84
9
8
3
0
7
66
9
1
1
0
0
0
4
0
2
5
9
6
7
6
4
29
0
3
1
1
3
6
4
3
1
6
2
7
9
0
0
2
9
3
0
5
8
2
0
2
424 904 48 3 355 486 50 7 540 676 59 72 64
20
1
8
58
4
,12
6
.93
84
,98
3
.07
66
9
,11
0
.00
4 ,02
5
,96
7
.64
29
0
,31
1
.36
4 ,31
6
,27
9
.00
2 ,93
0
,582 .02
424 ,904 .48 3 ,355 ,486 .50 7 ,540 ,676 .59 72 .64
20
1
9
5
8
6
,
4
7
0
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
1
,
4
5
4
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
3
,
4
0
2
.
6
1
2
9
0
,
1
2
6
.
3
9
4
,
3
1
3
,
5
2
9
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
0
,
4
1
2
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,355,316.50 7,540,285.56 72.64
20
2
0
5
8
7
,
1
2
5
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
2
,
1
0
9
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
5
,
6
4
0
.
7
2
2
9
0
,
2
8
7
.
7
8
4
,
3
1
5
,
9
2
8
.
5
0
2
,
9
3
1
,
9
5
6
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,356,860.50 7,544,722.67 72.68
20
2
1
5
8
6
,
1
6
0
.
4
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
1
,
1
4
3
.
5
0
4
,
0
2
4
,
5
3
3
.
0
9
2
9
0
,
2
0
7
.
9
1
4
,
3
1
4
,
7
4
1
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
0
,
2
3
1
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,355,135.50 7,540,924.54 72.64
20
2
2
5
8
8
,
8
3
7
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
3
,
8
2
1
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
5
,
9
4
6
.
1
9
2
9
0
,
3
0
9
.
8
1
4
,
3
1
6
,
2
5
6
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
0
,
5
2
4
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,355,428.50 7,545,308.14 72.69
20
2
3
5
8
5
,
2
5
3
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
0
,
2
3
7
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
4
,
6
8
3
.
7
3
2
9
0
,
2
1
8
.
7
7
4
,
3
1
4
,
9
0
2
.
5
0
2
,
9
2
8
,
9
1
1
.
5
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,353,816.00 7,538,849.18 72.62
20
2
4
5
8
5
,
5
0
4
.
9
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
0
,
4
8
8
.
0
0
4
,
0
2
5
,
5
5
8
.
1
7
2
9
0
,
2
8
1
.
8
3
4
,
3
1
5
,
8
4
0
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
1
,
4
1
6
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,356,320.50 7,542,479.12 72.66
20
2
5
5
8
4
,
4
9
6
.
4
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
6
9
,
4
7
9
.
5
0
4
,
0
2
3
,
6
2
7
.
4
0
2
9
0
,
1
4
2
.
6
0
4
,
3
1
3
,
7
7
0
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
2
,
5
2
0
.
5
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,357,425.00 7,540,644.35 72.64
20
2
6
5
8
7
,
2
3
2
.
4
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
2
,
2
1
5
.
5
0
4
,
0
2
3
,
1
1
3
.
4
6
2
9
0
,
1
0
5
.
5
4
4
,
3
1
3
,
2
1
9
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
2
,
3
1
9
.
5
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,357,224.00 7,542,665.41 72.66
20
2
7
5
8
8
,
4
9
4
.
4
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
3
,
4
7
7
.
5
0
4
,
0
2
4
,
3
4
8
.
8
7
2
9
0
,
1
9
4
.
6
3
4
,
3
1
4
,
5
4
3
.
5
0
2
,
9
3
0
,
6
6
7
.
5
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,355,572.00 7,543,510.82 72.67
20
2
8
5
8
8
,
3
9
0
.
4
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
3
,
3
7
3
.
5
0
4
,
0
2
7
,
7
2
9
.
1
2
2
9
0
,
4
3
8
.
3
8
4
,
3
1
8
,
1
6
7
.
5
0
2
,
9
3
2
,
1
5
1
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,357,055.50 7,548,270.57 72.71
20
2
9
5
8
7
,
0
4
6
.
4
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
2
,
0
2
9
.
5
0
4
,
0
2
3
,
3
6
5
.
3
0
2
9
0
,
1
2
3
.
7
0
4
,
3
1
3
,
4
8
9
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
1
,
9
9
0
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,356,894.50 7,542,401.75 72.66
20
3
0
5
8
4
,
4
2
6
.
4
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
6
9
,
4
0
9
.
5
0
4
,
0
2
5
,
0
2
1
.
8
4
2
9
0
,
2
4
3
.
1
6
4
,
3
1
5
,
2
6
5
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
0
,
6
3
8
.
0
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,355,542.50 7,540,086.29 72.64
20
3
1
5
8
5
,
4
9
4
.
4
3
8
4
,
9
8
3
.
0
7
6
7
0
,
4
7
7
.
5
0
4
,
0
2
7
,
2
5
5
.
7
6
2
9
0
,
4
0
4
.
2
4
4
,
3
1
7
,
6
6
0
.
0
0
2
,
9
3
2
,
7
2
6
.
5
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,357,631.00 7,545,476.71 72.69
20
3
2
2,
9
3
2
,
6
8
0
.
5
2
4
2
4
,
9
0
4
.
4
8
3,357,585.00 2,932,680.52 28.25
20
3
3
-
11
,
7
2
5
,
7
8
3
.
6
6
$
1
,
6
9
9
,
6
6
1
.
3
4
$
1
3
,
4
2
5
,
4
4
5
.
0
0
$
7
7
,
2
8
0
,
7
2
0
.
6
7
$
5
,
5
7
2
,
6
9
0
.
3
3
$
8
2
,
8
5
3
,
4
1
1
.
0
0
$
5
8
,
6
2
7
,
4
2
1
.
0
9
$
8
,
4
9
8
,
0
8
9
.
6
6
$ 67,125,510.75 $
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
J
o
i
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
3
an
d
I
d
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
1
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$7
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$9
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
Id
a
h
o
Fa
l
l
s
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
3
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
3
(B
L
E
P
)
Id
a
h
o
Falls pSeries 2012
(B
L
E
P
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Le
v
e
l
D
e
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
JS
D
:
$1
0
M
is
s
u
e
d
in
20
1
2
,
$5
0
M
is
s
u
e
d
in
20
1
3
Id
a
h
o
Fa
l
l
s
SD
:
$6
0
M
is
s
u
e
d
in
20
1
2
$0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2
0
2
8
2
0
2
9
2030 2031 2032
Ye
a
r
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
J
o
i
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
3
a
n
d
I
d
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
1
To
t
a
l
O
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
w
i
t
h
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
o
n
d
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
D
e
b
t
Ye
a
r
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
Se
r
i
e
s
2
0
0
5
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
Se
r
i
e
s
2
0
0
7
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
Se
r
i
e
s
2
0
0
9
B
o
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
$
1
0
M
pS
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
p
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
To
t
a
l
D
S
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
$
6
0
M
pS
e
r
i
e
s
2
0
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
Id
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
p
S
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
To
t
a
l
D
S
Bonneville $50M pSeries 2013
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
)
Bonneville pSeries 2013 (BLEP)Bonneville Series 2013 Total DSTotal Debt Service Paid by District Existing Debt Tax Impact on $100k Home (SD 93 Only) Proposed New Debt Tax Impact on $100k Home (91 & 93 Combined)Total Tax Impact on $100k Home for SD 93
20
1
1
4
,
3
6
6
,
7
1
2
.
5
0
1
,
3
5
2
,
4
5
6
.
2
6
1
,
1
7
4
,
9
3
8
.
3
6
6,894,107.12 150.23 150.23
20
1
2
4
,
3
6
4
,
9
6
2
.
5
0
1
,
6
2
1
,
4
5
6
.
2
6
1
,
1
7
4
,
9
3
8
.
3
6
8
2
,
9
6
8
.
7
8
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
18
9
,
9
4
3
.
2
5
70
6
,
1
0
6
.
8
7
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
1
,
0
0
4
,
5
3
9
.
2
5
7,950,432.77 156.05 7.60 163.65
20
1
3
3
,
2
0
6
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
1
,
8
9
4
,
2
5
6
.
2
6
1
,
1
7
4
,
9
3
8
.
3
6
2
7
2
,
9
1
2
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
37
9
,
8
8
6
.
5
0
1,
9
7
5
,
6
4
6
.
1
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
2
,
2
7
4
,
0
7
8
.
5
0
3
,
4
0
7
,
1
9
4
.
0
9
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,854,282.75 11,931,196.85 136.75 54.48 191.23
20
1
4
2
,
0
6
3
,
2
5
0
.
0
0
2
,
1
7
5
,
2
5
6
.
2
6
1
,
6
5
9
,
9
3
8
.
3
6
2
7
2
,
9
1
2
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
37
9
,
8
8
6
.
5
0
2,
3
5
4
,
0
0
3
.
1
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
2
,
6
5
2
,
4
3
5
.
5
0
3
,
3
6
9
,
3
1
6
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,816,405.50 11,894,676.60 128.53 57.76 186.29
20
1
5
6
,
7
1
2
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
1
,
4
3
5
,
3
8
8
.
3
6
2
7
2
,
9
1
2
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
37
9
,
8
8
6
.
5
0
1,
7
0
3
,
2
6
2
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
2
,
0
0
1
,
6
9
5
.
0
0
1
,
7
6
8
,
4
8
0
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
2,215,569.50 11,892,243.84 177.54 36.07 213.61
20
1
6
7
,
0
1
3
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
1
,
2
8
2
,
1
3
8
.
3
6
2
7
2
,
9
1
2
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
37
9
,
8
8
6
.
5
0
1,
7
0
3
,
2
6
2
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
2
,
0
0
1
,
6
9
5
.
0
0
1
,
6
2
2
,
7
1
4
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
2,069,803.50 11,894,477.84 180.77 34.67 215.44
20
1
7
-
7
,
3
1
8
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
1
,
2
7
8
,
2
3
8
.
3
6
2
7
2
,
9
1
2
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
37
9
,
8
8
6
.
5
0
1,
7
0
3
,
2
6
2
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
2
,
0
0
1
,
6
9
5
.
0
0
1
,
3
2
0
,
6
8
3
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
1,767,772.50 11,893,696.84 187.33 31.76 219.09
20
1
8
-
2
,
2
6
7
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
2
,
6
1
4
,
0
1
3
.
3
6
2
7
2
,
9
1
2
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
37
9
,
8
8
6
.
5
0
3,
3
7
3
,
2
6
2
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
3
,
6
7
1
,
6
9
5
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
4
,
8
4
2
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,811,931.50 11,892,230.84 106.36 67.54 173.90
20
1
9
-
2
,
8
6
1
,
5
4
9
.
0
6
3
3
7
,
9
1
2
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
44
4
,
8
8
6
.
5
0
5,
3
2
8
,
1
9
2
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
6
,
6
2
5
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
4
,
2
1
2
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,811,301.50 11,891,866.54 62.35 86.99 149.35
20
2
0
-
2
,
8
5
7
,
3
7
7
.
4
6
3
4
1
,
5
4
7
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
44
8
,
5
2
1
.
5
0
5,
3
2
4
,
9
8
6
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
3
,
4
1
9
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
8
,
8
0
4
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,815,893.50 11,892,715.94 62.26 87.04 149.30
20
2
1
-
-
2
,
8
5
6
,
1
8
7
.
5
0
3
4
4
,
8
6
0
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
45
1
,
8
3
4
.
5
0
5,
3
2
5
,
7
4
4
.
1
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
4
,
1
7
6
.
5
0
3
,
3
6
3
,
5
7
4
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,810,663.50 11,890,366.48 62.24 87.03 149.27
20
2
2
-
-
2
,
8
5
5
,
1
8
7
.
5
0
3
4
2
,
8
7
2
.
5
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
44
9
,
8
4
7
.
0
0
5,
3
2
6
,
9
3
0
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
5
,
3
6
3
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
8
,
9
8
6
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,816,075.50 11,893,977.48 62.22 87.07 149.29
20
2
3
--
2,
8
5
4
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
34
5
,
7
5
0
.
0
3
10
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
45
2
,
7
2
4
.
5
0
5,
3
2
7
,
8
8
5
.
1
2
29
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5,
6
2
6
,
3
1
7
.
5
0
3,366,111.84 447,088.66 3,813,200.50 11,894,146.98 62.20 87.08 149.28
20
2
3
-
-
2 ,85
4
,40
0
.00
34
5
,75
0
.03
10
6
,97
4
.47
45
2
,72
4
.50
5 ,32
7
,88
5
.12
29
8
,43
2
.38
5 ,62
6
,31
7
.50
3 ,366 ,111 .84 447 ,088 .66 3 ,813 ,200 .50 11 ,894 ,146 .98 62 .20 87 .08 149 .28
20
2
4
-
-
2
,
8
5
1
,
6
5
0
.
0
0
3
4
8
,
3
4
2
.
0
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
45
5
,
3
1
6
.
5
0
5,
3
2
8
,
7
0
7
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
7
,
1
4
0
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
1
,
3
0
5
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,808,394.50 11,890,005.48 62.14 87.07 149.21
20
2
5
-
-
2
,
8
5
5
,
6
2
5
.
0
0
3
4
5
,
6
4
7
.
5
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
45
2
,
6
2
2
.
0
0
5,
3
2
4
,
1
0
1
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
2
,
5
3
4
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
9
,
1
6
6
.
3
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,816,255.00 11,894,540.48 62.23 87.07 149.30
20
2
6
-
-
2
,
8
5
3
,
3
0
0
.
0
0
3
4
7
,
8
2
5
.
5
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
45
4
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
5,
3
2
3
,
5
0
3
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
1
,
9
3
6
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
9
,
3
8
3
.
3
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,816,472.00 11,894,012.48 62.18 87.09 149.27
20
2
7
-
-
2
,
8
5
4
,
6
7
5
.
0
0
3
4
4
,
7
0
2
.
5
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
45
1
,
6
7
7
.
0
0
5,
3
2
7
,
3
1
2
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
5
,
7
4
5
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
6
,
9
6
1
.
3
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,814,050.00 11,893,651.48 62.21 87.07 149.28
20
2
8
-
-
2
,
8
5
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
4
1
,
4
7
1
.
5
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
44
8
,
4
4
6
.
0
0
5,
3
3
1
,
0
0
8
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
9
,
4
4
1
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
1
,
4
4
1
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,808,530.50 11,889,921.98 62.23 87.03 149.26
20
2
9
-
-
3
,
1
9
8
,
1
5
9
.
5
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
3,
3
0
5
,
1
3
4
.
0
0
5,
3
2
8
,
9
1
7
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
7
,
3
5
0
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
3
,
3
3
0
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,810,419.50 11,890,407.98 - 114.54 114.54
20
3
0
-
-
-
3
,
2
0
1
,
9
4
4
.
5
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
3,
3
0
8
,
9
1
9
.
0
0
5,
3
2
5
,
5
3
1
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
3
,
9
6
4
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
2
,
8
4
2
.
8
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,809,931.50 11,890,318.98 - 114.54 114.54
20
3
1
-
-
-
3
,
1
9
8
,
6
3
5
.
5
3
1
0
6
,
9
7
4
.
4
7
3,
3
0
5
,
6
1
0
.
0
0
5,
3
3
0
,
1
3
1
.
6
2
2
9
8
,
4
3
2
.
3
8
5
,
6
2
8
,
5
6
4
.
0
0
3
,
3
6
4
,
5
7
3
.
3
4
4
4
7
,
0
8
8
.
6
6
3,811,662.00 11,893,340.48 - 114.57 114.57
20
3
2
14
,
0
0
1
,
1
7
5
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
3
5
4
,
8
7
5
.
0
4
$
4
0
,
3
5
0
,
4
8
3
.
4
0
$
1
4
,
7
6
0
,
1
1
1
.
3
0
$
2
,
1
3
9
,
4
8
9
.
4
5
$
1
6
,
8
9
9
,
6
0
0
.
7
5
$
8
2
,
7
7
1
,
7
6
0
.
6
3
$
5
,
9
6
8
,
6
4
7
.
6
2
$
8
8
,
7
4
0
,
4
0
8
.
2
5
$
5
8
,
6
0
3
,
9
3
0
.
1
2
$ 8,494,684.63 $ 67,098,614.75 $ 240,842,335.48 $
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
J
o
i
n
t
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
3
an
d
I
d
a
h
o
F
a
l
l
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
N
o
.
9
1
To
t
a
l
O
u
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
op
o
s
e
d
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
$6
0
0
0
0
0
0
$8
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
D
e
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
Se
r
i
e
s
20
0
5
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
Se
r
i
e
s
20
0
7
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
Se
r
i
e
s
20
0
9
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
$1
0
M
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
Idaho Falls $60M pSeries 2012 (District's Portion)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
$5
0
M
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
3
(D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
'
s
Po
r
t
i
o
n
)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
Bo
n
n
e
v
i
l
l
e
pS
e
r
i
e
s
20
1
3
(B
L
E
P
)
Id
a
h
o
Fa
l
l
s
Se
r
i
e
s
20
1
2
(B
L
E
P
)
$0
$2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
,00
0
,00
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
3
2
0
2
4
2
0
2
5
2
0
2
6
2
0
2
7
2028 2029 2030 2031
Ye
a
r