Posted: 8/20/03

FL School Board backs 2 levies

Cliff Buchan
News Editor

Local property taxes to support area schools could be increasing if officials in ISD 831 get their wish this fall.

Property owners in ISD 831 will be asked in November to support two tax levies raising more operating dollars and money to support technology.

The school board at a special meeting Thursday, Aug. 14 voted unanimously to go out for two special levies officials say are needed to avoid staggering budget cuts in 2004 and to beef up the districtís seven-year-old technology system.

The board also elected to not move forward at this time with an administrative proposal to raise new funds via a capital projects levy to support gifted education programs. A third ballot question was not deemed wise with two other questions on the ballot.

The district will seek a five-year excess operating levy that will generate $2,044,565 million each year. The levy would generate an additional $223.36 per pupil to support the general fund and is the maximum amount the district can seek from a special operating levy.

For technology, the board is preparing to ask the public to back a five year capital projects levy that will raise $2 million each year. A capital projects levy requires state education department plan approval prior to going to the voters for ratification.

Without the new excess operating levy, district officials say budget cuts of $2.25 million will be necessary for the 2004-2005 fiscal year.

The projected shortfall is a result of no new state funding to cover inflationary costs, escalating utility costs, flat enrollment and the possible loss of 50 students to a Spanish Immersion charter school here in 2004.

The board agreed the technology levy warranted public consideration. It would shore up the districtís technology for students and provide ongoing funds over five years to provide additional upgrades and staff training.

A $6 million technology bond was approved by voters in 1996.

What it will cost

Approval of the $2.044 million operating levy would mean an annual cost of $46.16 or $3.84 a month for a district resident owning a home with market value of $200,000. Through its equalization aid formula, the state will share in the cost of this levy.

The technology levy of $2 million would result in an annual tax increase of $122.14 or $10.17 a month for a home with market value of $200,000.

Combined, the operating and technology levies would mean a tax increase of $14.01 a month for the $200,000 home.

The board agreed to let both levies stand on their own, meaning voters can approve both, one or none of the ballot questions on Nov. 4.

The $2 million, five-year operating levy would be in addition to a $6 million five-year levy approved by voters in 2001. The district is now in the second year of utilizing those funds. The levy generates some $650 of per pupil aid.

Because of this springís legislative action to increase the stateís share of equalization aid, district officials say the cost impact to local taxpayers will take a major downturn next year.

For example, for the same home with $200,000 market value, the tax on the $650 per pupil unit special levy now in place requires an annual payment of $346.37 payable 2003.

Because of the increased state equalization, if nothing changes this year, the owner of the $200,000 home will see an annual tax bill of $260.75 for payable 2004, or a reduction of $85.62.

School officials said last week they hope this fact will build support for increasing school revenues at a time when no new general fund dollars are coming from the state and technology upgrades are needed.

What they said

Board members went on record backing both proposals, saying the new dollars were needed to avoid major general fund cuts for the 2004-2005 fiscal years.

For some on the board, the two levies were seen as a quality of life issue for the schools. As the state holds tight on its level of funding and is not addressing cost of living growth, schools will have no choice but to seek local funds or make cuts, members said.

ìItís no longer a special way to fund schools,î said first-year board member Rob Rapheal. ìWithout the levy, weíre really taking a step backwards. I donít want to see that happen.î

Board member Karen Morehead said she approved of how the state has addressed its budget problem and said local residents would not be asked to address the inflationary needs for the district to continue ìbusiness as usual.î She was optimistic that a $3.84 monthly expense for a $200,000 home would be accepted by the public.

Member Susan Novak said the district must work hard to educate the public on how the new state equalization aid works to the benefit of districts like Forest Lake. ìWe have to bill this as an opportunity,î Novak said.

Based on the financial times, member Jody Krebs said she was comfortable going for the $2 million excess operating levy, saying it was ìinevitable.î

ìWeíve got to get the operating levy passed first,î added board member Joe Grafft.

Board members agreed to move ahead with the capital projects levy upon hearing the recommendation from Lynn Steenblock, superintendent. He favored the five-year levy for $2 million a year.

The funds would be used to upgrade the technology infrastructure now in place and upgrade computers and software on an annual basis, Steenblock said.

Member Dean Barr said the technology levy would provide the dollars for system upgrades the district has been unable to provide in the seven years since the technology bond was provide.

The districtís intent seven years ago was to provide technology dollars as part of the annual budget but was never able to do so because of pressure for funding in other areas of the budget, he said.

ìWe need to do something,î Barr said of the November vote and providing funds for the future. Looking at past history and past intents, Barr added, ìAnd we didnít do it.î

Morehead agreed that the needs generated by seven years ago technology use and the inflationary pressure on the general fund must be conveyed to the voters to earn support for the two special levies.

The funds for gifted programs will have to wait, the board agreed after hearing Steenblockís recommendation.

ìWe are at a time when we canít have everything,î he said.

Gifted programs have been hit hard by budget cuts in recent years and the district is seeking ways to restore the programs and staff.

As was the case with technology needs, a task force spent time during the last school year studying ways to improve the gifted program area.

Votes independent

After some discussion last week, board members agreed to let the two questions remain independent and stand alone from each other.

There was some sentiment to making approval of the technology levy contingent on voter approval of the operating levy. If the technology levy passed and the operating levy failed, for example, the technology levy would not stand.

Member Krebs strongly favored making the technology approval contingent on the operating levy passing, but agreed in spirit to separating the two. She said the district must clear the consequences of what happens if the operating levy is defeated in November.

Member Rapheal favored seeking funds for both the operating area and technology but expressed concern the technology question could drag down the operating levy proposal.

ìI canít be against it because itís a good idea,î he said of the technology levy. ìI consider them both important but the one (operating levy) is critical.î

In the end, members agreed to let the two questions stand on their own merit.

ìLet people make the decision,î said Board President Bill Bresin, summing up his feelings.

With the board reaching its decision last week, the matter will come back to the board at its next regular business session Monday, Sept. 8.

At that 7 p.m. meeting, moved from the normal first Monday date because of Labor Day on Sept. 1, the board will see formal ballot language and take action to call for the special votes.

The two levy votes will be in concert with the election of five seats to the school board during the Nov. 4 district election.

Top of Page