Cliff Buchan
News EditorThere will no school tax levy vote in ISD 831 this fall. A public vote to approve new general fund dollars and head off more budget cuts has been put off until 2005.
Meeting in regular session Thursday, Aug. 5, the school board voted 5-2 to delay an excess tax levy vote to the fall of 2005. At that time the school board is likely to ask voters to renew the existing $6 million-a-year excess levy and approve an additional $2 million in property tax increases to support local schools.
Last weekís vote to delay a levy vote found support from President Bill Bresin and board members Karen Morehead, Jody Krebs, Keith Dunham and Dean Barr. Members Joe Grafft and Rob Rapheal dissented.
The decision was sparked by what some members said was a lack of enthusiasm in the public sector for a vote this fall.
It also sets in motion another round of budget cuts for the 2005-2006 school year that will trim another $2 million and result in another 30 employees, mostly teachers, being fired. That process will begin this fall.
The district has already completed a $2 million budget reduction for the 2004-2005 school year that eliminated 20 teaching positions and made other cuts.
The lack of visible public support was troubling to Bresin.
After several weeks of discussion, he said he was expecting to hear from district residents with encouragement to proceed with a levy vote in November.
ìWhere is our base of support?î he asked. ìI just donít see the support out there.î
Board member Karen Morehead said it was the districtís job to convey to the general public and parents of school kids that it must once again work with less. ìObviously we have to do something different,î she said.
Member Barr, the author of the motion to delay the vote until 2005, said the delay would give the district the time it needs to energize the public and fully explain school needs.
ìWe need to go out and get the support,î Barr said. ìWe need time to do that.î
The other view
Last Thursdayís agenda included a resolution calling for the election this fall. The move was supported again by the district administration.
But only members Rapheal and Grafft rose in favor of a vote this fall.
Grafft was troubled by the delay and the impact of another $2 million in cuts.
ìWhat message does this send to our staff?î Grafft asked.
As the district now prepares to make more budget cuts, Grafft said he would favor giving the public a vote now and a say in deciding the fate of a $2 million tax levy.
ìI would like the public to make that decision,î Grafft said.
Rapheal agreed.
ìI have a hard time not voting for a levy this year,î Rapheal said.
Rapheal, who is a candidate for the Minnesota House in District 52A this fall, said he was troubled by state funding policies. With state aid frozen because of state budget problems, public schools are not getting the aid they need to meet their growing costs, Rapheal said.
In such situations, districts like Forest Lake are forced to ask district residents to approve new property taxes to make up the difference.
ìItís a flawed system,î Rapheal said.
By the state not picking up the true costs of public education, local districts like Forest Lake are pushed into ìbattlesî for local funding. Such tax levies are the wrong way to fund public education, Rapheal said last week.
Proposed cuts
The district last month outlined a preliminary plan for how the cuts for 2005-2006 would be made.
The $2 million budget reduction would by made based on the districtís budget reduction model involving school officials and public input during a series of meetings.
For now the district is proposing no cuts in transportation, capital expenditures, special education, district support and administration and health and safety.
The $2 million in cuts would hit staff directly. A reduction of $800,000 each for elementary and secondary instruction would realize $1.6 million in cuts, according to the plan outlined in July.
Building and grounds programs and athletics and co-curricular programs would both see cuts of $200,000, pushing the total costs to $2 million.
The reduction in elementary and secondary instruction and building and grounds would amount to 4 to 5.25 percent of current budget. Athletics and co-curricular programs, however, would be hit with a 16 percent budget cut.
The $2 million in cuts would offset a projected inflationary budget expense of $1.9 million for the 2005-2006 school year, officials said.
The budget cuts come as the district pulled free from statutory operating debt in the fall of 2003 and showed a tiny unreserved general fund balance of $177,000.
Other factors
In June, the board received a report from the Center for Community Opinion with results from a random telephone survey of 430 registered district voters completed in May.
The survey found that although the base of support for a levy increase is weaker now than it was in 2001 (based on survey results) it is still feasible to place a levy on the November ballot if the cost increase is at or below $118 for a home with assessed value of $200,000.
The survey offered three benchmarks to measure public opinion.
An opening ìuninformedî question asking for public support of a $2 million annual levy revealed 52.1 percent opposed with 42.4 percent in support. When provided additional information regarding potential budget cuts, the level of support for a levy grew to 48.9 percent while those opposed fell to 46.3 percent.
When the tax ramifications were measured and the $118 figure was applied, the level of those in support rose to 52.7 percent while the percentage of those opposed dropped to 44.9 percent.
The survey carried a margin of error for results of plus or minus 4.5 percent.
But with little clamor for a levy vote coming from the public this summer, board members agreed more time was essential to generate support for school funding.
The election of 2005 will be a major step for the district.
The district has two years remaining on the five-year levy approved in 2001 that adds $6 million a year to local funding. A vote in 2005 would be the first attempt at renewal with the district still having the election of 2006 for renewal, if necessary.
Top of Page
