Cliff Buchan
News EditorUnited we stand, divided we fall?
With the uncertainty of that question facing the ISD 831 School Board last week, the board moved closer to stepping away from a November excess levy referendum request to district voters.
Although the door on the fall vote for $2 million in general fund support has not totally closed, it now appears the board is leaning toward a levy vote in November of 2005. In 15 months the district would ask voters to renew its current $6 million annual excess levy and cap the local levy authority with an additional $2 million.
At its special meeting July 15, members were in agreement the $2 million was desperately now needed to head off more budget cuts, but felt the time may not be right to risk another ballot defeat similar to last Novemberís failed attempt.
The school board has completed a $2 million budget reduction for the 2004-2005 school year and the administration will now begin steps to chop another $2 million from the 2005-2006 school year.
A successful $2 million levy vote this fall would have eliminated the need to make cuts for the school year beginning July 1, 2005.
A final decision was not made Thursday. The levy will come to the board at its regular meeting Thursday, Aug. 5 and the board will have one more chance to decide on a vote in 2004 or 2005, or do nothing.
Sept. 9 is the final day for the school board to approve a resolution and call for the levy vote on Nov. 2.
Board divided
It was clear last week the seven-member board was divided on the prospects of a fall vote.
While President Bill Bresin and members Joe Graft, Dean Barr and Rob Rapheal were willing to go out for the vote, members Karen Morehead, Jody Krebs and Keith Dunham did not lean in that direction.
Morehead said she was hearing ìno clamoringî from parents to head off budget cuts. Without the grassroots support needed to build momentum for a successful vote, Morehead was worried the issue would have little chance.
Dunham said he was also troubled by the public reaction. He said he believes the public in general doesnít understand nor care about the plight of district finances.
He said he was also troubled by the continued departure of public school kids to charter schools and other programs. He said the district was also risking the loss of parents as potential levy supporters.
ìThat bothers me and troubles me,î Dunham said. He said it was important for the district to launch an educational program for district citizens.
After a stinging defeat at the ballot box last fall, Krebs said she was left with this question: ìWhat has changed in nine months?î
With time drawing short for a vote this fall, Krebs said it would be best to wait until 2005.
There was frustration on the minds of some of those supporting a levy vote this fall.
Member Joe Grafft said he was troubled by an apparent apathetic public, including parents. ìIím troubled by our residents,î he said. ìThe parents are disengaged.î
Faced by a ìvicious cycleî of budget cuts, Grafft said he was inclined to ìlet taxpayers decide.î
Members Bresin and Barr said they were ready to seek the funds this fall but agreed that without a united board, carrying the day would be difficult.
By waiting, Barr said the district would face a key vote in 2005. A year from now will be the districtís first attempt to renew its existing levy that collects $650 in per pupil aid from local property taxes. The district would also have the fall election of 2006 to renew that levy.
Bresin said he would like to go out this fall, but said the planning for 2005 could begin now if the decision is to wait. ìIt doesnít mean you wait until next year,î he said, pointing to the need to begin the campaign now.
Bresin said it was vital the district communicate its message to the public and parents of students in the district. ìWeíve got to turn that around and get parents engaged,î Bresin said.
Rapheal laid the problem at the feet of state officials who have frozen state aid while not taking into account inflationary cost of living increases. He said the district was faced with the task of cutting $2 million a year without more local support and he was inclined to support the fall vote and give the community the choice.
Budget facts
The administration led by Superintendent of Schools Lynn Steenblock and Larry Martini, director of business affairs have stressed the need to seek the funds.
With two rounds of $2 million in budget cuts made or on the planning board, Steenblock said there is no longer any place to cut beyond staff and programs. Fixed program costs have been reduced as much as possible, he said.
ìWeíve cut and cut and cut and you canít cut anything more,î Steenblock said, pointing to text books and supplies.
The $2 million budget reduction for 2005-2006 would come under the districtís budget reduction model that involves school officials and public input during a series of meetings.
As a possible scenario, Martini outlined the likely areas of the budget where cuts would be made.
He said he would propose no cuts in transportation, capital expenditures, special education, district support and administration and health and safety.
The $2 million in cuts would hit staff hard. A reduction of $800,000 each for elementary and secondary instruction would realize $1.6 million in cuts.
Building and grounds needs and athletics and co-curricular programs would both see cuts of $200,000.
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, officials said.
As the district pulled free from statutory operating debt last fall and showed a tiny unreserved general fund balance of $177,000, the administrators said the district was planning no major growth in fund balance.
Currently, Martini said, the district expects to show an unreserved fund balance of $1 million for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2004. By November the district should have its final determination of that figure, Martini said.
Morehead said she understood the importance of rebuilding the general fund balance to provide reserves, she asked, ìHow quickly do we want to build that back up?î
Although district auditors have suggested a fund balance in the range of $2.4 million, Steenblock said the district was not proposing to increase the fund balance ìon the backs of anyone.î
ìWe have not cut as a result of fund balance increases,î Steenblock said.
Under questions from Rapheal, Martini said a budget variance of 2 percent, plus or minus, was a fair figure for budget building.
The superintendent was also critical of legislators. While the state has absorbed direct support of schools and taken general aid off local property taxes, no vehicle to address inflationary costs has been created, he said.
ìYou need to go to the source,î Steenblock said. He was critical of the legislature for its budget process that takes into account projected revenue increases but does not project any expenditure increases tied to inflation. The state needs to solve the problem for any long-term help, he said.
With no revenue streams available from the state, it is local district that ìget the griefî and are ìtaking the painî when revenues fall short of expenses, Steenblock said.
Top of Page
