Cliff Buchan
News EditorOfficials in ISD 831 are exploring a possible run at another excess operating levy vote this November.
Lynn Steenblock, superintendent of schools, recommended the fall vote at Mondayís regular school board meeting. Faced by no new state aid dollars in the past three years and the likelihood of the same in the next two years, Steenblock said the only recourse was to once again ask the public to raise local property taxes.
The district went to the voters last fall asking for an operating levy increase to head off $2 million in budget cuts for 2004-2005 and also asked for money to support technology. Both levy questions were soundly defeated.
Mondayís discussion came as the board voted 5-1 to approve its 2004-2005 budget that reflects $2 million in cuts as promised last year when the district sought additional local revenue from property owners.
But the request for a fall vote was not received with open arms by some on the board Monday. Members Keith Dunham, Karen Morehead and Jody Krebs all raised questions.
Steenblock, in recommending the November vote, based his report on a recently completed community survey that presented some hope the public may support a levy this fall.
The plan
Steenblockís recommendation Monday calls for a five-year levy that will generate $2 million a year for general fund support. The levy amount mirrors projected dollars the district believes it will have to cut to keep revenues in line with expenditures while attempting to build a fund balance.
ìWe are in a (budget) crisis,î said Larry Martini, director of business affairs during his budget presentation Monday.
With state aid levels frozen since 2002-2003, local officials said they cannot logically expect new state aid dollars during the next two fiscal years. A state budget deficit that could swell to $1 billion will only complicate the education funding picture, the two administrators said.
Martini said the new budget was achieved by cutting $2 million and projecting inflationary cost increases of 3 percent. He said he was relieved to learn that employee health insurance costs would go up by only 7 percent in 2004-2005.
The proposed levy would be in addition to the current excess levy now on the books following voter approval in 2001. Two full years remain on that levy which must be renewed no later than 2006 or its $6.2 million in annual revenue will be lost.
With 80 percent of district spending directed at staff, the district administrators said the ways the budget can be reduced are limited and usually result in staff reductions.
Board reacts
The board took no action on the recommendation Monday and requested more time to review the proposal and hear from district residents.
Board President Bill Bresin said the issue could be reviewed again at the July 1 meeting. Steenblock said he will seek a special meeting to allow more discussion but no date was set on Monday.
But some on the board were not quick to jump on board.
ìIím real torn,î board member Morehead said. ìI want to make a good vote on this.î
Morehead said she was concerned the public would have the perception the district was coming back too soon. And with the current levy renewal vote looming, she questioned if next year might be more appropriate, budget cuts or not.
Member Krebs said the board still faced the challenge of conveying a clear vision to the public. If the public is not sure of the districtís educational plan, winning support at the ballot box is tough, she said.
Krebs said it was evident last fall the district was not able to get out the supporters that it had in the 2001 levy. ìOur yes voters didnít come out,î she said.
ìWhat does the board want to do?î asked member Dunham. As elected officials, he said the board should have the charge of philosophically addressing the budget crisis and not solely rely on the administration to make budget cuts.
The goal, he said, should be to improve the quality of education for students and how and where the district spends its dollars. Based on the community survey results, Dunham said too many residents are ìnot thrilledî with what the district is doing.
Bresin said he welcomed the discussion and said it would be a good starting place for the district to form a realistic approach. ìRealistic says we only have so much money,î Bresin said.
Steenblock said the district has a clear educational plan and is taking steps to address curriculum, student assessment and many other issues.
He said the district will also lose some 125 or more local kids to a new Spanish immersion charter school and a ìchunk of revenue for no reason,î pointing to board reluctance to make the charter school part of the districtís curriculum.
ìWeíll cut the $2 million out of the system,î Steenblock said, adding that the process would be repeated again in two years. ìItís just as simple as that.î
Based on the situation, he said it ìbehoovesî the district to give the public the opportunity to support or not support the public school system.
Survey results
Don Lifto of the Center for Community Opinion on Monday presented results from the random telephone survey of 430 registered district voters completed May 24-29.
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, Lifto said.
Lifto said he expects the 2004 election will bring to the polls both the parents and less active voters who will support a district proposal. Lifto said a highly focused, well planned campaign must be executed in support of the levy in order to win voter approval.
ìMake sure you get your message out,î Lifto said, suggesting a campaign start in advance of Labor Day.
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 margin of error for results is plus or minus 4.5 percent, Lifto said.
The board voted 6-0 to accept the survey report, but Morehead for one was not in total agreement with the assessment.
A veteran political activist, Morehead she did not agree that a presidential election year would for sure bring out less active voters who would support a school levy. In her opinion, many voters in a presidential election are uninformed on local issues and reject tax increases out of hand.
Budget set
The school district budget for 2004-2005 was set Monday by way of a 5-1 vote. By law the budget must be set by July 1.
Member Dunham was the lone vote as he was unsuccessful in a request to delay approval to allow time to review the proposal. Although completed on May 22, Dunham said he was disappointed that he had little time to review the final budget proposal.
ìWhat strategic plans are we going to make going forward?î Dunham asked. He said the current budget cutting plan is reactive to the budget shortfall but the district has ìno forward thinking on how funds will be used in the future.î
Dunham cast the lone no vote on approval as members Bresin, Morehead, Dean Barr, Rob Rapheal and Krebs were in favor. Member Joe Graft did not attend Mondayís meeting.
Rapheal, a candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives in District 52A, expressed frustration with the lack of state funding.
ìIt doesnít have to be like this,î Rapheal said.
ìBut it is like this,î Bresin countered.
The districtís total general fund budget for 2004-2005 shows revenue of $59,801,497 compared to expenditures of $59,789,075 with projected June 30, 2005 fund balance of $2,139,296.
The unreserved projected fund balance on June 30, 2005 is shown at $1,006,735, compared to the projected June 30 balance this year of $954,560.
A good share of the $2 million in budget reductions were achieved through teacher cut.
However, the board was able to soften the number of teacher cuts because of retirements. The plan to cut 25 classroom teachers was changed in the final budget proposal.
Instead of cutting 15 elementary teachers, 13 positions were eliminated. The number of secondary teacher cuts was dropped by three from 10 to seven under the final package.
Elementary and secondary education cuts will reach $1.2 million. The budget reduction also shows a $550,000 cut in transportation, $150,000 in athletics and co-curricular programs and $100,000 in district support. Students can also expect a significant increase in participation fees and high school parking fees.
Top of Page
