2017 South Washington County School Referendum

By Steve Lagoon

 

The South Washington County School Board has approved

three referendum questions for the coming November 7, 2017

election.

​

Scott Wente of the Woodbury Bulletin described the proposals:

​

"South Washington County School District voters will decide three questions on the Nov. 7 referendum. The district has settled on seeking renewal of an existing general education levy; asking for a funding increase that's part two of a multi-year levy measure; and requesting additional funds for technology . . . The first question will seek renewal of a levy that's been in place 20 years . . . the district is seeking another 10-year renewal this fall. The levy generates $15.3 million a year, or $780 per pupil, for basic classroom operations. Administrators and board members say that without the renewal, the district could face a $15 million shortfall. That's roughly the equivalent of 130 positions in a district where personnel costs make up 83 percent of the budget . . . The second levy question will seek a property tax increase of $7.5 million a year, or $375 per pupil annually . . . . Administrators say the additional $375-per-pupil is needed to maintain current programming. A $2 million annual technology levy is the third question. The money would be used to update, replace and modernize aging personalized devices students use in class, such as tablets, as well as to pay for software programs"(Scott Wente, South Washington County School Board Plans Three-question Referendum; Ballot Approval August 17, Wood bury Bulletin, Web: http://www.woodburybulletin.com/news/education/4312570-south-washington-county-school-board-plans-three-question-referendum-ballot).

​

As a candidate for the school board, I have been asked to share my position on these referendum questions. The short answer is that I support the first question with reluctance, and oppose the second and third questions.

​

In what follows, I explain my reasoning.

​

For question one, the renewal of the 15 million dollar operating levy, I have these thoughts. I believe that the way the district has presented the question is misleading. For instance, in Step by Step, a brief piece describing the referendum being distributed by the district, it is claimed that passage of question one “would result in no tax increase.” While essentially true, the intent is to curb opposition to the passage of question one. “After all,” voters might think, “My taxes won’t go up and it will help the school.”

​

 Indeed, the district website proudly announces: “ In fact, if Q1 is approved property taxes would be slightly reduced because the district’s population has grown since the last time the levy was approved”(South Washington County Schools, Frequently Asked Question, Web: http://www.sowashco.org/Election2017/FAQ).

​

Well, I can easily see where a casual voter might say, “Wow, if I vote for this, my taxes will actually go down. It’s a no brainer! How could I be against something that will make my taxes go down?”

​

But the problem is nowhere in Step by Step, nor the information on the district website concerning the referendum, does it explain what happens if the question fails. That is, they do not provide the numbers for the tax cuts voters would receive if question one fails.

​

Yes, if it passes, homeowner’s property taxes would drop by about $7.00 per year for a $150,000.00 home. But a careful observer can deduct that if question one fails to pass, homeowner’s taxes would actually drop by about $225.00 per year on the same $150,000.00 home.

Again, for a $350,000.00 home, the property taxes would decrease by about $16.00 a year if question one passes, but if it fails, the homeowner’s tax bill would decrease by about $525.00 per year.

​

I find it misleading that this information is not being made readily available in district education on the referendum. Voters should be provided the clearest explanation of the facts available as they weigh how to vote in November.

​

Further, it also misleading for the district to imply that that without passage of question one, there will be a 15 million dollar budget shortfall and severe cuts. Wente made reference to such claims by district officials:

​

“Administrators and board members say that without the renewal, the district could face a $15 million shortfall. That's roughly the equivalent of 130 positions in a district where personnel costs make up 83 percent of the budget” (Wente, Bulletin).

​

However, this is disingenuous at best since the district has a 7 million dollar reserve fund. Wente reported in January about concerns of district officials if question one failed: “It could wipe out the district's $7 million reserve fund and force another $7 million in classroom spending cuts” (Scott Wente, Woodbury Bulletin, Web: http://www.woodburybulletin.com/news/education/4204837-school-district-833-considers-three-questions-fall-referendum).

​

In other words, even if question one fails, there are enough funds available in reserve to cover almost half of the shortfall. Surely this is something that should be made clearly available to South Washington County residence in the information they are provided by the district about the referendum. But one looks in vain.

​

Nevertheless, and despite these concerns, I am supporting the passage of question one because the very real negative impacts upon our students and teachers. Unfortunately, it is they that would bear the brunt of budget cuts.

​

I simply reject the passage of questions two and three since there is enough in the district reserves to pay for these additional desires of the district should they so choose, and do not necessitate digging into taxpayer’s pockets any further.

​

I believe in a pay as you go approach to district spending. There is no reason we must keep such high levels of reserves on hand. For instance, concerning the 7 million dollars currently in the reserve; by what reason should that money be sitting in the district’s bank account instead of in taxpayer’s bank accounts?

​

There is no reason that that district officials should not be responsive to the ups and downs of the economy just as the taxpayer’s and residents of South Washington County must!

Wente made reference to an interesting comment Superintendent Jacobus made in defense of the need to approve the referendum questions:

​

Jacobus said in 2012 or 2013 80 percent of district funding came from the state. Now it's 75 percent."That 5 percent on a $225 million budget is a lot of money that is now transferred to us as a district to reduce our budget, or to ask our public if we maintain the same services and the same programs that we need more help financially," he said.

​

This seems a strange statement since increases in local spending through property tax levies (the very thing Jacobus and other district officials have been trying to get approved) automatically lower the comparative percentage paid by the State.

​

Further, Jacobus was selective in his use of statistics since historically, the state portion was much smaller than it is today.

​

In conclusion, while I believe that district leadership, in their enthusiastic zeal to “sell” the referendums, presented a one-sided distorted presentation, nevertheless, I trust that they acted with good intention.

​

I am convinced that the cost-benefit analysis concerning question is tipped slightly to passing the question. The reverse is true for questions two and three and so I oppose their passage.

I am committed, however, if I am elected, to finding costs savings in ways that will not affect essential classroom instruction.