MONROE - Faced with the prospect of having to cut as many as 28 teaching positions if a referendum fails to pass this fall, Monroe school board members split into two opposing camps during a heated discussion at Monday's meeting.
Survey results reported to the board in June indicated that just less than half of voters would support a three-year referendum of $1.8 million per year. Business Administrator Ron Olson reminded the board that $1.8 million represents the amount needed to maintain current school programs based on projections, some of which he said may be optimistic - including a slight increase he estimated in state funding for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.
While a lower referendum amount might increase the likelihood of it passing, anything under $1.8 million will be accompanied by staff reductions.
"After 12 years of cuts, there just aren't a lot of unturned stones or areas out there where you can say, 'hey, we can now come up with dollars in this area,'" Olson said, emphasizing that even cutting all co-curriculars and long-term maintenance projects wouldn't get the district far. "It's not realistic that you could do those things. And I think people think there's a lot of available dollars to make this work, and the reality is there isn't. You only get there through staffing, generally."
Treasurer Brian Keith said he thinks the most the district can safely ask for is $1 million per year for three years - a figure that would mean cutting between nine and 13 teachers, 16 and 18 support staff positions or eight administration and/or exempt staff positions, according to Olson's estimates. The district currently has 11 administrators.
Keith said if the board tries to ask for more than that in order to cut fewer jobs, it risks voters rejecting the referendum for its impact on their taxes, which would force the district to cut between 21 and 28 teachers, 36 and 40 support staff members or 15 and 16 administrators and/or exempt staff members in the next few years.
But member Les Bieneman argued if board members lower the amount, some people will understand the change to mean the district doesn't really need the full $1.8 million. Then they'll wonder if the amount could be lowered more, he said.
"And pretty soon you get it down to zero. It's 'well I wonder if they (the school district) can pay us?'" he said. "You never satisfy the dollar greed. ... This community is going to have to decide - we need to put it out there - are you going to have a school system which we are proud of, which we maintain now? Or are you going to value money over that?"
Bieneman said he wouldn't vote for a $1 million referendum. "I'm no longer willing to participate in a slow strangulation," he said.
Keith urged the board to take the more cautious approach.
"This is emotional, but at the end of the day, we have to do what we can do," he said. "And a 50-50 mix on a $1.8 million number? I'm not willing to take that risk."
Board member Dan Bartholf said he agrees with Bieneman and the district needs to maintain its current budget. Member Jim Plourde added that if they continue cutting, families will send their students to other districts, a trend that's already occurring.
Olson estimated the school tax rate for 2016-17 without a referendum would be the lowest it's been since 1999. He noted the tax figures are speculation at this point, but that a $1 million referendum would raise the property taxes by almost $1 per $1,000 of property value. A $1.8 million referendum would raise it by about $1.74 per $1,000.
"The voters also have to understand that you can get a point where the mill (tax) rate is really, really low, and you're living in a community that has a school system that's not doing a very good job and no one wants to live there, move there, start businesses there, and so you're not paying any taxes and your house isn't worth crap," board member Michael Boehme said.
The school board will continue the discussion at the next meeting. Administrators said they want the board to decide on a figure soon so they can begin preparations.
A second referendum question, which got significant support in the community survey, will address safety and maintenance items.
Survey results reported to the board in June indicated that just less than half of voters would support a three-year referendum of $1.8 million per year. Business Administrator Ron Olson reminded the board that $1.8 million represents the amount needed to maintain current school programs based on projections, some of which he said may be optimistic - including a slight increase he estimated in state funding for the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years.
While a lower referendum amount might increase the likelihood of it passing, anything under $1.8 million will be accompanied by staff reductions.
"After 12 years of cuts, there just aren't a lot of unturned stones or areas out there where you can say, 'hey, we can now come up with dollars in this area,'" Olson said, emphasizing that even cutting all co-curriculars and long-term maintenance projects wouldn't get the district far. "It's not realistic that you could do those things. And I think people think there's a lot of available dollars to make this work, and the reality is there isn't. You only get there through staffing, generally."
Treasurer Brian Keith said he thinks the most the district can safely ask for is $1 million per year for three years - a figure that would mean cutting between nine and 13 teachers, 16 and 18 support staff positions or eight administration and/or exempt staff positions, according to Olson's estimates. The district currently has 11 administrators.
Keith said if the board tries to ask for more than that in order to cut fewer jobs, it risks voters rejecting the referendum for its impact on their taxes, which would force the district to cut between 21 and 28 teachers, 36 and 40 support staff members or 15 and 16 administrators and/or exempt staff members in the next few years.
But member Les Bieneman argued if board members lower the amount, some people will understand the change to mean the district doesn't really need the full $1.8 million. Then they'll wonder if the amount could be lowered more, he said.
"And pretty soon you get it down to zero. It's 'well I wonder if they (the school district) can pay us?'" he said. "You never satisfy the dollar greed. ... This community is going to have to decide - we need to put it out there - are you going to have a school system which we are proud of, which we maintain now? Or are you going to value money over that?"
Bieneman said he wouldn't vote for a $1 million referendum. "I'm no longer willing to participate in a slow strangulation," he said.
Keith urged the board to take the more cautious approach.
"This is emotional, but at the end of the day, we have to do what we can do," he said. "And a 50-50 mix on a $1.8 million number? I'm not willing to take that risk."
Board member Dan Bartholf said he agrees with Bieneman and the district needs to maintain its current budget. Member Jim Plourde added that if they continue cutting, families will send their students to other districts, a trend that's already occurring.
Olson estimated the school tax rate for 2016-17 without a referendum would be the lowest it's been since 1999. He noted the tax figures are speculation at this point, but that a $1 million referendum would raise the property taxes by almost $1 per $1,000 of property value. A $1.8 million referendum would raise it by about $1.74 per $1,000.
"The voters also have to understand that you can get a point where the mill (tax) rate is really, really low, and you're living in a community that has a school system that's not doing a very good job and no one wants to live there, move there, start businesses there, and so you're not paying any taxes and your house isn't worth crap," board member Michael Boehme said.
The school board will continue the discussion at the next meeting. Administrators said they want the board to decide on a figure soon so they can begin preparations.
A second referendum question, which got significant support in the community survey, will address safety and maintenance items.