vision2020
Re: School Budget
A short answer that fortunately keeps the inaccuracies short. The district does NOT have more teaching staff as a result of recent hiring. There WERE and ARE funds to pay for all staff for this current school/fiscal year, and we have no more administrative and classified staff as a result of recent hiring. An adjustment was made to the assistant activities director position--basically the activity coordinator at the Junior High. To suggest the budget problem is related to recent hiring is completely false. To suggest that the board when John Danahy was on it and the board when Mike Curley is on it could have and maybe should have reduced staff (and moved children to other classrooms in other schools) is more to the point.
The district was NOT in financial trouble this past fall. The problem will be next fall.
And the three biggest (not only) reasons for the supplemental levy problems:
1. Rate v. specific dollar amount. By law, the levy is set at a specific dollar amount, not a rate per thousand of assessed value. As property values increase and new properties are added, the rate actually goes down per $1000 of assessed value. And inflation eats away at the buying power of the constant number of dollars the levy produces every year.
2. The largest employer in the district (U of I) pays no property tax. I am not blaming any one at the U of I--teachers, administrators, students. That's just a legal fact. The city has the same problem. Public entities in the area provide services to or for a state institution that is not contributing to the tax base. The legislature could fix that, and in some states that is done--a stipend of some type is paid to communities that support large (compared to community size) public institutions. I hope to testify before a legislative committee in Boise on Friday and raise that very issue, thanks to a reminder from board member Bill Goesling.
3. Lack of communication with voters. Prior levies have been large enough to allow the district to operate for 4 to 6 years without having to come back to voters for approval. That gets the voters and the district out of touch with one another. An indefinite levy (basically meaning it continues until revoked) has, among others, the advantages of allowing long-term planning for programs and keeping the district competitive in the search for top-quality new teachers (because they know their position is "funded" for the future, not just for today). Perhaps a middle ground would be smaller, more frequent supplemental levies that keep the district and the voters in better touch with each other, the increases smaller each time, thus flattening out the fluctuation in rate per $1000 from year to year. It might also encourage pre- levy agreement between administration and union on an appropriate pay increase for teachers (and other staff by extension), so that the issue is submitted for voter approval along with all other needs.
Mike Curley
Board of Trustees MSD 281
On 23 Jan 02, at 13:07, John Danahy wrote:
Date forwarded: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:16:17 -0800 (PST)
From: "John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>
To: <paulhill@moscow.com>, <vision2020@moscow.com>
Subject: Re: School Budget
Date sent: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:07:53 -0800
Forwarded by: vision2020@moscow.com
A short answer that fortunately keeps the inaccuracies short. The district does NOT have more teaching staff as a result of recent hiring. There WERE and ARE funds to pay for all staff for this current school/fiscal year, and we have no more administrative and classified staff as a result of recent hiring. An adjustment was made to the assistant activities director position--basically the activity coordinator at the Junior High. To suggest the budget problem is related to recent hiring is completely false. To suggest that the board when John Danahy was on it and the board when Mike Curley is on it could have and maybe should have reduced staff (and moved children to other classrooms in other schools) is more to the point.
The district was not in financial trouble this past fall. The problem will be next fall.
And the three biggest (not only) reasons for the supplemental levy problems:
1. Rate v. specific dollar amount. By law, the levy is set at a specific dollar amount, not a rate per thousand of assessed value. As property values increase and new properties are added, the rate actually goes down per $1000 of assessed value. And inflation eats away at the buying power of the constant number of dollars the levy produces every year.
2. The largest employer in the district (U of I) pays no property tax. I am not blaming any one at the U of I--teachers, administrators, students. That's just a legal fact. The city has the same problem. Public entities in the area provide services to or for a state institution that is not contributing to the tax base. The legislature could fix that, and in some states that is done--a stipend of some type is paid to communities that support large (compared to community size) public institutions. I hope to testify before a legislative committee in Boise on Friday and raise that very issue, thanks to a reminder from board member Bill Goesling.
3. Lack of communication with voters. Prior levies have been large enough to allow the district to operate for 4 to 6 years without having to come back to voters for approval. That gets the voters and the district out of touch with one another. An indefinite levy (basically meaning it continues until revoked) has, among others, the advantages of allowing long-term planning for programs and keeping the district competitive in the search for top-quality new teachers (because they know their position is "funded" for the future, not just for today). Perhaps a middle ground would be smaller, more frequent supplemental levies that keep the district and the voters in better touch with each other, the increases smaller each time, thus flattening out the fluctuation in rate per $1000 from year to year. It might also encourage pre- levy agreement between administration and union on an appropriate pay increase for teachers (and other staff by extension), so that the issue is submitted for voter approval along with all other needs.
Enrollment to Moscow schools has been declining for 5 or more years, @ 50
students per year. State funding is based on enrollment, so MSD has fewer
state dollars available today than they would have had if enrollment had
been stable.
Recently, the Board of Trustees hired more teaching (certified) staff
without having any funds to pay for salaries or benefits. Other staff,
(administrative and classified) were also hired.
The board found itself in financial trouble this past fall, in part due to
the hiring of too many staff and in part to the state of Idaho holding back some
funding. The board asked the voters to increase the local supplemental levy
(currently at 4.5 million dollars) by 2 million and was told no by 73%.
John
John and Laurie Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Hill" <paulhill@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 5:54 AM
Subject: School Budget
> Being relatively new to the area, can someone fill me in on how the school
> funding issue came to be? A 2-million dollar shortfall is a lot of money; is
> the budget suddenly different now than in past years? Did the state
cut
> funding by that amount, and why? Were there some decisions made that
> resulted in a shortfall? The recent funding initiative was defeated by a huge
> margin-- was this a reaction to some percieved mismanagement? Needless to say,
> I'm ignorant of the history of this issue. If there's a newspaper summary or
> other publication, please point me in that direction. Thanks--
>
Back to TOC