After getting an earful from a number of upset community members Thursday, Shawano School Board members backed away from their insistence on finding additional budget cuts and unanimously approved a $12.9 million tax levy they had rejected earlier in the week.
The board had voted 4-3 Monday against ratifying the levy after learning the amount approved by district voters in August would translate into a higher than projected tax rate.
At August’s annual meeting, the school district was projecting a tax rate unchanged from last year’s $9.95 per $1,000 of equalized value. But the projection wrongly assumed the district’s equalized valuation would finally tick back up this year after several years of decline.
Instead, district property values dropped by 2 percent, and the tax rate needed to collect the $12.9 million levy jumped to $10.31 per $1,000.
Board members on Monday asked Business Manager Gail Moesch how much would have to be cut from the levy to maintain last year’s tax rate.
Moesch said it would take at least $450,000, and the board directed her and school administrators to identify possible budget cuts that could be brought back to the board at a special meeting Thursday.
In the meantime, however, Monday’s board action set off a community firestorm fueled by rumors that specific and popular programs — such as music and tech ed — were headed for the chopping block.
School Board members sat in the cross-hairs Thursday as eight residents vented their displeasure during the public comment portion of the meeting.
“You had all year to look at the budget,” said John Granchay, a former School Board member, who took the current board to task for not adequately going through the budget before approving it for the annual meeting.
“Your inconsistencies are very telling,” said Terry Hilgenberg. “How can you find additional expenses to cut now if you couldn’t in August.”
Hilgenberg also criticized the board for not supporting the budget crafted by the district’s administrators, calling it “a slap in the face.”
“It’s time to base your vote and what you do on what’s best for the community,” Hilgenberg said.
Tod Lewis and Jeff Zander — both of whom served as citizen members of a needs assessment committee several years ago — addressed areas the committee identified as places where the district could cut if it had to. But those included extracurricular activities and electives the committee determined shouldn’t be cut because of their importance to the district and the community.
“There just isn’t any fluff left in this budget,” Zander told the board. “You’re going to have to eat a little bit of crow on the tax rate, and if I were you, I’d do it.”
Board members who opposed the levy on Monday insisted at Thursday’s meeting that there was never any intention of cutting $450,000 from the budget.
“What is going on tonight (is) the board is reviewing the budget to ensure that there is no additional room for savings,” said Julie Van Dyck, board president.
Van Dyck also sought to distance herself from her vote on Monday, calling it a 3-3 tie. Van Dyck voted last on Monday and said Thursday that her no vote was because she didn’t feel it was appropriate to push the levy forward based on a tie.
Board members Derek Johnson, Jay Jones and Bruce Milavitz also voted against approving the levy Monday.
Diane Hoffman, Tyler Schmidt and Al Heins voted in favor. Marcia Yeager was absent.
Johnson said he was disappointed by the subsequent rumors of cuts. He said some of the budget discussion Monday stemmed from board members not understanding some of the line-item increases.
“At no point did anyone suggest cutting $450,000,” he said.
“Tonight is not about cutting programs,” Yeager said. “What we’re looking at tonight is some minor things. Is it going to be $400,000? Never. But can we conserve on a few little areas, if it’s $10,000, $20,000, $30,000? Maybe we can do that tonight.”
As it turned out, however, officials found no room for cuts.
District Administrator Gary Cumberland said leadership teams that included each of the building administrators, director of buildings and grounds and director of technology met and went through the budget in the wake of Monday’s board vote.
“We found it very difficult to find anything that we could cut in the current budget,” Cumberland said. “In fact, we identified additional needs.”
According to Moesch, items not included in the budget that need to be addressed include a number of security, technology and ongoing maintenance issues. At present, Moesch said, those needs are being addressed with any surplus money the district might have at the end of the year if there is additional revenue or spending comes in under budget.
That spurred some board members to recommend those additional needs be included in future budgets going forward.
“We need to start budgeting for these things regardless of where that number comes out,” Milavitz said.
Johnson suggested the district was padding parts of the budget so there would be a surplus at the end of the year to address unbudgeted issues.
Cumberland disputed that, saying the additional review by the leadership teams showed there was no padding.
There was a surplus of more than $800,000 last year, but, Cumberland explained, that was because the district had lower than expected health insurance costs and a mild winter that reduced heating bills.
A consensus emerged during the meeting that additional steps should be taken next time around to help board members get a better understanding of the budgeting process.
Board member Diane Hoffman, a member of the Executive Committee that went through the budget before sending it to the full board, said board members have to be more willing to ask questions.
“It comes before us every year and we have time to ask these questions,” she said. “I guess I’m a little upset that even at the Executive Committee there were not questions asked by some people who then voted it down. I don’t understand how you can not ask a question and then say, ‘No, I don’t accept it.’”
Categories
