ECM Post Review - Sunday Night: If not now, when?

Post Review Poll

Regarding the President's declaration this week, are we done with the war in Iraq?

	yes
	no

Sunday Night: If not now, when?

Wednesday, 21 October 2009

By MaryHelen Swanson

These are tough times. That’s not just a part of a slogan being used by the NB school district to get you to vote yes on the levy referendum, it’s a fact. Everyone is talking about how difficult life is today, with jobs and homes being lost, and prices of everything going up. In the midst of it all, school districts are desperately trying to provide an excellent education for students and fight those same financial battles.

Here in North Branch, residents have not worked with the state in providing extra funding by approving an operating levy. Time and again a referendum has failed. And that’s, more often than not, when the economy was in much better shape.

It’s probably backward thinking to say “you wouldn’t pass a levy when things were better, so you must pass it now when things are bad.” It sure doesn’t sound sensible, does it.

Except that it’s the only way to get that extra funding the district needs with some assistance from the state. They just aren’t going to give it to Dist. 138. That’s just the way it is, until the Legislature makes some serious changes.

I would like to remind you that you live here because you like North Branch. You like your homes and the people, you like the festivals and free events. You like your churches. You like that there are many sports activities for your kids all year long. You love your kids and you want them to be well educated so they can handle whatever life throws at them when they grow up.

Throughout the years, NB has done an excellent job of educating students, students especially who have taken exactly what they wanted out of the educational system. Many have gone on to be very, very successful. We don’t often hear about the successes, but they are there.

So, it’s not the kind of education they’re getting that’s really bothering you. A while ago our online poll asked what you would do with a $10,000 lottery win. You said you’d pay bills or put it in the bank. So we know you do not have extra cash to throw around. Adding to your taxes could mean some serious sacrifices, especially if you are one who is getting hit hard in these tough times.

I know you are complaining about the superintendent’s salary; some of you want to make this the big issue.

She was hand picked, you know, by the people you chose to be at your school board table.

First of all, she did not give herself a raise. Wow wouldn’t it be great if we could do that. Her contract was negotiated and agreed upon by the school board. Her total wages and benefits are $189,952 (actual wage is $142,405). Sounds like a lot? Sure does. But I have checked with other school districts and with the county, another of the largest employers in the area.

Larry Martini, Director of Business for the Forest Lake Schools says Superintendent Madsen’s base salary is $143,790, with benefits and a possible performance pay of $4,000, the total compensation is $192,725. St. Francis school district pays its superintendent $199,000.

John Moosey, your county administrator has a base salary of $109,000 and with benefits, $133,000. All these positions require master’s or doctorate degrees. Your city administrator position is paying nearly $100,000 with benefits.

If you want to complain about the salary, and they are doing that in other school districts that are having levy referendums this year, then you have to take it to the people who approved the compensation.

But at this very time, it’s the children you have to think about. The district is not being factitious when it says that class sizes will probable continue to increase if the levy is not passed, and that there will be more cuts in staff and programs. You will probably be required to pick up the tab for more and more or your kids’ education anyway.

You can move, but you know, other school districts are having the same problems. Many, however, are being saved by an operating levy. If you don’t approve this levy now, and give NB school district the advantage other district’s afford, when will you?

Comments (10) add comment

Flambeau: ...

MaryHelen,

Much hay is made by levy supporters and the District over the fact that North Branch is among the minority (10%) of school districts in the state that do not currently have an operating levy in place.

It is commonplace for the District and others to point out that the average operating levy in MN is $843 per pupil and all North Branch is asking for is $475. After all, statutorily the District could ask for as much as $1,500 per pupil if they wanted to so isn’t $475 a bargain?

But Here’s the Thing.

There is more to local school district financing than operating levies.

On the MN Dept of Education’s web site in the School District Financial Profiles section you will find a report entitled “2008 Pupil, Staff and Other District Data” that contains some information that I believe sheds some light on the District’s difficulties in getting an operating levy passed.

According to this file, in 2008 North Branch taxpayers, even though we have no operating levy in place, paid an average of $719 in property taxes to the school district.

Since this $719 figure is from 2008 it would not include the impact of the recent actions the District has taken via non voter approved levies that will increase this amount by about $100 by 2010, those actions being the adoption of the Q Comp program, the addition to the High School and the issuance of the OPEB Bonds.

At $819 per household, North Branch taxpayers will be paying more in taxes per household to their school district than 89% of the other school districts in the state, and this is WITHOUT an operating levy in place.

Passing the operating levy would boost this number to $1,019 per household which would put North Branch taxpayers above 93% of the state’s districts in terms of taxes paid per household.

The average amount of property taxes per household paid to MN school districts in 2008 including payments for operating levies was $449. The median payment was $343.

North Branch taxpayers are already going to be paying 82% and 139% more than these figures respectively in 2010.

If the levy passes we will be paying 127% and 197% more than these figures respectively.

If you are looking for a reason as to why it is that taxpayers in this District have been reluctant to vote for an operating levy I think this has a lot to do with it.

I think everyone should be clear on the fact that even with no operating levy in place, North Branch District taxpayers are already providing far more financial support directly to their District than most in the state.

October 23, 2009

Disingenuous: ...

Flambeau left out an important detail here: The vast majority of the "burden" he notes is VOTER APPROVED for building the Sunrise school and parts of the MIddle School. None of that goes to classrooms, it is a construction bill. The district did not put that burden on taxpayers, they put it on themselves.

October 27, 2009

Flambeau: ...

Disingenuous,

I readily admit your point, although I wonder a bit about it's relevance to my comment.

The point I was making was that taxpayers in North Branch are doing more than their fair share for the District relative to other Districts in the state when you look at the total tax burden per household and not just operating levy dollars.

Whether the existing tax burden is due to building new schools or hiring more teachers it is all the same when it comes out of the taxpayers pocket. The absolute dollar amount of taxes people are ALREADY paying has a decided impact on their ability and inclination to pay more.

If you want to point out that taxpayers have done much of this on a voluntary basis (although not all) that would seem to indicate that perhaps local taxpayers actually do care about children and may not all be as selfish and greedy as many commenters, letter writers and columnists on these pages make them out to be.

If you are saying here that taxpayers should not complain about the high district tax burden because they are responsible for approving much of it, then neither should you complain if they decide NOT to approve the operating levy referendum in order to avoid increasing their taxes even more.

P.S.

I find the comment that "none of that goes to the classrooms" somewhat ironic since without those levies there wouldn't be any classrooms for your operating levy to go to.

October 27, 2009

Flambeau: ...

Disingenuous,

I readily admit your point, although I wonder a bit about it's relevance to my comment.

The point I was making was that taxpayers in North Branch are doing more than their fair share for the District relative to other Districts in the state when you look at the total tax burden per household and not just operating levy dollars.

Whether the taxes paid are for new buildings or new teachers, it is all the same money coming out of taxpayers pockets.

The absolute dollar amount of taxes that people are ALREADY paying has a decided impact on their ability and inclination to pay more.

If you want to point out that they have done much of this on a voluntary basis (although not all) that would seem to indicate that perhaps local taxpayers actually do care about children and may not all be as selfish and greedy as many commenters, letter writers and columnists on these pages make them out to be.

If you are saying here that taxpayers should not complain about the high District tax burden because they are responsible for approving much of it, then neither should you complain if taxpayers decide NOT to approve the operating levy referendum in order to avoid increasing their taxes even more.

P.S.

I find the comment that "none of that goes to the classrooms" rather ironic since without those levies there wouldn't be any classrooms for your operating levy to go to.

October 27, 2009

Irv Geary: ...

What Flambeau is doing is playing with numbers. He is quoting one block out of many blocks. If he were to go to the next spreadsheet titled 2008 Revenues he would then go on to tell you that the North Branch district receives a total of 9.1% of its General Fund Revenues from its local tax payers. This is much lower than the state average. More than 80% of the state has a higher local tax payer income. If he went on to look at the other spreadsheet titled 2008 Revenues per ADM he would tell you that North Branch receives $744 locally for each student in the school. This too is near the bottom of all local dollars spent on students for local tax payer aid thoughout the entire state. The reality is that we spend very little on our children in this town. Yes, we do have nice school buildings and that is where most of your current school tax money is going. What about putting some into the classroom for the kids daily education. That takes a levy. Please vote yes on Nov. 3rd.

October 28, 2009

Flambeau: ...

Irv,

You have stated that I am "playing with numbers" and "quoting one block out of many blocks".

Let’s think about that for a moment because I would argue that you are guilty of just these accusations.

I am quoting the TOTAL school district related tax burden per household. That would include any and all local taxes paid to school districts whether they are for buildings, Q Comp, OPEB Bond servicing, operating levies, etc. That number is not ONE block of many, it is ALL the blocks added together.

The number that you are quoting relating to General Fund Revenues is a number that is in fact one block out of many blocks. General Fund Revenues are only one subcategory of Total Revenues as you can clearly see on the report that you refer to.

You have taken your one block and have determined that in this particular subcategory, local taxpayers contribute less than average to the North Branch District.

I do not dispute that.

The point I was making, and it is one that levy supporters, the papers and the district have certainly not been sharing with the public, is that taxpayers here in North Branch already pay far more in TOTAL district related property taxes than do average MN district taxpayers.

It may well be that the majority of those dollars are going to pay for buildings and not the day to day operations of the schools, but regardless of what the money is being used for it is still money that district taxpayers don’t have at the end of the day.

To belittle district taxpayers because they happen to contribute less than average in some categories when they pay far more than average overall is not going to endear you to them or help your cause.

Your reference to revenues per ADM is not especially meaningful for two reasons.

First, you again are only looking at the one block of General Fund Revenues. If you look at Total Revenues per ADM, North Branch is paying $2,498 per ADM locally which puts us in the middle of the pack relative to other districts in the state.

Second, since North Branch and Chisago County in general do not have a whole lot in the way of a commercial tax base a larger share of the total property taxes are shouldered by residents than is the case in most districts & counties.

Rather than trying to paint district taxpayers as selfish and greedy for not having approved an operating levy in the past the district and levy supporters might consider acknowledging the large contribution that local taxpayers already make to support the district, a contribution in total average tax dollars per household that is nearly double the state average.

October 28, 2009

Flambeau: ...

October 28, 2009

Dale Torgerson: ...

At least this is civil discourse. In my neighborhood the "NO" crowd shows its intelligent, informed view of the school levy vote by stealing or damaging "Yes" signs: "no signs = no supporters" is a great campaign, worthy of Watergate.

October 29, 2009

Mike: ...

Flambeau: ... Thank you very much, a decision based on facts and not a poor mode swing. I also did my homework (no pun intended) and made a rational decision for Tuesday night. I had conversations with a school board member and an administrator prior to voting, which both were more than happy to answer any of my questions, also very easy to talk to. One administrator gave me the answer I was searching for, I simply shortened our conversation by asking him “This levy, if it fails, would you be absent your wage and benefit package increase this year? Well as you can imagine, the answers from both parties was very similar, one answered briefly by saying “in short yes” the other took the “I’m not really sure” approach, and hence the decision I chose on Tuesday. If I knew it all went to the kids I’d of been the first one in line, but we’ve all been around long enough to see through that.

Now with that said, plus the information you’ve provided here, I believe I made the right choice. I own a business, my customers some of which are teachers, stated that all the people in the class rooms are the ones paying the price. The teachers right now are working with a wage freeze, no cost of living or do they have a benefit package to die for, yet the administrators make that kind of money and receive benefits that cost more than most people make in a year, yet they want more.
Just my opinion…

November 06, 2009

CCC: ...

Dale Torgerson: ...
At least this is civil discourse. In my neighborhood the "NO" crowd shows its intelligent, informed view of the school levy vote by stealing or damaging "Yes" signs: "no signs = no supporters" is a great campaign, worthy of Watergate.

Absolutely disgusting! Have you any idea how many signs I made saying NO that disappeared?
How Dare you to blame this on one side or the other!!!!

November 19, 2009

Write comment

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]

Columns/Opinion