10-23-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Westonka Public School District Nov. 7,1995, Levy Referendum Why iloes the School District neeil to pass an operating levy relerendum? • The Minnesota Lcgislaurc has not kept pace in aijequatcly funding public education. School funding has increased by only S55 per student this year. This is the tirsl increase in six \ears. Considering an inllaiion rate ot three percent a year on a S12 million budget, state funding would ha\e required an mcrcase of at least S150 of revenue per student per year. • The Westonka Board of Education and school administration have worked diligcndy to keep quality instructional services and co-cumcular programs for Westonka students, llie School Board has Ixen reducing expenses and. in 1990 in order to keep cuneni programs and services in pLice. chose to eliminate the two percent budget reserve it had been maintaining. • Westonka School District voters chose to support education widi tui SSSO.OOO I'perating levy reterenduiv in 19119. In 1994, however, an election to extend that levy failed by 11 votes (3.639 yes votes to 3.670 no votes or a 0.15 of l^r margin). • After the failure of the 1994 referendum. Lhe Westonka School Board carefully considered its options .and decided that an annual reduction of SSSO.OOO would have a devasiaung elfect on iirsuaiciional services. As a result, the phui to recover from the failure of the 1994 levy renew al included the follow ing: • Reduce $220,000 of expenses from the 1995-96 budget. • Recognize the f.act that the .severe loss of educativiii funding w ould put the district in statutory operating debt. • Conduct another levy vote in tlie fall of 1995, and. with coinjiiuimy support for a successful pas.sage, ininunize die 1995-96 loss of SSSO.OOO by spreading die remaining 5660.000 (S220.000 per year) over the next three yc.ors. Didn't Westonka voters approve a relerendum recendy? • In 1993, voters of the district approved a b<md relerendum. Hut vote iillowed bonds to be issued to pay lor the remodel ine and renovauon of buildings, for the purchase ui computers ;uid software and for eoniinumg to provide safe, heiddiy school buildings. • It is imporuiu to re;dize that there is a distinction between a bond relerendum and an operating levy referendum. Dolhirs from .1 bond refer .mdum may only he U'Cd for !ong-;crni building, leinodelnig. .'e:iovaiions .and technology. Operating lew referendum doll.irs inav onlv be uscu : :r ge:;er;ii :.;:id edaciiuon.n iuid .-.perating expenditures. Suite !.iw requires a• ^ * separate accounting for die revenues of the !wo dilferem iype> of reiereiidutns. Is this issue unique to the Westonka Public Schools? • Due to die nuidequacy of state funding, .i.i 14 school di.stncts in suburr.ui Hennepin Couniy have found it es.scnii.'d to a.sk their voters to approve I'pcraung le- te.. .\s a re.sait die i.uiu-e ol me i994 referendum. '.Ve-.tonka has me lowe.st per- student revenue of the 14 suburban di.^tr.cut. liven wndi sueee:..slul pa.sage of d'.is referendum. We.stoiika Public Schtxsls would have die second lowesi per .tudent revenue of :he i4 suburb.ui school diisuricus. (See c.hari on back.) • Dunne i.''e 197(9s and early ’SOs. die Wei>:::nk:i schools were liscallv responsible m requesting an additional oper.ating levy only as . jn ling troin the Legislature te.l short. Odier di.stncb. howeve.u lev led to seek addttion.d revenues specifi- caJl'y for die purpose of enhuiciiie edueatioiial piogrtuius. Suite l.ivv now caps d.e amount of operational money thatetm be rai.scd dirougn the levy process, but etg.nt oi die 14 suburban Hennepin County school districts tu-e allowed to mam- uiiri iheir lev ies from the 'TOs tmd early ' sOs m excess of the cap Pr.-paicil and paiJ for by School Diairicl .N'o. 277. V>V.ru>oUa Public Scluml.x. 71iis publicaiiun i) not circulaiciJ on behalf of any camlidale or ballot queauon.