WALL LAKE, IOWA – NOVEMBER 15, 2010
While watching this discussion, it is important for the viewer to keep in mind that the taxpayers of Sac do not currently pay an Instructional Support Levy and the taxpayers of Wall Lake View Auburn do not currently pay a Physical Plant Equipment Levy. Both are a type of tax. This discussion is a pro and con discussion about implementing an Instructional support levy on the taxpayers of Sac, and a Physical Plant Equipment Levy on the taxpayers of Wall Lake View Auburn.
1. At the last meeting, the board reviewed the Physical Plant Equipment Levies (PPEL) and the Instructional Support Levies (ISL).
- Reviewed fund balances, etc.
2. Kraft says that as a result of discussions with several of the board members, he has a hard time justifying a voted PPEL in any way shape or form.
- The $0.01 sales tax and the regular $0.33 PPEL would generate well over $500,000 for the district.
- Recommends keeping that as is
3. The ISL is a little different.
- Kraft believes you can argue it “Either way” (for or against)
- Right now the ISL is generating roughly $250,000 for the WLVA district.
-- Sac district does not have an ISL in place.
- Without the ISL, the budget will be smaller.
4. Enrollment is down roughly 30 kids, but supplementary weighting is up by about 30 kids.
- for financial purposes - regarding the amount of money the school will get from the state, this means that it’s as if enrollment is not down… there are 30 pretend students bringing money into the district.
- Kraft thinks it would be nice to have an ISL to keep money coming in at the current level.
-- If the board de4cides not to do it, they will still be able to build a budget and survive and revisit it in the summer.
5. Superintended clarifies the math, saying plainly that based on the current enrollment, the combined school will be starting $250,000 below the current rate.
6. Kraft outlines a compromise.
- Discuss it and take no action.
-- Have a special meeting in the following week to approve some type of resolution to get the ball rolling.
- Consider putting in a board approved ISL for one single year, (as opposed to letting voters vote on it.) and make it for 5% instead of for 10% in an attempt to try to recover the $250,000.
-- Follow that up at election time with a vote by the people for a more long term tax.
7. Brotherton hates to give up the $250,000.
- He has in the past indicated that he is in favor of raising taxes to support education.
- People get used to tax.
- ESC isn’t going to be a district with too much money.
8. Wilhelm is concerned that Sac people, who have never had the ISL, will wonder why they should have it.
- Sac balances have go up sharply, ($500,00 over two years.)
- The $250,000 could be made up with money from the Sac side.
9. Wilhelm thinks that the school could take a year or two to look at the budgets after the schools combine and not to act out of fear.
- Wants it proven to him that the school needs the money, then he will vote for it, but doesn’t seem to feel that anyone has made a string enough case for a new tax.
- Thinks the school will have enough money no matter what the school does with taxes, and no matter what the state does with taxes this year.
-- Thinks they might even to be able to operate better than this year.
- In favor of merely continuing with $0.01 sales and $0.33 PPEL.
10. Superintendent counters that if the state legislature does any across the board cuts, as they periodically do, and that they are taking a calculated gamble that they will not have to dip into that savings to maintain programs.
11. Brotherton explains to the other board members that he and Wilhelm have discussed this issue in private, and though they both see it differently, Wilhelm has not said “Never” and that he, ( Brotherton,) is not going to insist on it.
12. Kraft and Brotherton addresses Wilhelm’s remarks about the trend discussed in #9 above.
13. “Here we go, we’re just getting reorganized…”
14. The economy is still causing some people to struggle.
15. Public needs to be educated about what these taxes are and what they mean.
- Rodman Wants as much information put out as possible.
16. Superintendent explains the Instructional Support Levy.
- Designed to help pay for items that are normally paid for out of the general fund.
-- Specifically spending related to teaching and learning.
-- When putting a measure before the voters, the school will have to identify what they are going to use it for.
- This tax money was earmarked for technology. class size, etc in previous districts the superintendent has been a member of.
- This cannot take the place of general funds.
-- There is a whole list of things spelled out by law that the Instructional Support Levy cannot be used for.
17. There are two ways of getting this tax in place.
- #1: Board Approved.
-- This method goes around the public and lets the board put the tax in place without giving the voters a chance to vote on it.
-- This allows them to put it into place for a maximum of 5 years.
-- Board still has to hold a public hearing.
#2: Public vote.
- Simple majority approval.
- Length of 10 years
- It would be for up to a maximum of 10% of the general fund.
- Can be funded either through property tax, a combination of property tax and income surtax.
18. WLVA’s ISL expires at the end of the current quarter.
19. The ISL increases both the amount of money the school has, and increases the amount of money the school is allowed to spend. (spending authority)
20. “I’m going to regret asking it this way”
21. Phillips takes the conversation off topic.
22. Superintendent asks the board what information they would like to be provided.
- Rodman asks for specific examples of what the ISL would look like when applied to a real life example, (cost per thousand, income tax, etc.)
23. Kraft wants to start the educational process this next summer.
24. Superintendent suggests a short term board approved ISL to make up for the budget shortfall they are anticipating for the 11-12 year.
25. Board votes to leave PPEL place and that a board imposed ISL not be put into place.
Copyright (c)2007-2010 Curtis Bloes All Rights Reserved
Great job Brent Wilhelm. We do not need more taxes without justification. There are places to cut costs before more taxes are imposed on the people of the district.
ReplyDeleteIf taxed I would rather see a sales tax instead of a property tax.
ReplyDeleteAn ISL levy is either a tax of your property or is a State income tax surcharge or a combination of both. As an example they could vote to have a 10% surtax on your Iowa income. If your Iowa tax liability is $5,000 you would pay an additional $500 which would go to the school district.
ReplyDeleteApproximately 50% of the people do not have a stake in this since they do not pay any income tax nor do they pay property taxes. If this goes to a vote these people will vote YES since it will not cost them anything. Not fair. Should be a sales tax or a user tax if the law allows it.
ReplyDelete