The Sporting Life: School district taking right approach to levy hike

Brent Lawrence, who made the most of his sixth-grade education, is a columnist for Springfield Business Journal.

I've got to credit Springfield R-XII School District for flawless timing.

The district has been trying to get a tax levy increase passed for what seems like on eternity. Each time, the district has been rebuffed by voters.

The school board is putting a 25-cent operating tax levy increase, which would be phased in over two years, on the June 8 ballot. The increase would raise an additional $6.25 million annually to fund operating costs. It would cost a homeowner with a $100,000 house about $48 per year.

Now the school board and everybody associated with the schools should march to Mountain Grove and say, "Thank you."

Mountain Grove voters overwhelmingly defeated a 75-cent tax levy increase in February, and the school board followed through with a promise, cutting athletics and other programs from the 2004-2005 budget. The school board had promised the cuts, but few took it seriously.

Regional businessman Jim Wehr and other townspeople ponied up the $100,000 necessary to keep the sports programs for 2004-2005. Unfortunately, they haven't made a dent in the $400,000 to keep other programs running. (Priorities, eh?)

By waiting until June to ask for an increase, the Springfield School District let Mountain Grove become its public relations machine. Mountain Grove's decision to drop funding for athletics has Springfield's attention.

Now the school board has the opportunity to educate the public on what will happen if the 25-cent levy increase does not pass.

"It's not a bluff ," said School Board President Jerry Harmison. "Almost any school district you can think of has no choice but to propose a levy to its tax payers. The voters in Springfield, who are somewhat conservative, will see that, Hey, our local board and administration are not making this up. This is real.'

"There's no mismanagement going on. People don't always like our decisions if we choose to close a school or move a bus line or other things, but there's no one skimming the pot."

I believe the school board should let the public vote on a budget, not a tax increase. The school board should put out two budgets: One with the increase and one without the increase. It should be plainly noted what services will be reduced or eliminated if the tax levy fails. The district needs to put its cards on the table right now and let the voting public make an informed decision on whether the programs in peril are worth $48 a year.

And the scary part about all of this is that school officials and I are thinking alike.

Harmison said he and another board member met with Superintendent Jack Ernst and other officials Feb. 26 to "to start refining that analysis so that at least the voters will have approximately a two-month lead time in knowing Budget A and Budget B. So they can line them up side-by-side and see what their votes mean."

After the last levy increase failed, the district promptly cut back bus service. This smacked of a vindictive act designed to show how bad it was. Harmison said it won't happen this time.

"Some people perceived it that way because we weren't as explicit, I guess," Harmison said. "The last levy proposal, one-third of the money was to go to help maintain and enhance transportation. People didn't connect the dots and say, If I don't give them this, the status quo won't continue.' I can see that. When people aren't dealing with it once a week or day-to-day, they don't always connect the dots."

Harmison said that prior to the meeting he didn't know what would be on the chopping block, but that other school districts had cut such things as athletics, additional teacher positions, school nurses, transportation and the Parents as Teachers program.

"For us to move forward from one year to the next without increasing any staff or adding any program, the cost to us is $6 million," said Harmison, citing inflation, natural gas and utilities price increases, and cost-of-living adjustments for teachers. "If this passes, all we are able to do is maintain status quo. We do not bring back the cuts to transportation or cuts to 70 teacher positions. People think a district our size you can blend (reducing 70 teaching positions) in. That's the equivalent of shutting down Kickapoo High School."

Harmison, an attorney in his day job, said that many people get confused between bond issues and levies.

"The community is responsible for the Three Ps with regard to our educational system our properties, our people and our programs. Bonds pay for property issues buildings, boilers, buying busses. Things you can see and get your arms around. Bonds are one-time purchases it's a one-time expense.

"Our people and our properties are paid for from levies. Levies are a property tax increase, hopefully to a minor degree, and it's an annual thing because those expenses are annual teacher salaries, teacher benefits, the classroom programs, extracurricular programs."

While I'm very conservative when it comes to taxes and the government's spending of my money, I believe it's time to give the school district what it's asking for. We should still hold their feet to the fire and make then spend responsibly, but we've got to keep the people and programs we need.