Understanding the coming referendum

But Superintendent Don Langan says the ballot needs more clarification — in part because of the language required by legal statute, but also because of the context which compelled school administration to call for the referendum at this time.

Confusion as well as misinterpretation could be easily caused by the terminology of ballot Question No. 1, according to Langan, noting that clarity in referendum language has been an ongoing struggle for school districts.

The ballot reads that the district is proposing to revoke the existing referendum revenue of $567.49 per pupil, and then replace the authorization with the same exact amount.

“What are we doing there?” Langan reports that people are asking. Required words such as “revoking and replacing” as well as the statement that voting “yes” means a property tax increase, is bound to raise some suspicion and mislead voters, Langan added.

The fact is that voting yes to Question No. 1 will not increase current taxes. It will, however, continue the existing (2001) levy for another 10 years. Had that levy run its course, voters would have seen a respective decrease in school taxes after 2010.

“What we are doing is extending the referendum for eight years beyond then (2010),” Langan said.

Why not wait until the current referendum expires? Langan explained that “to maintain fiscal stability as a district here, it’s a better move to add eight years now. Then it’s done. The voters have agreed to renew.” Deciding now puts the district in a better position to anticipate the consequences of success or failure, he said. “If we don’t do this now, we wait until 2010. If it fails then, we only have 10 months to prepare for a $900,000 loss in revenue — an outcome he admits would be so grim that he finds it hard to think about.

“Some districts have taken it right to the deadline,” Langan continued. “But that puts unnecessary pressure on (the district), even though the system is to do that.”

Langan used planning for a personal mortgage balloon payment as an example. “Say that payment is due two years from now. We’ll wait and then we’ll figure it out? No, if we know it’s coming, we want to get it taken care of.”

It “would be a different kettle of fish” if the district was seeking to increase revenues while at the same time expedite the operational referendum, Langan quipped.

“But that’s not what we’re doing,” he said. He added that if voters don’t approve the coming referendum, revenues would revert back to the 2001 figures — creating a climate that would set the district back in time, both operationally and educationally.

Langan noted that even if the “replace” figure on the ballot question was lower than the “revoke” figure, the required ballot language would nevertheless imply an increase in taxes because the amounts would still be higher than they were on the preexisting 2001 referendum.

A campaign to support the Nov. 3 referendum is underway and going well, Langan reports. Gail Rasmussen is the acting chairwoman for a group which has already raised funding for radio and newspaper advertising, for which the district cannot use public funds. “She’s doing a great job,” Langan said.

Question No. 2

A “yes” vote to Question No. 2 on the referendum ballot would authorize the district, by levy, to increase its general education revenue by $70 per pupil and would be applicable for 10 years. The passing of this portion would bring increases in taxes for the voters.

This increased revenue is intended for youth activities, Langan said. The school board heard recently that recreational fees have become increasingly prohibitive for many families. While there is no legal requirement for the revenue to be used as intended, Langan said it would create a serious credibility problem for the district to use it in any other way.

Question No. 1 must pass in order for this authorization to be implemented. However, Question No. 1 may be passed even if No. 2 is rejected.

Based on market values, the taxable properties involved include residential, industrial and commercial properties. Excluded are seasonal recreation (cabins, shacks) and vacation properties, in accordance with the “Doug Johnson Cabin Bill,” Langan said.

Examples of the annual tax increase that would come with approval of Question No. 2 are as follows: $7 on a $50,000 property; $15 on a $100,000 property; $37 on a $250,000 property.

Most referendums are scheduled for a 10-year period, according to Langan. He said that it’s also important for voters to know, regarding both questions on the ballot, that there are state aid contributions (about 30 cents per dollar) inside the proposed total amounts to be generated per pupil. This was also true for the 2001 levy.

Langan offered that “when the community came through in 2001,” that approval was the critical factor in enabling the district’s cutting-edge technology.

“In 2001, for all intents and purposes, we did not have a technology program,” he said. Langan explained that the schools were using refurbished computers from Stillwater prison. The approved levy has allowed the district to maintain a very comprehensive technical system, and to update computers in laptop carts, classrooms and labs, he said.

“There’s not a district around that I would trade this equipment with,” Langan continued, reiterating what technology director Dave Skwarok recently told the school board: With fiber bands now available, the district is one of the few which is positioned to implement Internet 2, with direct connections to the University of Minnesota. That kind of access would allow students to actually operate an electron microscope at the U of M, and other technical interaction.

“Systems are constantly being upgraded, and we will be able to handle that upgrade (with a passed referendum),” said Langan. “Otherwise, we’re right back where we were in 2001.”

Langan’s computer system clarification is pertinent because a failed referendum would reverse the direction of the district’s technology program which would inevitably lower educational progress, and potentially continue to decrease MCA II test scoring.

But it also poses the assumption that the district will again be in this predicament at the conclusion of a levy which may be approved for another 10 years.

The district’s inadequate test results

While the district has a high-performance computer system, it has failed for the second consecutive year to achieve acceptable scores in the Minnesota Comprehensive Achievement II testing. Langan offered some explanation on that also.

“Some students are measuring out extremely well,” he said. “The percent of successful students is just excellent — but we also have youngsters that are struggling. And we’re refocusing on that issue. Our mission is to do better.”

Langan said the important point is that schools are now more skilled at identifying students with special needs. Where in the past, special-needs students were not included in mainstream testing, there is no longer the option to deny their inclusion. The district recently approved a Response to Intervention program, and the hiring of an RTI coordinator, to closely monitor and respond to specific learning needs in three tiers of elementary students.

Langan said he is very sensitive to the special needs of struggling students, but also pointed out that their data does “drive the scores down,” lowering the district’s average in the MCA public report.

“We are seeing an increase proportionally of students with special needs and it’s across the board. High-performance districts are dealing with the same things.” Langan said. He noted a combination of reasons for the increase, including economics and family dynamics.

Langan’s clarification doesn’t explain why some Minnesota districts, which also have special-needs students, were able to achieve satisfactory MCA results.

The Backus Community Center is the combined polling place for this Nov. 3 special election. All eligible voters residing in the district may vote from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. at Backus

Question No. 1

A “yes” vote to Ballot Question No. 1 will not raise current taxes, (see story) but would extend the approved 2001 referendum for 10 years. Its failure to pass would reduce annual operational revenues of ISD 361 by $900,000. This question is separate from Question No. 2 and may be approved on its own.

Question No. 2

A “yes” vote to Ballot Question No. 2 would raise current taxes (see story) and is contingent upon the passing of Question No. 1. The designation of this revenue is youth activities in the district.

A Brown Bag Luncheon at noon on Thursday at the Holiday Inn will also address the school referendum of the Nov. 3 special election. The public is welcome to attend. RSVP at 283-9400.