Letter to the editor: Asking too much with school levy

Brien G.
Two Harbors, MN     03/08/2010 11:10 AM

How about a two year salary freeze for all district employees? How about many of the previous years with small or no increase in wages? How about the programs and staff that have already been cut or scaled back? How about the increased costs of fuel and energy? You also have to account - somewhat - for a decline in enrollment. I think the employees of the district have been doing their fair share. You write as if the district has done nothing to address these issues. This is not a new problem here. The district has been struggling with these issues for years. I understand you have honorable business experience, but I believe that the education of our kids can't be run on a business model. Much of what a district spends is mandated by state and federal government. What are your suggestions? Specifically? What would you cut, exactly? Where are you willing to draw the line on what a competitive education should look like? I believe that a good education is an investment in both the lives of our children and my future quality of life. We owe our kids at least as much as the previous generations have provided for us. We certainly didn't get where we are on our own.

Report a Violation

Mark B.
Two Harbors, MN     03/08/2010 1:31 AM

Brien...I am a reasonable man. If you can explain to me with facts and figures why the school district cannot possibly make do with the funding it already has, I'll be the first to change my mind. And if you can explain to me, if cuts and work week changes must be made, why the "pain" cannot be equally shared by all the employees of the district, I'll be more than happy to try and understand that stance also. This isn't about any ideological position, its about common sense, honest financial accountability and good business judgment. My father used to tell me to be particularly aware when requests for money are phrased in terms of "small" amounts will never hurt anyone. Usually, that meant the "real" price was particularly high...and in this referendum it could be as much as $11 million. He frequently reminded me of the old Chinese proverb which says "Respect the limits to which you push your fellow men. When besieged by a storm even the largest bucket will fail, submitting to the last tiny drop of rain beyond its capacity." Please, give me something factual to support a change of my mind. I am weary of the same old political "sound-bites" and evasive answers to my questions.

Report a Violation

Brien G.
Two Harbors, MN     03/07/2010 9:28 PM

Mark, It seems that this is more of an ideological issue with you. With all due respect, I'm gonna support a reasonable solution to the realities our district faces.

Report a Violation

Mark B.
Two Harbors, MN     03/07/2010 8:07 PM

Brien G...There are three levy questions being proposed. Based upon Jim Heath's estimates, his property value must be around $150,000. That imeans he is about average in the taxing district, consistent with the FY2009 school district report to the state which places the average home value at $154,253. However, if the third proposal is passed, his property taxes will go up around $137 per year over the 25% school based increase from last year. Social Security was frozen, the county held its levy the same as last year, and most folks actually lost ground with their personal finances...so why shouldn't the school district live within its last year income levels? I have no argument with the basics of your statement "Good schools=strong communities=desirable places to live=consistent tax-base=strong property values". However, in this case our school district is being funded (without any referendums) as well as the best in the state, and the standardized test scores are just making state averages. There is much more information out there that says "good educations don't need to be expensive", and the sound bite you refer to just doesn't hold ground under real scrutiny. Its a good political slogan, however, and used a lot to pass referendums. I've regularly raised money for one of the biggest and best districts in the state, and was a founding contributor and board member of the Hopkins Education Foundation, so I understand the education system very well. My daughter is a teacher. I'm also a successful businessperson who hires all these kids, and I guarantee you I don't hire them based upon how much they paid for their education or the credentials hung after their names. I am a strong proponent of good education, but it means nothing without discipline, ethics, commitment, teamwork and a realistic outlook on building a work environment and society everyone can share and benefit from. The district has more than enough money to accomplish those goals right now, if everyone fairly shares the burden of our current economic realities, as near as I can tell. I might end up being wrong, but I've seen nothing in the numbers to convince me of that, yet. In the meantime, my heart goes out to those for whom $150/year is a lot of money. But, sadly, there are a lot of those folks out there right now, and our county seems to have more than its fair share.

Report a Violation

Brien G.
Two Harbors, MN     03/07/2010 3:02 PM

Mark B - It is that simple. If the levy passes, the gentleman will pay an additional 8.75 a month. Providing our kids with a good education is not cheap, but it isn't busting anyone's budget either. Good schools=strong communities=desirable places to live=consistent tax-base=strong property values. Everyone benefits, it's all connected.

Report a Violation

Mark B.
Two Harbors, MN     03/07/2010 2:08 PM

Brien G....Its a little more than $8.75/month when you take the whole levy situation apart. Folks on the lakes could easily pay more than $100/month in increased school taxes. In 2009 and for 2010, the school district also levied for more than a $1.5 million portion in underfunded monies for which $8 million in bonds were issued in late 2008. This $8 million taxpayer payback now includes interest on monies which should have been paid in earlier years. These portions of the payback raised the 2010 school levy by more than 25% from 2009. You have to look at the three proposals in terms of their total cost to those district RESIDENTS who will pay them (seasonal, cabin and certain other property owners are not required to pay for local operating referendums). The three proposed options in total are actually around $6 million, $8.5 million and $11 million. Plus, for anyone living on social security or other fixed retirement incomes, these dollars are crucial when it comes to their personal budgets. The total school district budget expenditures for 2010 are projected to be around $22.4 million, or about $2,038/resident and about $5,195/household (4700 estimated households). If you throw in the roughly 250 businesses with the household count, you could round to 5,000 households and businesses, for an average of about $4,883 each. That is about $17,241 per each of the little more than 1,400 students in the district population for 2009. There clearly is a much bigger perspective here to consider than just "...$8.75 per month"!

Report a Violation

Brien G.
Two Harbors, MN     03/07/2010 10:03 AM

All this bluster for $8.75 a month?

Report a Violation

Rueben H.
03/06/2010 5:02 PM

Jim, based upon the latest information, I think you mean vote "NO" to all THREE of the latest levy proposals. From what I understand, a voter must vote "NO" on EACH of the three proposals on the ballot, if you want to be sure none of them passes.

Report a Violation