[Vision2020] School Board gives nod to March levy; Voters will determine fate of proposed $1.97 million increase

[heirdoug at netscape.net]

Here's a topic that effects all of those who own property in Moscow.


--------
School Board gives nod to March levy; Voters will determine fate of 
proposed $1.97 million increase
By Kate Baldwin, Daily News staff writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - Page Updated at 12:03:10 PM

The Moscow School Board voted Tuesday to hold a March election to 
increase the Moscow School District’s supplemental levy by $1.97 
million.
Superintendent Candis Donicht said the levy would enable the district 
to return its fund balance to the recommended level of $1.6 million 
while maintaining the current level of academic and extracurricular 
programming.
“It will enable us to hold onto our reputation of excellence,” she said.
The indefinite supplemental levy brings $5.6 million to the district 
annually. The levy allows the district to maintain a number of features 
that otherwise would be beyond the district’s allotted state budget of 
$13.3 million. These features include small class sizes, more electives 
for students and additional certified specialists in areas ranging from 
music to counseling.
If voters reject the levy, Donicht said the district will need to make 
at least $400,000 worth of reductions per year.
Board member Julia McIlroy said the district needs to let voters know 
how imminent these cuts will be.
Donicht said the election is scheduled for March 27 because the 
district needs time to make its cuts for the fall if the levy doesn’t 
pass. The district’s contracts and hirings will be affected in the 
2007-2008 school year, she said.
The district’s fund balance is a prescribed amount of money that needs 
to be kept available to cover the district’s expenditures, such as 
salaries and operational costs, in the event of emergencies or other 
unforeseen drops in revenues. The district’s auditors recommend that 
the fund balance be kept at $1.6 million, but drops in revenue since 
2005 are estimated to reduce that amount to $800,000 at the end of June 
2007.
Donicht said the $1.97 million increase ideally would support the 
district for at least five years, but there is no “magic formula” to 
guarantee that inflation and other changes in revenues will not affect 
that time table. She said the request is based on the best projections 
of the district and its auditors.
The district typically has needed increases to its levy every four to 
seven years. The need for an increase comes from greater operating 
costs due to inflation. The last increase came in April 2002, with an 
increase of $1.1 million.
Board member Dawn Fazio said it’s like “having a fixed salary.”
Moscow voters approved the permanent and indefinite status of the levy 
in 1992. The permanent status — which is also known as an 
indefinite-term levy — means the district does not have to get annual 
approval of the levy. However, if the district wants to increase the 
amount of the levy, then a majority of voters must approve the 
increase.
Business manager Sue Driskill called it “the nature of an indefinite 
levy.”
The district does not go to voters with a new levy request every year, 
so when it does, the requested amount seems higher than the seemingly 
smaller increases that are seen annually in other districts.
In closing the meeting, Fazio said “We have our work cut out for us.”
Board member Margaret Dibble agreed.
“Yes, we do,” she said.

______________________________

The MSD Spending Bloat
All those stories you hear about financial mismanagement at MSD are 
true. MSD might make Enron look like a svelte, honest outfit.
According to the Idaho Office of Performance Evaluations, Overview of 
School District Revenues and Expenditures, April 2003 
(http://www2.state.id.us/ope/Reports/Rept0302.htm), the Moscow School 
District is the most inefficient and spending-bloated school district 
among its peers.
As detailed in the OPE Study, MSD has the highest Administrative 
Spending, the highest Education Support Spending, and the highest 
Non-Instructional Spending (all per pupil). It also has the highest 
Transportation Spending per mile.
If it weren't for the gold-plated Blaine County School District, which 
has a huge property tax base and the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, 
John Kerry, and Teresa Heinz contributing huge property taxes, MSD 
would also have the highest instructional spending and the highest 
current total spending (per pupil).
It is worth noting that MSD ranks below the very top only in Operations 
and Maintenance Spending per pupil. These include Building Care and 
Building and Equipment Maintenance. Having skimped on this spending, 
MSD now, surprise!, finds itself in need of new and upgraded 
facilities, and wants to raise our taxes to make up for its past 
mismanagement. Such irony.
All this is detailed in the table posted here:
http://moscowlevy.com/files/Spending_Bloat.htm

The bottom line is that MSD's spending-bloat is everywhere. It is no 
surprise that MSD's school taxes are the highest among its peers, and 
second and forth among Idaho's schools districts? Here are the tax 
facts:
http://www.moscowlevy.com/files/Tax_Analysis_02-03.htm

SHOULDN'T MSD CUT OUT THE WASTE BEFORE ASKING FOR MORE?
Visit our website for this and other information-- www.MoscowLevy.com. 
And don't forget to forward this e-mail to your friends, 'cause they 
won't read it in the Daily News.
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.