Taxpayer rejection of the 2015 school levy was likely the result of ISD 166 over-reaching for funds… apparently a lesson not learned by the school board. Rather than seeking less on this November’s ballot, ISD 166 will be asking even more from property taxpayers and business owners.
Yes…the previous $1,271 per student 2015 levy request has been reduced to a 2016 proposed levy of $800 per student, in an attempt as their financial consultant stated, to make the amount seem “more palatable” to voters. Much of the reduction is being sought in a separate $6.5 million 20-year general obligation bond. Unlike a levy, which could be considered “pay as you go” spending, bonding equates to borrowing and like our Cook County 1 percent sales tax bonding the funds will be spent long before the principal and accrued interest are paid off. The several million dollars of interest paid will do nothing to enhance educational opportunities or fund facility maintenance and improvements.
Bond debt reported by ISD 166 on Jan. 1 of 2015 was $5,680,000. As $795,000 of the school’s budget was paid against debt principal and interest last year, an additional $2,946,000 of bond debt was incurred during 2015. On December 31 of 2015, public records showed that ISD 166 was carrying a total of $7,831,000 in general obligation bond debt.
A new five-year Board Approved Levy of $300 per student was passed by the school board in July of 2015. An additional Local Optional Revenue Levy of $424 per student is also being assessed, for a total of $724 per student currently levied on county property tax statements. Along with the nearly $8 million in bond obligations already on the books, an additional $6.5 million in bonding will substantially add to ISD 166 financial anguish and will remain a line item on property tax statements for the next 20 years.
While ISD 166 is attempting to “insure excellence” for students, are they also mortgaging the future for those same graduates as they become taxpayers? The proposed general obligation bond is certainly not a productive use of public tax dollars and is likely a detriment to ISD 166 students in both the short and long term.
As repayment of debt becomes an ever increasing portion of the annual cost to support ISD 166, how much more burden will be placed on taxpayers to fund actual academics?
Bob LaMettry
Grand Marais
Leave a Reply