I was fortunate enough to get to attend the State School Board’s Conference a couple of weeks ago with some of our district’s members of the Board of Education. I also was able to hear Bob Porter from the finance department at the Minnesota Department of Education speak a week later. The overarching theme of these presentations and most of the news coming out of St. Paul recently goes along the same lines. School funding and finance is in for a rough few years, and according to Bob Meeks, director of the Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA), maybe for as many as the next seven or eight years with funding either flat or diminished.

The reliance of districts on the local taxpayers to make up the differences in shortfalls for educational services has been well documented over the past number of years through the operating referenda that have been passed. For the upcoming 2010-2011 school year, 90% of the districts statewide will have an operating referendum in place in order to fund basic school operations. The average per pupil unit amount of these referenda will grow to $847 per pupil in that same year. What this means is the local taxpayers are being asked to kick in an additional 14% in order to fund basic educational services in districts statewide. We are no exception having our own referendum in place at $500 per pupil unit, or 59% of what the average statewide requests are. We are fortunate to have a supportive public insofar as trusting us to do the right things for our students.

One item making news for schools dealing with these issues very recently is Minnesota Statute 127A.46. In this statute there is a requirement that in the event that the state has cash flow shortfalls, aid payments to school districts will be delayed so that the state can pay their bills. Ok, so what does that mean for a small district like Central Public Schools? Basically this: delay of three payments in March and April in the estimated amount of $920,000 all of which will be repaid at a later date. This could also lead to some short term borrowing by school districts, thus harming our financial situation in two ways, loss of interest earned and also interest paid on the short term borrowing. I can understand being a team player and helping out when the state is in financial difficulties. I have a hard time understanding how they can use our fund balances as a loan when most districts have some small amount of reserves because the taxpayers in the district support their efforts. Is it just me, or is there something wrong with this concept?
Brian Corlett