ISD 2142

With the Nov. 3 general election now just two months away, voters in the St. Louis County School District , or ISD 2142, need to understand the implications of their vote on the district’s proposed $5.85 million operating levy and $1.5 million capital levy.
We recognize that many voters may feel the district doesn’t deserve the funding increase. There is still lingering resentment over the restructuring the district implemented over 15 years ago, which closed schools and disrupted communities in the north half of the district. Voters were told those changes were necessary to prevent exactly the kind of financial crisis the district is facing today.
We share that frustration with a district that has not always made good choices or been up-front with residents. We, nonetheless, urge voters to put those resentments and frustrations aside.
First, the district is facing an unprecedented financial crisis, and it is unclear how it can extricate itself from its current predicament without additional funding, or cuts so deep that it would devastate educational quality for students in the district. We’ve already seen how teacher cuts last year prompted considerable anger among parents. Those cuts would pale in comparison to what the district faces without passage of its two ballot measures later this year.
In an era of open enrollment, school districts are under constant pressure to maintain educational opportunities for students. That’s one benefit of open enrollment, but the flip side is the pressure educational choice can place on districts that are struggling financially. Cut too much and it can create a kind of doom loop that accelerates the departure of the district’s student body, wiping away any gains from budget cutting as revenue collapses from declining enrollment.
That is the situation that the St. Louis County School District faces without passage of its ballot measures this November. Such an outcome would be devastating for the communities served by the district.
Second, a change in state law engineered by state Sen. Grant Hauschild during this year’s legislative session, ensures that seasonal recreational properties— which had been exempted from school excess operating levies since 2001— now contribute to the overall tax burden of paying for the levy. With seasonal recreational properties comprising more than a third of the total property value in the St. Louis County School District, their exclusion had made it virtually impossible in recent years to pass an operating levy in many rural districts, including ISD 2142, because the tax burden on most property owners was more than most voters could tolerate.
Thanks to Sen. Hauschild’s efforts, tax revenues generated by seasonal recreational properties in the district will be included in the mix should voters approve the ballot measures in November. And that means that the tax implications for other property owners in the district will be substantially reduced. Indeed, out of the $5.85 million proposed operating levy, state funds generated by seasonal recreational property owners would pay about $2.65 million, or roughly 45 percent.
What’s more, those voters in the district who own their own seasonal recreational property won’t see an increase in taxes on their cabins or hunting land — at least not from the operating levy— if the measure is approved by voters. Cabin owners in the district will continue to pay the statewide general tax at the same rate, just as they have for the past 25 years. The change engineered by Hauschild redirects money generated by the statewide tax to replace what the seasonal recreational properties would have otherwise paid toward the operating levy. It was smart legislation that addressed the concerns of many rural Minnesota school districts, like ISD 2142, about their inability to pass excess operating levies, while protecting non-resident seasonal recreational property owners from tax increases from school operating levies on which they can’t vote.
At the same time, the district is opting to discontinue its Local Option Revenue levy, which was paid entirely by local taxpayers. These changes will have the effect of generating sufficient revenue to close the district’s yawning funding gap at a surprisingly affordable cost to taxpayers. Before these changes, the district’s proposed operating levy would have increased property taxes by more than $350 a year on a typical $200,000 home. With the changes, that same owner of a $200,000 home, for example. would see a net tax increase of $146 a year. The separate capital levy would add about $46 a year on that same home. Combined, that’s about $16 a month.
Voters should take advantage of this opportunity to bring millions in state funds to their desperately strapped school district. A no vote would leave the district facing cuts on a scale that no one concerned for the future of our communities should find acceptable. A yes vote is the sensible choice for voters on Nov. 3.