Nippersink District 2 referendum unlikely

According to Superintendent Dr. George Zimkmer of Nippersink School Distrcit 2, a referendum will probably not be on the ballot in November of 2004. “There is no formal statement about the referendum at this time,” said Zimmer. “But it looks like a referendum will not happen. We were going to look at this closely in the spring but that didn’t happen.”

In March 2004 District 2 sought a 60 cent increase in the education fund tax rate. After considerable public debate and acrimony between the opposing sides, the voters denied the referendum when an unusually large 79 per cent opposed it.

In August an independent group of citizens formed the Nippersink Expense Task Force. Members of this group include John Donnellan, Mark Eisenberg, Angelo Franchi, Nancy Koenig, Bob Krysiak, Sue Maurer, Rich Tobiasz and Tammy Valentine-Garza. According to Maurer who headed up the group all members have a strong financial background. The task force produced a detailed study on the district’s spending habits. They found that expenditures needed scrutiny and possible reductions by the school board.                                                                                                                                                           

The study was limited to overall revenue funds and the education fund of the District. According to the report issued by the task force the Education Fund comprises the majority of its education costs and is the fund that can most be controlled by the Board and Administration.

The task force compared financial data to five other school districts in the area: Diamond Lake, McHenry Elementary, Prairie Grove, Marengo-Union and Antioch.

The report found that “the Board and Administration have maximized property tax revenue to the full extent of the law. We noted under the state funding formula that, for every $1 million of additional equalized assessed value in the District, the education fund receives about $21,000 in local property taxes, but loses about $20,000 in state aid. Consequently, as the local tax revenue that is generated from new construction and assessment increases a proportionate amount of state aid decreases.”

The report targeted Special Education as an area that needs immediate attention. The report states, “State and Federal Special Education reimbursements are substantially less for Nippersink School District than for the other target group districts. Our budget suggests that we recapture only 20% of Special Education costs. The lowest target group district to us recaptures 82% of the cost.”

The consolidation of the schools did not help. “ Special education increased from $251,000 pre-combination to $837,000 (233%) A complete review of the program must be completed in order to determine why these increases occurred.”

Regarding support costs the report states, “school and business administration were 24% of the pre-combination education budget and are now 29%. Conversely, instruction expenditures decreased from 71% pre-combination to 62%. Support costs per pupil have increased from $908 to $1,719. Money has been shifted from instruction to administration

Regarding teachers’ compensation the report states, “Short of a change in state funding, we do not believe that the District’s next labor contract can come anywhere near the salary and benefit increases included in the current contract, and in fact, may require some reductions.”

Another way to improve revenue is to apply for more grants. According to the report, “Of the target group, Nippersink District was the second lowest in securing other grants on a cost per student basis. Nippersink District obtained $76.60 per student and the highest district obtained $241.48 per student (Diamond Lake).”

The report makes 11 recommendations:

1.   Review all financial data to assure that we are maximizing non-real estate tax revenue while keeping expenditures within the limits of income.

2.     We recommend that the Board conduct an immediate assessment of the special education program as it relates to the reimbursement rate.

3.     Conduct a programmatic review of all special education services and programs to ensure that student needs are being met within the scope of a reasonable financial framework. This investigation should review all in-district and out-of-district (SEDOM) programs and related services.

4.     Reduce administrative costs particularly as they relate to salary and benefits. Establish a competitive base for a combined CEO/CFO superintendent’s position with reduced expenditure for the individual when utilizing the separate position model.

5.     Review all aspects of the teacher’s contract prior to the next negotiation period with special attention paid to salary and benefits.

6.     Review the nursing function regarding the need for a certified RN at each school versus use of other trained staff.

7.    Change district lines so as to equalize class size and reduce busing costs.

8.    Review support staff regarding the need for the amount of staff currently being utilized by NSD2.

9.     Review supply purchase procedures.

10. Develop a comprehensive Communications Plan for the district. Consult with other school districts that have developed and nurtured significant mechanisms for publicizing school district information.

11. Strengthen the existing finance committee by utilizing community members outside the Board, who have a strong background in finance to advise the Board.

Zimmer said, “We are doing an extensive check on the special education fund at this time. It looks like the details were not researched sufficiently. We must make sure we do the right analysis and look at the way the information is reported from each school district. We are working hard to examine the full report.”

Maurer said, “This is about budgeting not necessarily about actual expenditures in the future. We need to use the report as a ongoing tool for guidance.”