…This week, on Thursday,  Oct 27 there is a Formal Public Hearing on the City Budget.  I’m writing to encourage you to contact members of City Council to encourage them to support a conservative, sustainable budget so Colorado Springs can thrive in the future.  We’ve been briefed by the Mayor, as well as The City Committee, both suggesting a conservative sustainable budget approach to the 2012 Budget.  Three groups, including the city’s staff, the City Committee as well as Biggs-Kofford have looked at future projections for the budget which indicate the City’s expenses will exceed revenues sometime in the next five to eight years (depending upon the analysis).  In these uncertain economic times it seems prudent to not add back services now when they might have to be discontinued in the near future.  Rather than budget one year at a time we need to be looking down the road, building our reserves and begin to understand how to bend the cost curve down to avoid the projected serious financial consequences. We have an opportunity today.    Cities willing to build sustainable budgets now will have a better chance of thriving tomorrow. [Emphasis mine]

This is exactly what Ken, Gordon and I have been saying about the Lewis-Palmer school budget. The current board seem content that they have finally balanced their budget without using reserves, not understanding that rough budgetary waters lie ahead.

They claim 21% reserves, but at the last school board meeting when the reserve was briefed, it turns out that only 9.9% are true “reserves”; the rest are restricted funds. Restricted doesn’t mean a reserve: it means that they are committed (allocated) for a specific purpose. They will be spent. Of the 9.9% uncommitted reserves, 3% are reserves required by TABOR. They’ve managed a very thin margin indeed, but no one on the board seems to understand the difference between restricted funds and reserves.

As I reported last week, they have their eye on a mill levy override for next year.

If you haven’t voted yet, you still have a chance to apply the same conservative budgeting logic to the school system that Becky advocates for the city.

The incumbents have finally dug themselves out of the financial hole they created. The problem is they are now out of ideas. When further cuts in state education funding happen in the next few years, they will fall back on doing what they’ve always done: cut teachers, increase class sizes and ask for mill levy overrides. In fact, Board President John Mann already floated the idea of a mill levy override at the May board meeting and it is on the schedule for the January advisory council. If you re-elect this board, it’s (bad) business as usual.

District 38 does indeed have great students, parents and teachers. What it lacks is strong, visionary leadership. As a teacher, I don’t want the budget balanced on the backs of teachers. As a taxpayer, I am uncomfortable with the high debt level the district is carrying and the number of unused and underused assets they are paying for. I want a reassessment of where we spend our money and to focus our efforts on the classroom, not on administrative salaries and overhead.

To get off the cut-and-restore train, District 38 needs new leadership. If you want to move forward, vote Ken Valdez, Gordon Reichal and me, Al Maurer, for District 38 school board!

The subject was first brought up at the May 19th school board meeting by John Mann. More recently, Ted Baumann–who is supporting the current board–brought it up at the October 11 Kiwanis Club meeting. It is now on the January agenda of the District Advisory Accountability Committee (DAAC).

See the pattern?

Had a majority of the board not been up for re-election, this ballot would likely have included an MLO question. This is preferable to those advocating for tax increases because voter turnout is small in odd-year elections. If this board is re-elected, you will see it placed on the next ballot.

But, as I’ve argued in previous posts and in candidate forums, we have not yet seriously looked at cutting expenses and generating new revenues. Using a comprehensive vision for D-38 moving forward, we can align spending with our educational objectives. I believe we will have enough if we use what we have wisely.

So the choice this October is simple: do you want the tax-and-spend policies of the past or do you want a fresh set of eyes and a willingness to ask questions and make improvements?

I ask for your vote to give Ken, Gordon and I the chance to get Lewis-Palmer off the taxing train and back on the road to educational excellence.

One suggestion I made was to sell unused property. My opponent disagreed, dismissively saying the district would get only “pennies on the dollar” for the sale.

He was wrong on several levels. Here’s why selling unused assets, such as the property on the southeast corner of Hwy 83 & 105 (pictured),  is the right answer:

• First, while property values in the district have declined about 25% from their peak in 2006, the remaining 75% is hardly “pennies on the dollar.” Furthermore, the property was purchased before that peak bubble–chances are a sale could recoup most or all of the original purchase price.
• Second, while the district pays no property taxes on the land, they are paying interest on debt. Maybe the property itself is fully paid for, but the district is carrying a heavy debt load that must be serviced. Sell the property, pay down the debt. (That was my original point.)
• Third, in private hands there would be property taxes being paid. If the property were developed, even greater property taxes would accrue.

Apparently the current board is unaware of these financial calculations. One board member even said that it was important to retain that property so they could use it to advertise the district. Seriously?

Time to elect a board with better financial knowledge.