SPRING VALLEY — The Spring Valley School Board approved the district’s annual budget and levy at the Oct. 28 board meeting. The district will levy $4,500,015 with a $7.15 mill rate. That number …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
SPRING VALLEY — The Spring Valley School Board approved the district’s annual budget and levy at the Oct. 28 board meeting. The district will levy $4,500,015 with a $7.15 mill rate. That number is up from about $4.2 million a year ago, a 7.13% increase. The mill rate number would be a decrease from a year ago. Breaking down the levy, about $2 million goes toward the general fund value not covered by the state, with the biggest chunk of the remaining money going to community approved referendum debt payments. That repayment is $2.24 million this year and is mandatory because of the community vote. The community education levy is $250,000.
“In the State of Wisconsin, we’re seeing about a 2.89% drop in overall public enrollment,” District Administrator John Groh said. “I think we’re at 2.68% declining enrollment. We’re slightly under the state average, but 2.68%, that’s two or three kids for every 100 kids we have. That adds up.”
The State helped fill the gap with $143,700 in declining enrollment aid, but the blow is only softened for a year.
“They take how many kids did you drop or lose, and they give you that $11,975 per pupil. That’s fine this year, but next year those kids don’t exist. We don’t get that aid again,” Groh said.
Property value in the district has increased $60-70 million. Spring Valley’s per pupil aid is increasing $325 annually, but under the current system, in order to receive that amount, the district has to levy it from the taxpayers.
The district is anticipating deficit spending next year, but changes at the state level could decrease that gap.
Daycare update
An update was provided about the childcare survey that was put out to the community. Of 68 responses, 37 replied that they were very likely or somewhat likely interested in district childcare. The No. 1 challenge listed with finding childcare was cost, receiving 42 responses.
The proposed model was for 3-year-olds, with five days a week at a rate of $200, and $50 a day for Monday, Wednesday and Friday or Tuesday and Thursday plans. The cap would be 10 children due to space and staff regulations. If the district had success with the program, they could seek to expand further.
The program would require some district subsidy in order to operate.
“It would be running at a deficit,” Groh said. “That is never a good feeling, you don’t want that in the long-term. So, if that seems appropriate to you to make that investment knowing the community thinks it’s something valuable, we can use community ed funds.”
Board Vice President Jennelle Wolf was in favor of the proposal, wanting to look into whether the daycare will bring in students that the district would have otherwise lost.
“I still think we move forward in my opinion, but I am interested in just studying that and knowing are these families that would have come anyway,” Wolf said. “It’s also not our responsibility to fix the daycare crisis. My whole goal of pushing this was making sure we’re not losing kids on the front end that never step foot in our building.”
No action was taken on the item. The team behind the proposal plans on continuing to work out the finer details of the day-to-day operation before any potential approval is made.