Whitefish schools prepare for budget crunch

There’s no question the Whitefish School District’s budget will be grim next year. How grim depends on the state Legislature and on voters.

The district’s shortfall could be as high as $883,219. If voters in May approve levies in the elementary and high school districts, the deficit could be reduced to $457,223.

Those numbers are based on current state funding levels, not the proposed governor’s budget or legislative action, and could change, depending on how the Legislature decides to fund education, district clerk Danelle Reisch said.

She acknowledged that her numbers are a worst-case scenario. Reisch said she used to make budget projections based on the governor’s budget or proposals from the Legislature, but doing so is a waste of time when those numbers change so often.

“I could spend three hours a day for the next three months recalculating,” she said.

The budget woes have several causes, according to a PowerPoint presentation that Reisch and Superintendent Jerry House put together.

THE DEFICIT IS due in part to a decrease in state funding over the last two decades. As state coffers have contributed a smaller percentage of school budgets, local taxpayers have picked up the balance.

The district also cites decisions to use money that had been earmarked for schools for the state’s general fund budget.

A federal jobs bill that promised $30.7 million to Montana schools last fall was used instead to supplant state dollars already allocated to education. The federal money was intended to save or create education jobs.

But state law requires Montana to use nongeneral fund money “whenever possible before using general fund appropriations,” so the federal money replaced state general fund dollars and saved few, if any, jobs, Reisch said.

The state used the same law to backfill education funding with federal dollars in the last biennium. The Legislature had promised 3 percent increases to school budgets in 2009-10 and again in 2010-11; 2 percent of the increase last year came from one-time-only federal stimulus money.

Other stimulus money went directly to schools for their Title I and special education programs. While Whitefish “tried really hard not to” use those dollars to fund staff, knowing the money would go away after two years, some stimulus money did go toward salaries, Reisch said.

“We did use it to bail out our special education program a little bit,” she said. “We really didn’t have a choice.”

Part of the district’s anticipated deficit comes from trying to retain positions and absorb that cost, she added.

THE DISTRICT hasn’t yet made any decisions about where the inevitable cuts will come. They almost certainly will affect staff; 88 percent of Whitefish’s general fund budget is used for salaries and benefits.

“It’s going to be bodies,” Reisch said. “There’s just no way around that.”

There likely will be a few retirements; Whitefish won’t be able to replace those staff members, she said.

But the district also wants to meet accreditation standards, she said, particularly at the high school level.

“We want to keep our high school accredited because if affects students’ college applications: They have to graduate from an accredited high school,” she said. “But you can be accredited without offering a lot of elective choices, which is probably where we’re going to have to go.”

That decision could backfire when enrollment drives so much of the budget, she said.

“We’ve been hammered by having kids go to Glacier because we’re not offering [as many courses] anyway,” she said.

As of October, 47 students who live in the Whitefish district were attending school in the Kalispell district. Total enrollment at Whitefish High School was down 19 students from fall 2009. Student numbers have dropped by 25 percent over the last decade.

AS ENROLLMENT and budgets have declined, the district has quietly made cuts over the last several years, Reisch said.

“I think we’ve been guilty of doing a really good job of absorbing budget cuts and not making them noticeable to the general public,” she said.

“It’s not necessarily just us; the education community in general has been real good about cutting education and still offering a product parents want. ... We’ve been making do with less for years, and I don’t think people know that.”

In Whitefish, the custodial staff is smaller and some retirees haven’t been replaced, which has caused some class sizes to swell larger than the district would like. This year the district eliminated all of its Title I paraprofessionals. There are fewer secretaries in the high school office.

The district has tried to make cuts in areas where it will have the least impact on student achievement, Reisch said.

“It’s good that we can still do things, that we can try and make those reductions and have them not impact kids. That’s certainly our goal,” she said.

THE LEVY the district will ask for this spring will only bring the budget up to the same level as this year, Reisch said. Declining enrollment, particularly at the high school level, means the district will receive less money from the state in 2011-12.

“Our base budget has dropped, so we have to ask voters for approval to run the same budget we’ve had this year,” she said.

The district’s expenses will increase regardless of the budget; teachers automatically receive raises every year they gain additional classroom experience or education.

The teachers union also will negotiate with the district this spring and may ask for higher base salaries. Reisch’s budget calculations do not include such raises.

Reisch’s projections recommend asking elementary voters for a $99,294 levy and for a $326,702 levy in the high school district.

The school board must call for a May election by March 24 and set levy amounts no later than April 8.

The high school levy will give the district no additional budget authority, Reisch said; the elementary levy will give the district $3,600 more than it had this year.

Because the budget authority won’t be affected, the impact to taxpayers will be minimal, Reisch said. A home with a taxable value of $200,000 would pay an additional $34 if both levies pass.

Still, Reisch knows voters might not look favorably on a levy when their finances are so tight.

“We’re not talking about a huge impact to the tax bill, but it’s an increase,” she said. “And when people are scrambling to keep their houses, every dollar counts, and I certainly understand that.”

Reporter Kristi Albertson may be reached at 758-4438 or by e-mail at kalbertson@dailyinterlake.com.