Oak Grove R‑VI leaders outline levy proposal, cash‑flow risks and legislative concerns ahead of April vote

District leaders briefed the board on a planned April tax‑levy request meant to increase local operating revenue to raise staff pay, stabilize finances and avoid deeper staff cuts, and outlined a set of legislative risks that could affect the district’s finances.

Superintendent‑level and finance staff told trustees the district has deficit‑spent in recent years (the transcript cites a deficit of about $800,000 last year and a planned but reduced deficit of $1,200,000 for the current year) as it increased staffing and wages; they said payroll and benefits account for about 80% of district expenditures. The board was shown cash‑flow projections staff said indicate — if no new revenue is approved and current spending continues — the district would exhaust available cash around Dec. 5, 2025.

Why the levy: staff and trustees said the levy is needed to retain and recruit teachers and non‑certified staff and to remain competitive with neighboring districts. The district presented figures showing that bringing the district’s minimum teacher salary to the new state minimum of $40,000 (a figure cited from Senate Bill 727 changes) would cost about $336,647; moving every district employee one salary step would cost about $1,159,797 (figures presented by staff). The district said it has not asked local voters for a levy increase since the mid‑1980s and that an approved levy would provide additional local revenue beginning after the election cycle (district noted that tax collections and most state aid arrive in late calendar year).

Legislative concerns: the superintendent and staff described several bills under consideration at the state Legislature and several potential impacts. They flagged proposed changes that could reduce local property‑tax revenue, citing an example fiscal note in which one proposed property‑tax change would have reduced Oak Grove revenue by an estimated $890,000 if it passed as written. Trustees discussed an open‑enrollment proposal being debated at the Capitol; staff expressed concern that a broad open‑enrollment law that sends state funding with students to receiving districts could destabilize budgeting and require transportation for eligible students. The board also discussed state underfunding of education, relative ranks for teacher pay and proposed changes to statewide taxes that could affect overall state revenue for education.

Communications plan and next steps: staff said the district will prepare informational materials about the levy, including scenarios that show estimated costs to homeowners and vehicle owners (the presentation included example impacts for a $300,000 house and a $215,000 vehicle). The board discussed a possible community forum to explain the levy question and answer voters’ questions; staff said the April ballot also includes seats contested for the school board.

No formal board action finalizing the levy placement on the ballot was recorded in the transcript excerpt, but staff indicated a levy question will be presented to voters in April and said they will continue budgeting work and contingency planning if the measure fails.