Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe-Gregg board weighs referendum, cuts and marketing campaign to close budget gap
Summary
Facing a projected shortfall tied largely to changes from Senate Bill 1 and recent enrollment losses, the Monroe-Gregg School District board discussed pursuing a referendum this summer while preparing near-term spending cuts and a marketing push to recruit students. Administrators warned cuts would reduce early intervention and could raise special-education costs.
The Monroe-Gregg School District board held a financial review meeting focused on whether to pursue a referendum to cover an estimated multi-hundred-thousand-dollar shortfall and, in the interim, which staffing or program reductions to make.
At the meeting, consultant Paul Kaiser urged the board to begin both work streams: hire policy analytics to model precise tax-rate scenarios and start a marketing campaign to recruit students and stabilize enrollment. "You have time to decide, but you don't have time not to get moving," Kaiser said, urging early messaging and a grassroots 'ground game' if the district places a referendum on the ballot.
Why it matters: the district has lost roughly 40–45 students in recent years, board members and presenters said, and those declines reduce state and local revenue. Presenters and staff described a budget gap they attributed in part to Senate Bill 1 and to prior enrollment and funding changes; consultants cited a local revenue example in which an added $14 per month for a median homeowner was one plausible scenario but said the actual rate must be set after policy-analytics modeling.
Administrators presented concrete options for reducing costs if the referendum is not approved. The elementary principal reported multiple lost positions over the past three years — including reading and math interventionists, kindergarten aides and Title staff — and outlined several staffing scenarios to save roughly $180,000–$208,000 depending on which grade sections were consolidated. She warned that reductions would increase class sizes and narrow remediation, adding: "We've depleted all of our interventionists where we're doing our remediation." The district's special-education lead said those early-intervention cuts have already contributed to a rise in special-education identification, creating both instructional and compliance risk.
Board members debated parallel paths: several favored pursuing the referendum while preparing a limited set of short-term cuts or attrition-based savings to bridge cash needs. Some members urged caution about committing to additional contracts or hires before the November election, noting that referendum revenue generally is not available until the following calendar year.
On financing and reserves, staff reported a rainy-day balance in the low millions and discussed GEO bond capacity as a one-time mechanism that can provide operational flexibility but carries restrictions on allowable uses. Board members asked staff to produce a 'do-nothing' cash-run scenario (how quickly reserves would be consumed) and a clear spending plan that would accompany any referendum so voters know what the new revenue would pay for.
What the board will do next: the trustees scheduled a work session before spring break to review specific cut scenarios and to consider engaging policy-analytics and marketing consultants at the board's next meeting. No formal vote or motion on a referendum was taken at this session.
The discussion made clear the trade-offs ahead: board members and staff reiterated a preference to protect early literacy and other interventions where possible, but they acknowledged that failing to act could force deeper reductions or prompt state intervention if cash is exhausted. The trustees asked administrators to return with detailed budget scenarios, enrollment projections and a proposed referendum spending plan at the follow-up meeting.
