Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe-Gregg board weighs $600K savings target, taxable bond and possible referendum to shore up finances
Summary
School board members reviewed three budget-cut options, discussed a taxable bond as a cash buffer and debated whether to pursue a voter referendum this fall; staff were directed to prepare an approximately $600,000 year-one savings plan and coordinate consultants for a June 'go/no-go' on a referendum.
The Monroe-Gregg School District board spent its work session weighing how to bridge a near-term budget shortfall, discussing enrollment losses, three tiers of budget cuts and whether to pursue a taxable bond and a voter referendum.
Superintendent Trent and consultants presented data showing 290 resident students currently attend schools outside the district — 188 to other traditional public schools, 18 to charter programs (likely virtual) and 84 to nonpublic schools using the Indiana Choice scholarship vouchers. The presentation included modeled scenarios showing incremental state funding if students returned, with examples ranging from roughly $186,000 for 25 returning students to about $1.3 million if 175 students returned over multiple years.
The district laid out three mitigation options: Option 3 (minimal reductions and operational efficiencies designed to preserve instruction), Option 2 (moderate, targeted staffing reductions and program adjustments) and Option 1 (deep cuts including consolidations and program eliminations). Finance staff framed a near-term objective of roughly $600,000 in year-one savings as the amount needed to stop immediate cash depletion; some board members described that as a phased target to be realized partly this year and more fully the following year.
Board members discussed using a taxable bond (a $1.9 million figure was referenced in cash-flow examples) as a temporary cash-flow buffer but repeatedly emphasized that bond proceeds do not address structural spending and cannot generally be used for recurring salary obligations. The board also debated referendum timing: some members favored a fall referendum to raise recurring revenue while others warned that a poorly prepared campaign could divide the community and that changes in assessed value rules would affect long-term levy yield.
Administrators described constraints on cutting special education transportation because IEPs require certain services; board discussion cited routes and an estimated per-student cost for certain outplacements of about $50,000, with the district noting it files excess-cost reimbursement applications (reimbursement roughly $29,000 in a cited example). Several trustees objected to eliminating a $14,000 annual scholarship funded by a cell-tower donation, calling that program valuable to students.
By the session’s close, trustees generally favored pursuing a middle-ground (Option 2-style) plan to realize substantial near-term savings while coordinating consultants (including policy analytics, Paul Kaiser and Ice Miller/Kristen McClellan) to model tax rates and present a go/no-go referendum recommendation by June. The superintendent was directed to present a detailed $600,000 savings plan to the board at the next meeting (April 13 was referenced) and to convene finance and consultant partners to align timelines and modeling.
The board did not take final votes on the budget options at the work session; staff were asked to return with specific recommendations and cash-flow projections.
