Mineral Point district asks voters for $1.3 million in recurring revenue authority to shore up operations

Mineral Point Unified School District Superintendent said the district is asking voters to approve a revenue-limit referendum that would authorize $1,300,000 in recurring revenue-limit authority, with mail ballots going out ahead of a November vote.

The superintendent said the ballot language creates recurring authority but is a one-time dollar ask: "it's a one-time $1.3 million," and that the board intends to levy only what is needed to balance the budget. District projections presented to the public show a likely first-year levy of $700,000, which the superintendent said would increase property taxes by roughly $62 on a $100,000 home (about $15.51 per month on a $300,000 home). The district model shows smaller, incremental levies in later years until the $1.3 million authority is reached.

Why it matters: presenters said the referendum is intended to preserve classroom programs, retain and recruit teachers, maintain buildings and avoid further cuts to student offerings. The presentation framed the request as a response to state revenue limits that have not kept pace with inflation and rising costs for transportation, utilities, health insurance and special education.

Details and fiscal context: the superintendent described the district running a projected deficit of about $532,000 under current assumptions and said levying $700,000 next year would leave an estimated surplus of roughly $8,000, based on assumptions about property growth, insurance trends and continued state aid (including the current $325 per-pupil amount). The administration emphasized those projections depend on multiple variables and said the $1.3 million in authority could stretch “at least four fiscal years” and possibly longer if state aid or reimbursements increase.

Special education and federal funds: the superintendent explained that pandemic ESSER funds carried federal spending deadlines and restrictions, so the district used ESSER for allowable one-time and pandemic-related expenses (remote instruction supports, cleaning, UV lights and a social worker) rather than holding it as savings. The presentation said the district transfers about $1.2 million from its general fund into its special education fund (Fund 27), and noted that if special-education reimbursement rose from about 33% to 50% — a policy change discussed at the state level — the district would not need to transfer as much, reducing pressure on the levy.

Practical consequences if voters reject the referendum: presenters listed possible operational responses, including renegotiating bus contracts (which could lengthen routes), reducing academic or co-curricular offerings, and potentially eliminating positions that could affect students. The superintendent said the district could try again with a smaller ask in the following April election if the November referendum fails but could not hold another referendum in the same calendar year.

New positions and cost-control actions: the presenters acknowledged adding two positions this year — a middle-school reading interventionist (presented cost roughly $85,000 all-in) and a district K–12 special-education coordinator (presented cost roughly $50,000 all-in). The administration also described local cost-savings measures already taken: step freezes, reductions to technology and maintenance budgets, bringing food service in-house, competitive bidding, weekly bill-payment changes that generated about $50,000 in interest income and other efficiencies.

Public questions and communication: several attendees asked for clearer wording on how the levy changes would be presented (some residents sought a simple year-to-year depiction of cumulative impacts). Presenters agreed to refine public materials and said another forum would be held in October. Officials encouraged residents to contact state legislators about special-education reimbursement levels.

Next steps: mail ballots are going out ahead of the November vote; the district will host additional forums and smaller meetings to answer questions in the weeks before the election. The superintendent asked residents to "let them vote with facts" and to reach out with further questions.