Despite acting Commissioner of Education Brent Schundler’s admonishments that school districts prepare for state aid reductions of anywhere between 5 and 15 percent, the Howell K-8 School District Board of Education voted 6-1 (Tim O’Brien casting the dissenting vote) to present a budget that assumes a 0 percent decrease in state aid.

Such a budget would require about $4 million in cuts and a general levy tax increase of $2.4 million. Don’t forget that the Southard School “had to be closed” last year when the board needed to cut $2 million.

That is the best-case scenario.

Assuming the worst-case scenario, the one Schundler wants us to be prepared for, our district could lose an estimated 15 percent, or approximately $5 million to $5.5 million in state aid.

To accomplish this, the administration would need to find $9 million in cuts, not just to cover the lost state aid, but to pay for negotiated salary and benefits increases of about $4 million to $5 million. There’s more. After cutting $9 million from the budget, the board would have to raise taxes by $2.5 million anyway, the full 4 percent allowed by law.

In essence, when the administration recommends raising taxes while cutting programs for the kids, it is doing so to fund $69.4 million of negotiated salary and benefits. That is 82 percent of our budget, according to acting Business Administrator Ronald Sanasac.

Where would they find $9 million in cuts? Howell Superintendent of Schools Enid Golden has suggested the following:

• Tier 1 cuts (those that have no impact on instruction/safety), including such things as athletics, clubs, and transportation (late/non-hazardous courtesy busing). Dr. Golden has pegged these savings at $370,000 to $682,000. If you add deferring capital improvement projects to another budget cycle, that boosts these savings up another $1.3 million.

• Tier 2 cuts (limited but sustainable impact) include reductions in guidance, child study team and nursing staff, and reductions in the amount or manner in which the media, computer, gifted and talented, world languages, pullout music and remedial/summer en- richment programs are offered.

• Tier 3 cuts (negative impact) include administrative restructuring (which I am interpreting to mean elimination of elementary school vice principals), reductions in/changes to staff professional development, and, finally, layoffs.

No savings projections or the number of layoffs for Tier 2 or Tier 3 cuts were provided, nor were estimates given for proposed revenue sources, including a proposed kindergarten wrap-around program, subscription (parentpaid) busing, parent-paid sports/clubs, shared services agreements with other schools and/or municipalities, field/building usage charges, and rent from the still-vacant Southard School.

The first programs on the chopping block would be those that have the least amount of savings yet the greatest impact on kids, although not in terms of direct classroom instruction. And, apart from perhaps the Southard School and shared services, the revenue sources would come from the local taxpayers’ already emptying pockets.

The priorities are not aimed at central administrative personnel or services or other “extra-instructional” items, those areas that do not directly impact the classroom but produce the biggest savings. In essence, they are aimed at preserving the status quo.

To avoid a financial train wreck will take strong leadership on the board that holds the administration and the unions accountable to relieving this massive tax burden without hurting the kids.

Amy Fankhauser

Howell