Benjamin Logan Local Schools are not pursuing a tax levy for the March ballot.
The board of education unanimously decided during a Tuesday evening special meeting that they were not going to put a levy on the March ballot.
Members were considering their options for a tax levy following the failure of a 1.5 percent earned-income tax levy on the November ballot.
“The board will take more time planning for the proper, right fit for the community,” explained Superintendent Dave Harmon.
A proposal for a proper fit in the form of a tax levy is likely to come for the November ballot.
Tod Johnson, incoming board member as of January 2020, said he didn’t think the board did its due diligence to the community to actually understand what they need to do regarding the levy.
“We need to understand things in greater detail before we propose another levy,” he said. “We haven’t analyzed all avenues of revenue and expenses. I don’t think board really understands true number we need. I don’t think we understand the public’s no vote.”
Johnson said he also doesn’t think that the board’s calculation of needing $3.4 million is correct.
Board member Karen Dill agreed stating that she heard from community members that they would’ve liked to see a performance audit done before the board brings them another levy proposal.
Board member Deb Johnson said something else the board needs to do is regain trust with the community.
Harmon questioned the lack of consistency of not asking for a levy again.
“When we’ve told people we needed what we asked for and then we don’t come back with the levy, does that give people reason to believe we didn’t need it in the first place?” he asked.
Board member John Stanford said he thought it was meaningful that the board was going to go back to the voters and say: “We’re going to get our ducks in a straighter row.”
Dill said she thinks that by doing their due diligence a levy proposal would have a better chance of passing.
The board also approved an amendment to the reduction plan originally approved in October.
Prior to the amendment, the reduction plan cut about $1 million in costs.
Specific reductions included: cutting technology budgets; eliminating the special education director; reducing the athletic/activities director by 10 contractual days; implementing pay to participate; eliminating gifted services; reducing educational aid supports; eliminating all extended-day contracts; reducing school to four days a week; and reducing supplemental contracts.
The amendment to the reduction plan approved during Tuesday evening’s meeting changed the language reflecting a goal of “zero job loss.”
Susan Allen, board president, said although it will be the goal of the board that no one lose their jobs in the reduction plan, it is not a “finite statement.”
“We don’t know nobody’s going to lose job for sure,” she said.
Harmon said the amendment to the reduction plan makes it so the reductions are now “nonspecific.”
An updated reduction plan is to be expected to be considered by the board in early 2020.
The next regular board meeting is Dec. 16 at 7 p.m.
The board also meets in special session Dec. 9 at 3:15 p.m. and will convene in executive session for the purpose of performing evaluations.