|
To: School Board Members
From: Jeff Seeley
Today's news article in the Daily News has prompted me to
write you a note of clarification in an effort to avoid any confusion. The
article stated that I said the district had to cut 3 to 4 million dollars over
the next 5 years. This is not what I said. I said that loss of
revenue directly related to the loss of enrollment currently projected is 3 to 4
million dollars over the next 5 years. As you know, these two items are
not necessarily the same.
The following is an e-mail that I sent to Jim Galewski this
morning at the Daily News:
"Hi Jim. How are you doing today?
I just wanted to drop you a note regarding a clarification
that you should be aware of for your upcoming editorial. At least, rumor
has it that you are planning on writing an editorial on the school closing
issue.
I just want to clarify something in Kirsten's article
today. She said that we had to cut 3 to 4 million dollars over the next
5 years. There was some misunderstanding regarding this. The
district will lose 3 to 4 million dollars over the next 5 years in revenue as
a result of continued declining enrollment. Loss in revenue doesn't
necessarily relate to commensurate expenditure cuts. Why? Because
of the operating referendum revenue that we will begin receiving next year
(about $3.2 million). The point I was trying to make with Kirsten is
that the referendum revenue will cover the decline in revenues for maybe the
next 4 to 5 years, depending on the magnitude of enrollment declines that
we actually realize. Given our current enrollment projections, the
operating revenue will not make up for this loss in revenue
indefinitely. When the referendum expires in 5 years, and should we be
unsuccessful in passing another one, the budget cuts would become necessary at
that time.
In the meantime, some cuts will occur related to declining
enrollment. We annually match our staff levels with the enrollment
levels. As we discussed during the referendum process, the dollar value
of these cuts will not equal the loss in revenue due to the logistics that we
must deal with. You probably recall this conversation and the reasons
for this from our referendum discussions. If you would like, I'd be glad
to review this issue again. But suffice it to say, the dollar value of
these cuts will be significantly less than the loss in revenue.
I thought it appropriate to send you this clarification
before you submit your editorial for print. If you have any questions,
you can call me at home today. My number is 474-0584.
One more thing. This e-mail was not an attempt to be
critical of what Kirsten reported. In fact, I think that she has
demonstrated great professionalism in her reporting of the district
news. I not only enjoy working with her, but feel very comfortable in
her objectivity. The issue identified above is one that is very
easily misunderstood. I'm appreciative of her fine
efforts.
Thanks Jim. Take care."
I thought it important to help everyone understand
this issue. Of course, the projections mentioned above are
dependent on our success in our revenue enhancement efforts and the severity of
the enrollment decline actually realized.
Thanks for your time. I appreciate
it.
Jeff Seeley
Director of Fiscal Affairs
Winona Area Public Schools
| 