Our View: We urge 'yes' vote on Rochester school referendum

Last year at this time, Rochester Public Schools was asking voters to support a proposed $100 million tax levy that would have provided $10 million annually for technology-related needs.

Voters ultimately rejected that levy by 318 votes out of more than 22,000 votes cast — a margin of 1.44%. That's a narrow defeat, and while we won't go so far as to say that we expected that outcome, it didn't catch us by surprise, either.

For lack of a better word, we'd call last year's levy proposal "fuzzy." Too many people simply didn't understand it. The new revenue would have been earmarked for technology, but it also was pitched as somehow freeing up $7 million in the budget for other, less-clearly-specified purposes. One member of the Cascade Township Board described the plan as "bait-and-switch." People seldom like raising their own taxes, and they like it even less when they don't understand how their money would be spent.

In the weeks and months that followed the defeat at the ballot box, school district officials critiqued their own efforts and tried to figure out what had gone wrong. This week, Dr. Kent Pekel, superintendent of RPS, met with the Post-Bulletin's editorial board and summarized the district's findings quite bluntly. "We did focus groups and interviews, and we heard again and again, 'Tell us what's going to happen if it doesn't pass, with specificity.'"

The district didn't do a lot of that last year. The primary message was about what the new revenue would provide, but it focused little attention on what a negative outcome would mean.

Today, as RPS prepares to ask taxpayers to green-light a 10-year, $19.4 million annual property tax levy (the amount will adjust each year according to changes in the consumer price index), Pekel and his team are being far more blunt.

"This really is a moment of decision," he told us. "If the referendum passes, we will not need to make major cuts in positions or programs. We will not raise class sizes. We will not close schools. If it does not pass, we will have to do all three of those things. It's really a binary choice."

He's right. There is no middle ground, no "wait 'til next year." As we write this editorial, the school board already is poised to approve a "minimum reductions" resolution in the event that the levy proposal fails in November. This plan, which would slash nearly $17 million from the budget, would close three elementary schools, eliminate 50 teaching positions and 20 support staff positions, and also would increase class sizes. Finally, it would reduce vocational/tech programs and special services/programs for struggling students, advanced students, and students with mental health needs.

This isn't a bluff. The mere fact that the district is putting this matter on the ballot in a presidential election year is proof of that. High voter turnout generally isn't good for school levy proposals, so if the need were not dire, RPS likely would have waited another year before going to voters again.

But time has run out. Any "fat" that remained in the budget was trimmed when the district slashed its budget by $7 million in 2022-23 and another $14 million in 2023-24. Those cuts eliminated 156 teaching/staff positions. Any further cuts will involve muscle. Or bone.

Don't let that happen.

We urge voters to say "Yes." Say yes to our students, to our community and to the future. Support the levy. Support Rochester Public Schools.

We realize that the timing of this request from RPS isn't great. Inflation has taken a big bite out of household budgets, and another $350 in property taxes on a $350,000 home isn't peanuts. Making matters worse, both the city and Olmsted County are considering budget increases that could raise taxes for some homeowners and business owners.

But the reality is that for far too long, Rochester has been paying too little to support our public schools.

While about two-thirds of public education costs are covered by the state through its general fund, local funding still plays a significant (and growing) role in school budgets. Minnesota has 15 school districts with more than 10,000 students, and Rochester is the seventh-largest of those districts — yet our local per-pupil local operating levy ranks dead last among them, at just $943. The average per-pupil funding for those 15 districts is $1,771, and Rochester is also one of just four such districts that currently has no capital projects levy. The new proposed levy would bump Rochester up to $2,076 per pupil in local dollars, which would put us near the middle of the pack among the state's largest districts.

That seems reasonable. Furthermore, we must note that every August, a majority of Minnesota homeowners (and even some renters) get a property tax refund from the state, based on their income and the amount of their property taxes. That refund would increase if this levy is approved, which means that the owner of a $335,000 home might actually recover a significant portion (half or more) of any "new" school taxes they would pay.

But is any school tax increase truly necessary in Rochester? Mayo Clinic came to the district's rescue last year with a $10 million lifeline before any schools had to be closed. If voters again say "No," wouldn't the clinic intervene to ensure a quality education for its employees' children?

Pekel says no.

"Very senior leaders at Mayo Clinic last year made it very clear that this is not something they can or would do in perpetuity," he said. "I feel really good about our partnership with Mayo, but nothing that anybody has ever said suggests that the check is in the mail."

Additionally, Pekel noted that if voters approve this funding request, he believes the school district's financial needs will be met for the life of it, and — other than if the district grows and needs a new school — RPS won't return with its hand out anytime soon.

That leaves us with one final question: What would this new revenue buy? Other than preventing the closure of some schools (and a difficult, controversial process of redrawing attendance boundaries throughout the district), what's the payoff?

That's a complex question, because the answer will be different for every student. If your son has a learning disability, the new funding could ensure that he spends time with a reading specialist every week. If your daughter is a math whiz, it could ensure that she takes classes that challenge her.

The new revenue will ensure that CTECH and P-TECH programs remain viable and available to train tomorrow's workforce. It will ensure that third-graders attend art and music classes. It will keep paraprofessionals in classrooms. It will keep media specialists and guidance counselors in the buildings. In short, the new funding will ensure more than a generic, bare-bones, one-size-fits-all education for the 18,000 students who attend RPS.

Rochester can and should aspire to do more than the bare minimum for its children. It's time to step up and do our fair share.