By Dave Chmielewski
Guest Columnist
One man's answer to the question of consolidation
Share
Tweet
Come January, the school board at Carlton ISD 93 will have two new board members and the return of one current school board member as a result of November's election. I am hopeful the board will build upon the momentum created by the community engagement process over the past year.
Regarding the last board meeting Nov. 19, there were many things said that were thoughtful and true. And some that were perplexing.
The subject of consolidation is brought up at board meetings because there are many in the community that want it discussed. It is viewed as a potential solution to some challenges.
Longtime board member Tim Hagenah asked, "Why is it that not one person has explained to me why we should consolidate with Wrenshall? What do they have to offer?"
I found this perplexing, because it has been discussed, in great detail, for years while Tim has been on the board. Nonetheless, it is still a good question. So, for Tim and maybe others, here is one person's analysis (this is deep and technical, so bear with me).
Why is consolidation of any kind being discussed?
We have seven school districts in a county with 36,000 people. Carlton has around 422 students. The State of Minnesota sets up the rules of the game. For each student enrolled, the school district receives an allotment of money. The more students you have, the more money you receive. It then comes down to how the district balances that income stream against its operating costs.
Between Wrenshall and Carlton, there are three buildings and more than 800 students. If the two districts consolidate with a two-site option, they could eliminate one building. Duplicated staff and services would be reassigned or eliminated. A two-site option is discussed, because neither community wanted to completely give up its school, and Carlton just put $5.5 million worth of nonvoter-approved money into the elementary school.
Consolidation was also brought up because both districts say they have facility deficiencies. Facility construction is costly and supported primarily by property tax dollars. When costs are spread out over two districts versus one, the cost to the taxable properties is diluted or generally less money per household. Wrenshall passed a resolution that they are willing to talk about consolidation with Carlton, including, but not limited to, a two-site option.
Finally, considering consolidation was a strategic planning recommendation of the Carlton Community Advisors at the conclusion of many months of meetings and $10,000 worth of consulting fees.
Hagenah also brought up consolidation with Cloquet. If the new Cloquet board and Superintendent are willing to talk, then talk. Concerns about a large vs. small school environment could be discussed in a Carlton/Cloquet consolidation scenario, as well as an obvious question: Does Cloquet even have the space, and if not, what is the cost/political appetite for more space? That can be easily determined.
What are the risks/concerns about consolidation?
It is not a magic solution. It is more work for the school boards and staff, on top of their regular duties. It puts stress on sensitive families and students who have long-established social orders, positions on sports teams and other activities. There are rivalries in some cases, and different demographic mixes that result.
In the short term, it requires uncomfortable conversations and extra work. In the case of Carlton, there is a concern that the consolidation will not yield a full transfer of students, especially from those families that live in the western end of the district. The more students lost during the consolidation, the more the benefits of increased cash flow are eroded. Conversely, fewer students puts less pressure on facility expansion needs, and thus, property tax resources. For example, if a consolidation between Carlton and Wrenshall nets 600 students from a possible 800, it puts less pressure on the facility expansion requirements, and the local tax base. You still end up with two buildings versus three buildings, and you still eliminate duplicated services. The loss of 200 hypothetical students also assumes they have somewhere else to go, if not to the newly consolidated district.
What comes next?
The first round of utility company lawsuits have concluded, and determined that the utility companies were overcharged for their property taxes. Those dollars need to be paid back. There are more lawsuits pending. The result is fewer property tax dollars in the pool for school facility funding.
The state demographer's report indicates that population growth for Carlton County will be flat for the foreseeable future. Carlton and Wrenshall have reported they have facility deficiencies, hence the referendums and the nonvoter-approved levy, in Carlton's case. Carlton has an upcoming budget that will be challenging and they have still not completed the teachers' salary negotiations. If Carlton were to consolidate with another district, there still will need to be a levy to deal with facility deficiencies, although that cost would be spread out among more taxpayers.
The wildcard is the consolidation aid from the State. That is a large sum of money that can solve a lot of problems locally, but is not guaranteed. One thing is for certain, without a consolidation, there is zero chance at consolidation aid.
In the short and long term, the school boards have to deal with big budget and facility challenges. The question is, what approach will be used to overcome these challenges? The voters will ultimately be responsible for the choices they made, as the people they elected will be making these very important decisions. These decisions will have long-term effects on our kids, our teachers, our cost of living as residents, and our ability to retain, grow and attract more businesses. Very important.
I will keep my fingers crossed.
Dave Chmielewski is a resident of Blackhoof Township, served on the committee of Carlton Community Advisors and is married to Carlton School Board member Jennifer Chmielewski.
