While audience contributions to the Waterloo School Board’s tax levy public hearing Monday night were fairly limited, the matter did see a hefty amount of discussion as the board ultimately approved the levy as well as a plan to go through the budget with a fine-toothed comb.

As previously reported, a public notice appearing in an earlier issue of the Republic-Times announced another increase in the amount of property taxes levied by the district this year compared to last year.

Corporate and special purpose property taxes being levied for next year are $26,438,060, which represents a 9.02 percent increase from the $24,250,325 received for this year.

Likewise, property taxes for debt service and public building commission leases are up 5.17 percent, with $4,859,082 received this year and $5,110,098 levied for next year.

The total levied property taxes amount to $31,548,158 while the district previously received $29,109,407, meaning an increase of 8.38 percent altogether.

As this is greater than 4.99 percent, the district was required to host a public hearing in accordance with the state’s Truth in Taxation law.

The meeting began with this hearing, with Waterloo Superintendent of Schools Brian Charron directing attention to a collection of literature concerning the district’s tax rate, comparisons with other area school districts and various district financial matters.

The floor was then opened to public comment on the levy, with Monroe County Treasurer Kevin Koenigstein simply acknowledging the combined increase in the tax levy between this year and last year.

Koenigstein made mention of the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law, which requires taxing districts in Monroe County to limit the growth of their tax levy to 5 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.

As the Waterloo School District includes parcels in St. Clair County, which is not governed by PTELL, the district is exempt from this limitation.

“It looks like an 11 or 12 percent increase this past year,” Koenigstein said. “We’re looking at another almost 10 percent increase. That’s over 20 percent in two years of increasing taxes, and it’s far and above most of what the other taxing bodies in Monroe County are doing. I understand that you’re not PTELL, but most of the taxing bodies are closer to the PTELL level than what you’re doing right now.”

Following his remarks, the school board was about to close the hearing when another member of the audience spoke up from her seat. Another audience member did likewise soon after, with neither offering their names to the board.

One of these individuals questioned why taxes were being raised at all, remarking that a substantial amount of local taxes already go toward the school district.

She further noted Waterloo High School recently added a video gaming club, though a club one of her children belongs to seemingly has no budget. She additionally bemoaned having to pay annual school sign-up costs for her children alongside the taxes that go toward the district.

Charron offered some explanation, as he said the cost of business is going up for everyone, including the school district. As he’s done previously, he pointed to increasing labor costs as a big reason for the higher tax levy, noting the need to maintain competitive pay compared to neighboring districts.

“That is where a lot of the money goes is compensation for our employees,” Charron said. “I know the board of education over the past several years has tried to keep salary and wages for our employees competitive with neighboring districts. It’s hard to keep up with them. We’re not keeping up with area districts.”

A point was raised about Columbia having a lower tax rate even as its school district appears comparable to Waterloo, to which Charron replied the Columbia School District is in a different financial situation, and there have been some years where Columbia’s district did have a higher tax rate than Waterloo’s.

Another question was posed about how much of this increase would be going toward salaries, and it was noted that a budget for next school year is not currently established.

Additional concerns were raised about the effect this increase to the tax levy would have on the cost of living in the community.

School board member Nathan Mifflin spoke briefly, saying he would have more to say regarding the tax levy prior to the board’s vote later in the meeting.

He further voiced appreciation for the public comments, noted that everyone is feeling the impact of high taxes and prices and further emphasized the need to reduce excessive spending.

Later, as the board opened the floor to the public during the regular meeting, a local resident later identified as Nathan Rau approached the board to direct attention toward one of the aforementioned documents offering insight into the district’s tax rate.

Rau pointed out how, though the Waterloo School District’s tax rate is the highest among the three districts in Monroe County, it is less than a number of other districts in the area.

“As I look at the other literature, our rate is cheaper than Belleville by well over a percent, lower than Millstadt, Freeburg by well over a percent, Smithton by well over a percent… I’m thinking of the teams we see a lot in sporting events,” Rau said. “As I read this, Columbia’s less, but our neighbors are not unanimously less. I feel like that shows a good stewardship on our parts.”

Rau additionally voiced thanks for Waterloo’s apparent support for special education in the district.

When the time came for the board to vote on the tax levy, Mifflin again spoke up, discussing research he’s done regarding the levy.

He particularly noted many people often don’t recognize that as the Equalized Assessed Value of the county increases, the tax rate generally decreases, though property owners can still wind up paying more in taxes overall due to the EAV increase.

“We have a responsibility to make sure, as a school district, that we are levying for the budget that is needed, that we are not just levying for the amount that the EAV goes up,” Mifflin said.

He went on to discuss tax levy abatement, describing how taxing bodies are able to submit their levy and then, in the first few months of the year, re-evaluate the amount of funds requested.

To that end, Mifflin proposed establishing a budget task force consisting of board members, district staff and members of the public to evaluate the district’s budget and address any excessive or unnecessary spending.

This task force would seemingly operate during the abatement period running from January through March. It would – as the motion presented by Mifflin outlined – not have any real authority, but would simply serve in an advisory capacity for the board.

“I’ve been told people can find 1, 2 percent waste in a budget in their sleep,” Mifflin said. “I don’t run a big budget. I don’t claim that I can do it. But I know people that know how to do it. So I think that we, at the very least, owe it to the community to go through and look at and see, ‘Are there areas where can get rid of certain things?’”

This proposal and presentation of an amendment to the levy agenda item prompted varied discussion.

Waterloo Junior High School Principal Nick Schwartz chimed in from the audience to ask Charron what percentage of the budget goes toward paying district employees.

This figure was estimated to be around 80-85 percent during the meeting, though Charron spoke with the Republic-Times following the meeting to report that after some research, the amount of the roughly $15 million education fund which goes toward salaries and wages is precisely 82.7 percent.

Charron emphasized at the meeting that the vast majority of money in the education fund goes toward staff pay.

“If we want to cut spending in the district, that is either cutting the number of staff we have or cutting what we pay our staff,” Charron said. “That is where the majority of our funds go. There are other areas too, but that is where the majority of our budget goes.”

The education fund is by far the largest fund within the district’s budget, covering a range of items including teacher pay, food services and extracurricular activities.

Per the 2024 Monroe County tax rate extension report for the district, the county’s contribution to the education fund stood at $15.1 million. The next largest fund was for bonds and interest at $4.8 million, followed by the operations and maintenance fund at $3.5 million, the tort and immunity fund at $2 million and the transportation fund at $1.4 million.

In response to Charron noting pay was the largest chunk of the education fund, Mifflin said he would have no intention of negatively impacting district staff or students.

“I am not talking about any major changes to jobs, employees, students, anything like that,” Mifflin said. “What I’m saying is that the school district needs to look at where we can find excessive or wasteful spending that we can bring that down.”

School board member John Caupert was particularly vocal during this discussion, echoing Mifflin’s previous sentiment about EAV’s impact on taxes. Caupert remarked that he has $313,000 invested into his property as homes around him are selling for roughly double that figure.

Noting the role the county assessor plays into property taxes for residents, Caupert went on to say that the EAV increases can be seen as good, as they indicate Waterloo is a desirable place to live.

Amid the later vote on the budget task force amendment and tax levy itself, Caupert was the most vocal member against the amendment, arguing it was redundant given the board’s finance committee, of which he is a member alongside Mifflin.

Speaking with the Republic-Times following the meeting, Caupert further argued the redundancy of such a task force as he described how the school board itself also oversees spending items on a monthly basis.

“The community has already established a task force,” Caupert said. “The task force is the seven members of the board of education. We have been duly elected by the citizens, by the community, by the taxpayers, by the parents, by the voters of Waterloo School District. We are their task force. They entrusted us to make these decisions, the not-so-difficult ones and the difficult ones.”

Also after the meeting, Caupert further stressed this point by suggesting the board members are in the best position to review the budget given their experience with it. Newcomers from the community, he indicated, wouldn’t be as exposed to the budget as the board has been.

“‘I’m (NFL quarterback) Philip Rivers. I’ve been away from the game for five years, and now, all of a sudden, I’m thrust into it. And I don’t know the plays this team has. Heck, I don’t even know the teammates. I’m learning every single bit of this on the fly,’” Caupert said. “The folks that are being brought in, this is them.”

There was some parliamentary fumbling as it was deliberated how to vote on the task force – it was seemingly first voted on as a separate item, though it was later identified as an amendment to the tax levy item which was properly presented on the meeting’s agenda, and the initial vote was discarded.

The board ultimately voted to approve this task force amendment, with Mifflin, Board Secretary Amanda Propst, Board President Lori Dillenberger and Board Vice-President Neil Giffhorn voting in support and Caupert, Jodi Burton and James Yaekel voting against.

The board approved the actual tax levy along these same lines.

Speaking after the meeting, Mifflin noted the task force proposal was not previously presented to the board or the finance committee – though he did mention he would be discussing the tax levy with Dillenberger prior to the meeting, and he provided an advance copy of the amendment to Propst so it could be properly recorded in the minutes.

Responding to Caupert’s argument that “the community has already established a task force,” Mifflin suggested a separate, larger entity would be better equipped to thoroughly consider the budget.

“I do think that a task force that is going to have time to look more thoroughly through the budget… I think the goal is to just try to get numerous people looking at the same thing, trying to find any areas that may have been missed as far as excessive spending,” Mifflin said. “It’s as simple as, can we look at wants versus needs? Are there things that have just kinda fallen through the cracks over time that we can save on?”

Mifflin also reiterated he does not intend for cuts to be made when it comes to teachers or students, remarking that, if staff pay is roughly 80 percent of the budget, there is still 20 percent to consider where any excessive spending might exist.

In additional discussion following the meeting, Caupert spoke positively about the dialogue that took place regarding the tax levy, as did Charron, who particularly spoke about the feedback offered by members of the public.

“I encourage the dissent,” Charron said. “I think it’s healthy for the board to hear. These are complicated matters. I don’t expect everybody to think that this is the right thing to do.”

Charron further discussed the district budget, commenting on how the board has long pursued the $2.19 tax rate for the education fund voters approved in the past.

He also commented on the current state of the education fund’s beginning fund balance projected for next year, having recently required a considerable transfer from the working cash fund.

Charron voiced approval for what this budget task force might spark when it comes to budgetary discussions.

“I endorse this process of a task force, and I hope it creates an opportunity for us to begin talking about some difficult decisions that the board may be facing in the future,” Charron said.