Cedar Rapids school levy increase approved, but changes still possible

Cedar Rapids school board members approved increasing the tax levy by up to 12.6 percent last night, but they stressed that the amount isn't final.

By law, a school district can't increase a levy after it is published. However, it can lower the levy, and the Cedar Rapids district could do just that if decisions at the state level work in its favor.

“This is a strategy to provide flexibility in making a decision later,” said Steve Graham, the district's executive director of business services.

Board members will have a public hearing on the levy rate April 12. They also will vote on the 2010-11 school year budget at that time.

If the levy is approved at its current published rate, it will be a $1.75 increase per $1,000 of taxable valuation. That, plus a change in the state's residential rollback, will cost the owner of a $100,000 home an additional $94.36 in property taxes. Commercial property owners will see their taxes increase by $1,750 for property worth $1 million.

Cedar Rapids' current levy is $13.92 per $1,000 assessed valuation.

The Iowa City district's levy is $14.19, and its board is considering a nearly 15 percent increase at tonight's meeting.

Despite the levy increase, the Cedar Rapids district plans to cut $4.2 million from its budget by eliminating 49 teachers and 10 custodial staff. Superintendent Dave Benson told board members he should know this month which teachers will be affected. Graham said the hope is that most of the cuts will be through attrition.

The custodial cuts will likely be a reduction in force, said Jeff Foster, president of the SEIU 199 chapter representing custodial employees. Foster said he learned of the cuts Friday.

“We hope to have more discussion,” he said. “There have been discussions with the Cedar Rapids Education Association. We are looking for the same respect for the custodial staff.”

Foster said full-time custodial employees are in the first year of a three-year contract with the district.

“It is my understanding that since we negotiate for full-time employees, it would be a breach of our contract to alter that number until the contract is reopened,” he said.