Rise in Cedar Rapids levy approved but could still be cut

Cedar Rapids school board members approved a 16.1 percent levy increase Monday night, but stressed that the amount isn't final.

By law, school districts can't increase its levy after it is published. However, districts can lower the levy. The Cedar Rapids district could do just that, if decisions at the state level work in the districts' 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 regarding the levy rate on 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 and 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 12.6 percent - $1,750.00 for commercial property worth $1 million dollars.

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

The Iowa City district's current levy is $14.19. The Iowa City school board is considering a nearly 15 percent levy 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 which teachers will be impacted by the cuts later this month. Graham said the hope is that most of the teacher cuts will be through attrition.

The custodial cuts will likely be reduction in force, according to Jeff Foster, president of the SEIU 199 Chapter representing custodial employees. Foster said he learned of the cuts on 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 added that 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 altar that number until the contract is reopened,” he said.