Litchfield School District voters soundly rejected any school-related increase in their taxes Nov. 4.

It might be tempting to blame the 56-percent ‘no’ vote on the economy. As popular wisdom goes, nobody wants an increase in their taxes, and they want it even less so when the economy is in the dire straits it is today.

Except the vote cannot be explained quite so simply. While voters in the district rejected a property tax increase that would benefit Litchfield Schools, they voted solidly (53 percent) for the so-called Clean Water Amendment, which will add 3/8 of a percent to the state sales tax.

It was estimated that a “yes” on the Clean Water Amendment would mean that a household with an income of $45,582 to $58,509 would pay about $52 more in sales tax annually. Meanwhile, a “yes” on the Litchfield School District levy request would have cost the owner of a $75,000 to $150,000 house $45 to $90 more annually.

Using those numbers, it seems that a “no” on the Litchfield Schools levy question was about more than money. But what?

That’s something the School Board and administration must try to determine as they move forward.

The administration has indicated that without the levy increase, the district will have to make about $300,000 in cuts to help balance its budget. School Board members talked briefly about those cuts following their meeting Nov. 10, indicating that a significant amount of the cuts could be in personnel — terminating teaching positions.

While not an appealing option, it is the one the district is left with. As anyone will tell you, we all must make sacrifices when finances get tight. That was a popular refrain we heard from opponents of the levy.
Board members also hinted that another referendum could be in the offing. The district’s current levy, which provides $300 per student in excess funding, will expire in four years.

Some opponents of the levy effort said they opposed a new levy, because they considered the vote to approve the levy already in place as a “contract” between the school district and residents. Asking for more now would be a violation of that contract.

We don’t agree with that assessment, but those who use it deserve to be heard. It would be a good idea for district representatives to spend more time listening to those who voted against the levy. Really try to hear and understand why they voted “no.”

While Superintendent Bill Wold met with a wide variety of civic organizations and groups to explain the levy and an informational brochure was mailed to all district residents, those who don’t belong to such groups or who work during the day and were unable to call the district office to ask questions may not have been heard from.

Perhaps an ongoing dialogue, an open house meeting or two, can change the perception of at least some of those “no” voters.

With the economy in a slump that looks like it could last a while, a successful levy push in the near future may be too much to ask for. Then again, maybe not.

It’s true, we all make sacrifices when our pocketbooks will not allow us to live the lives to which we’re accustomed. But when the need is great enough, we find other ways to afford that need.

A continuing conversation with “no” voters might help convince them the need is great enough. Through that conversation — if the voters truly care about something more than just saying “no” — they just might provide district leadership with ideas to improve operations and efficiencies that could save the district money.
Now what? It’s time to talk.