2 weeks Ago By DAVID HOTLE [email protected]
As is normal for the city, Muscatine City Council passed the yearly budget. Not so usual was that two of the seven council members voted against it. Council members Jeff Osborne and John Jindrich both voted to oppose the city’s FY 2025-26 budget as it was.
Osborne said he voted no primarily because the city postponed the replacement of a police officer and fire position. He is hopeful because this time the city came out with an actionable plan to begin cutting cost almost immediately and to continue. He predicted the city has some tough decisions ahead.
Jindrich said at the last meeting he was voting no because the city is spending more than its income. No comments were made by the public during a public hearing on the budget earlier in the meeting. After several years of flat property tax rate, the council approved a more than 28-cent per $1,000 taxable value rate hike, from $15.
67219 per $1,000 of taxable valuation to $15.95328. According to the news release, an increase of the tax levy will go to: The increases are in part due to the state of Iowa phasing out reimbursements for commercial and industrial rollbacks that began in fiscal year 2022-2023.
The city’s budget includes $86,364,799 in general expenses and $69,042,900 in revenues. It includes $4 million in new general obligation debt. It also includes $7,835,000 in state revolving loans for the West Hill Sewer separation project.
City finance director Nancy Lueck explained of the $86 million budget, capital projects are $23 million; enterprise funds are $23 million; debt service is $5.9 million; general government expenses are $3.9 million; housing is $4.
3 million; culture and recreation is $4.8 million; community development is $4.5 million; public safety is $12.
5 million; and public works is $4 million. City administrator Matthew Mardesen said moving ahead, he is concerned about the FY 2026-27 budget due to limitations made on the city by the state. The city plans to review operations during the coming year to look for opportunities to address funding shortfalls.
On Jan. 27, 2025, the White House issued a late-night directive that paused federal grants and funding in order to locate and eliminate "woke" government spending. The pause seemingly included funding for public schools , such as the Farm to School Program that provided schools with locally sourced food.
It wasn't long before Jared Cordon, superintendent of a rural school district in Roseburg, Oregon, started receiving calls from concerned community members. "If kids can't eat, where can I drop a check off?" they asked. On Jan.
29, the White House rescinded the sweeping pause, after a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration's order. One funding crisis was temporarily averted. But with mounting uncertainty and anticipated cuts on the horizon, rural school administrators are working tirelessly to balance next year's budget, The Daily Yonder explains.
They do so for the students, families, and faculty who rely on strong public schools—and for their rural communities at large, whose well-being is closely tied to the fate of their local schools. In addition to the Trump administration's chaotic management of federal grants, other funding challenges loom. Some rural districts are already facing steep funding cliffs, as COVID-19 emergency funds phase out over the next few years.
Other rural districts are set to lose over $200 million of annual federal funding due to Congress's failure to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act (SRS), which helps support school districts in counties with public lands exempt from local property taxes. Some states experienced underperforming returns on their Public Employees Retirement System , which will require school districts to make higher payments to the system. Meanwhile, Republican-controlled states continue to push for universal school voucher programs , further diverting critical funds away from rural public schools.
Beyond these immediate funding challenges, even more drastic shifts in federal education policy are unfolding. On March 20, the president signed an executive order to facilitate the eventual closure of the Department of Education. Congressional action is required to legally close the department or relocate key programs like Title I funding for low-income students or IDEA funding for special education to other departments.
However, the administration already took some actions to slow the department's ability to distribute these funds by firing half of its staff . It remains unclear what additional actions Education Secretary Linda McMahon will take to further dissolve the department. A major role of many employees at the education department is to make sure federal dollars reach the right students, said Will Ragland, a former rural public school teacher and former Department of Education employee who now researches for the Center for American Progress, a progressive public policy institute.
"[Federal funding] is intended to target, by-and-large, low-income students and students with disabilities. There are also programs that directly target rural areas, including grants to ensure their transportation needs are met and that rural kids can make it to school." Ragland said he worries that programs could meet the same fate as USAID funding, which the White House continues to block, despite numerous federal court orders .
The administration has continued to follow the conservative Project 2025 playbook, according to Ragland, which outlines a 10-year phase-out of Title I funding. "Even though [Trump] said that [legally protected education] funding is not going to be touched, I worry they're going to start to phase out this funding," Ragland said in an interview with the Daily Yonder. "I worry that they say what they need to say at any given moment, but the larger plan is to eliminate the federal role in education altogether, including the funding.
" This growing uncertainty puts rural school districts, which often rely more heavily on federal funding and whose smaller budgets are hit harder by reductions, at greater risk. Rural school leaders, already working at a high capacity , are facing unpredictable finances by working overtime to create multiple contingency budgets. Jamie Green is a superintendent at Trinity Alps Unified School District in rural northern California, which is at risk of losing $3.
5 million in SRS funding. He and other rural superintendents he's connected with put in 12- to 16-hour days when creating budgets or filling out federal grant paperwork. "During the day you have to support your kids, your parents, your teachers, and your principals.
[Budgets and grant paperwork] have to be worked on after hours," he told the Daily Yonder. "It's difficult, but you signed up to lead, you didn't sign up to be a victim. You don't make excuses to your community.
We won't make excuses." Oftentimes, the only way to balance the budget is by delaying essential maintenance or cutting teachers in art, vocational, or special education programs. In states like Oregon and California, this challenge is compounded by the fact that the final budget deadline arrives before schools have a clear picture of the funding they'll have for the upcoming year.
Superintendent Cordon highlighted the importance of federal funding at a crowded February school board meeting in Roseburg, Oregon. About 12% to 13% of the district's budget comes from the federal government, Cordon told the crowd. "Not having federal funding would dramatically impact our ability to serve children," he said.
Micki Hall, a former Roseburg teacher and school board member who now sits on the board's budget committee was in attendance. For Hall, budget cuts dredge up memories from her time as an educator. "Back in 2001 we faced a lot of budget crunches.
The French teacher was laid off and they cut one of the German teachers," she said in an interview. "It's just frightening because it also has a chilling effect in the building. If you're not cut, you might be moved into a different, unfamiliar position.
" Across the country, rural districts are grappling with similar challenges, forced to make tough decisions that affect not just budgets but the very education and well-being of students and their communities. It's clear that the need for adequate and reliable support from state and federal governments is urgent, but superintendents like Cordon and Green—and the communities they serve—can't afford to focus solely on problems or delay action. The buck, Green said, stops with them.
The only option they have is to do the work, put in the time, and find solutions. "Rural schools will not fail," Green said. "We're working as hard as we can for our students.
We cannot fail." This story was produced by The Daily Yonder and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. Muscatine City Council member John Jindrich.
Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter. {{description}} Email notifications are only sent once a day, and only if there are new matching items..
