NEW ULM– District 88 is looking to renew its operating levy through a referendum but must determine whether to renew with a consumer price index adjustment or renew the levy without a CPI.

New Ulm currently has one voter-approved operating levy. It was approved in 2012 and started in the 2013 fiscal year. The amount of the levy has changed each year based on the CPI. The levy provides $1.8 million annually but will expire after the 2023 fiscal year.

The board has until Aug. 26 to adopt a resolution calling for a referendum election. Superintendent Jeff Bertrang is recommending the board adopt the resolution during the July 28 board meeting. The board will be needed to determine which of the two ballot questions to present to voters.

The two options would each call for a renewal of the existing referendum, but the first option would also include the annual CPI adjustments, while the second option would strip the CPI adjustment from the referendum.

The board was able to review the ballot language for the two options. The consensus was to move forward with the first option. Part of the concern was the ballot language that would revoke the CPI adjustment was not clearly written.

Board member Jonathan Schiro said following last November’s special election, in which voters rejected the district’s request to revoke and replace two expiring tax levies, he heard feedback that the ballot language was confusing.

Schiro said the ballot question language asking for renewal with a revoked CPI adjustment was not clear.

“Unless you really know what it means, it’s confusing,” Schiro said. “The first one to me is not confusing. It is really clear. I think to be clear there is the best route to go.”

For purposes of clarity, the board leaned toward favoring the first option, to renew the operating levy and keep the CPI adjustment. The downside to continuing the CPI adjustment is this formula is tied to inflation.

Schiro said in today’s world, “inflation” is not a good word.

The board wanted the district to approve the referendum, and a levy approval with an inflation adjustment could scare away voters. However, a ballot question that confused voters could result in a no vote too.

Board member Amanda Groebner commented that it is important for people to realize operating levies are needed statewide.

“This isn’t just a thing where school districts want extra money,” Groebner said. “We need extra money.”

The board asked if there was any way to rewrite the ballot questions to be less confusing, but Bertrang said it needs to be written to meet legal statutes.

The board is expected to make a formal decision on the operating levy ballot question during the next regular board meeting, at 6 p.m. Thursday, July 28.