ANSWERING TO A POSTING - PART TWO

Question 1
I’m sorry, but I still don’t understand this. If the 2004 referendum approved an increased tax rate for a defined period to cover a loan for track renovation, doesn’t the revenue disappear when the tax rate goes down at the time of the termination of the original loan? How can that approval for an increased rate be extended to cover an additional 7 years of payments? This situation is not similar to paying off a car loan, because, simply put, your personal income remains the same, and, in this case, the lower tax rate decreases the income.
The school board approved taking the money that was being used to fund the loan repayment and continuing it as their contribution to the field turf project ($15,476 principal plus $7,737 interest = $23,313 annually beginning in 2009)
Contributions/Investments are as follows, as I understand:
$360,000 - Private Fundraising
$250,000 - Ripon College
$162,491 - School District (The amount currently designated for the track loan)
$ 62,360 - School District's expenditures on natural grass maintenance
$834,851 - TOTAL
TO be honest, I don't know why their is a column that says "Loan" on the financing chart. The contributions above reach the $750,000 goal with room to spare. Also, we need to remember that a number of local groups and businesses, like R&R Wash, are donating time, equipment and manpower to remove the current field, which will save thousands of dollars. Also, a large group of volunteers are lending a hand, which means the final pricetag could be considerably less than the amount we would pay if FieldTurf did all the work themselves. This would reduce the contributions of the college, school district, and private fundraisers.

Question 2
How can this be your error if it was said by Superintendent Zimman? Again I ask, “If the increased levy approved for the track renovation loan expires, shouldn’t the tax levy go down? If not, why not?” Regarding your better statement that the school levy would not increase, why won’t it decrease?
His statement was that taxes would not go up as a result of the turf. I would agree that the levy would conceivably go down if the turf was not being installed, but the amount is unknown as some money would have to be expended to replace or reseed the middle of the field where the grass continually dies off.

Question 3
What loan is being talked about here? Is this the loan being financed by FieldTurf’s financing company? It appears from your response that the school district will be paying a total of $38,689 annually for FieldTurf, not including the maintenance costs. Over 7 years, this adds up to $270,823, considerably higher than the 22% of the total cost of FieldTurf listed in the RASD Summer 2007 newsletter.
I think I answered this to the best of my knowledge above.

Question 4
If a low interest rate has not been locked in with the FieldTurf financing company, what will the interest rate be? And specifically what loan are we talking about here, for how much money, and who, if not the RASD, is repaying it?
That question I cannot answer, other than saying the private fundraising is paying back the loan.

Question 5
You seem to be saying that in both instances, you interpreted the wishes of the voters to be that they didn’t want to pay for it, but they wanted it done. Was the wording of the referenda similar, allowing you to make that interpretation?
What I was saying was that a voter can be for a project, but not in favor of the funding or the size of the borrowing.

Question 6
Congratulations on writing a successful grant application, that’s not an easy task. But again I ask: what was the amount of the grant, and which organization granted it? Am I correct in assuming this is part of the $360,000 to be collected by private donations?
The grant I wrote was from the Kwik Trip company for $5,000, I believe. I have also applied to CenturyTel and the Green Bay Packers, who both have community grant programs. If you know of any more, please let me know.

Question 7
Generally, city codes set minimum requirements, and I’m sure the college met those. I would think, however, that in the spirit of community relations, the college would consider revising their landscape plan, and I don’t understand how installing blinds on the windows would impact personal protection.
I really do not want to go around and around on this, but the lighting on the campus has met all the requirements we have in place. I simply find it ironic that some of the people who are complaining about the lighting have a street light in front of their home and they never have complained to my knowledge about light pollution. I cannot help but think that their issue is not the college put in LIGHTING, but the COLLEGE putting in lighting. Axes can be ground in different ways. One question I have - What revisions would you suggest Ripon College would make to their landscaping plan? They are NOT going to put up large trees and berms to block the view of their campus, nor would that be expected of them.