SCHOOL DISTRICT REFERENDUM MEETING

Well, I took the time to attend last night's first listening session on the possible referendum for the Ripon Area School District. Unfortunately, not many others took advantage. Here are my observations:
* I can support the first referendum question - $500,000 bond for replacing the RHS boiler and roof maintenance at various schools. By taking advantage of lower interest rates to refinance current District debt, the cost to taxpayers of approving this proposal would actually LOWER the mill rate 72 cents
* I cannot support Question 2 - $500,000 annual revenue limit override to be used for purchasing textbooks, computers & technology, maintenance repairs and vehicle replacements that have been eliminated from the budget. My biggest issue is that the override has no sunset clause. It would continue indefinitely, and one thing I have learned about government is that once a program/tax is in place, it is very hard, if not impossible to overturn it. I could, possibly, support the issue if it had a 3- or 5-year limit before it had to go back to the voters.
* I have a hard time with Question #3 - $500,000 annual revenue limit override for five years to maintain current staffing and class size levels. When one realizes that the salary and a benefit package for a teacher is nearly $78,000, with the benefits portion making up $26,000, I have a hard time approving a referendum which addresses the symptoms but does not address what ails the district. The superintendent said the district saved $100,000 by moving the non-union employees to a Network Health Insurance plan. IF the district is in such a financial predicament, why can't we move ALL employees to such a plan. I do NOT want to hurt the teachers with a less-quality plan, but it is hard to argue with the potential savings. I am hopeful that the school board and the REA leadership can sit down and work out this issue.
* If all three referendum questions were approved, it would likely add 83 cents to the mill rate the first year and 55.5 cents in the second year and thereafter. For a $100,000 home, the passage would mean $83 more in taxes the first year, and $55.50 the next four. The reason for the drop in the second year is that the district would receive more state aid by spending more due to the referendum.

There are three more listening sessions. I strongly encourage you to attend:
Thursday, January 8, at 10:00 a.m. at the Ripon Public Library
Wednesday, January 14, at 1:30 p.m. at the Ripon Public Library
Thursday, January 15, at 6:30 p.m. in RHS room 167

UPDATED: Let me add one more thought. PLEASE stop connecting the FieldTurf on Ingalls Field with this referendum. After reading tonight's paper, it pains me to see ANOTHER negative reference to the turf. IT is in. It is NOT coming out. Move on. And for the last time, the voters said no to borrowing money for the turf. They did NOT say no to the turf. Sadly, the rest of the letter may have made some good points, but all I can focus on right now is that fact that some people continue to insist the turf raised taxes, and is leading to the downfall of the educational system in Ripon. We did NOT sacrifice textbooks and teachers for turf. To infer that shows a clear deficiency in the logic of any argument and is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

At the bare minimum, let us have a truce on the turf and focus on TODAY's problems, not yesterday's. With the additional two games on the field (which the supporters had used as a selling point), the positives have outweighed the negatives on this issue. At the very least, if one is going to claim such wild theories as taxes going up to pay for turf, show me the numbers. One cannot accuse the district and the superintendent of using "fuzzy" numbers when one is guilty of the same sin.