To the editor,

Feb. 20 is an opportunity to approve or reject a property tax increase in connection with two questions put forth by RFSD. Question One is an operational referendum and Question Two is a facilities referendum. I will vote NO on both questions.

My purpose here is to encourage my fellow community members to vote NO on Question One for the following three reasons:

The timing is all wrong. Superintendent Benson is retiring. Two current board members are not seeking re-election. Thus, three key decision-makers will not have to live with the results (good or bad) of this decision to raise taxes. A better approach would be to let the school board elections take place in April and seat the new superintendent in July. Then in the fall, commence with a transparent budget review before asking the community to support a referendum, perhaps next Spring 2025.

The funds currently available are adequate. The district receives per student funding from the state and local property tax. This combination makes up the majority of income for the district to use to educate our kids. Quite regularly our district and school board members say this amount is not enough. They harp about funding levels in other districts and bemoan the unfairness of the entire funding system. While current funding formulas could be open to debate, the best response would be to use our funds as efficiently as possible. The district employs over 500 people and less than half work directly with students. According to district publications, student to staff ratio is less than 17 to 1. Adjusting the ratio to 20 to 1 would easily save approximately $3 million now and each year in to the future. If the district wanted to protect the current 17 to 1 ratio and deem it “sacred,” they would have strongly communicated the educational benefits of such a ratio. As is, there is no mention of an “optimal” student-teacher ratio in their informational material. Why? Because after listening to the board, I conclude the rationale is simply “Hudson schools get more.” I call it “coveting-thy-neighbors-funding.” It is a poor rationale to use to burden us with higher taxes.

These funds favor adults more than students. Student benefit from hiring more adults is hard to quantify. Employment of our community members is a benefit. However, when Benson stated that “we are in the people business,” he exposed a reality that most do not want to admit: a significant portion of most government spending is simply job creation. In RFSD, student enrollment has been flat or in decline and is projected to decline even more in the near future, yet staff hiring has increased. A proper response would be to adjust the staffing in relation to enrollment, as all efficient organizations do.

The district will claim a NO vote seriously erodes the ability to effectively educate our children. This claim is fueled mostly by jealousy, not facts.

RFSD also spends THOUSANDS of our tax-payer dollars producing slick colorful mailers designed to demonstrate heroic efforts to save our schools from a perceived meltdown. Those in opposition are without the use of district funds to influence voters. We are left with Letters to the Editor, words of mouth, and grassroots out-of-pocket efforts to offer a compelling reason to vote NO. Hardly a fair playing field.

Remember a yes vote for the Operational Referendum commits us, our children, and grandchildren to a never-ending local tax that has yet to be adequately justified.

Please strongly consider a NO vote on Question One on Feb. 20.

Jim Souder

River Falls