On Dec. 11, the River Falls School Board unanimously passed a set of resolutions that will bring two referendum questions to district voters on Feb. 20, 2024. One question will pertain to operating …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
On Dec. 11, the River Falls School Board unanimously passed a set of resolutions that will bring two referendum questions to district voters on Feb. 20, 2024. One question will pertain to operating costs in the district; the other will address facilities upgrades and maintenance.
Superintendent Jamie Benson gave a presentation to the board, outlining the reasons behind the two questions.
For background, he reported the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) awarded the district four stars for academic performance on its latest annual report card. In a City of River Falls 2023 resident survey, 89% of respondents rated SDRF as good or excellent in providing K-12 education. In a school district survey in September, “an astonishing 100% of parents” rated an SDRF education either good or excellent, Benson shared.
“So we’re looking to preserve the good things that we have here, but we’re faced with some challenges,” Benson said.
He lauded the district’s dedication to providing students opportunities in the school musical, community education, character education, marching band, athletics, clubs, leadership, community service, arts, Kids Club, FFA, summer school and vocational training.
“These are the kind of things, when it comes to providing those opportunities, we’re at a crossroads and we’re going to have to ask our community for support through a referendum,” Benson said.
While the district faces many challenges each year, such as attracting and retaining high quality staff, student mental health, removing students’ demographic achievement barriers, politics and social media misinformation, a big challenge is the formula the state uses for funding school districts, which was put into place in 1993.
The funding formula creates a cap and a limit on the amount of revenue schools receive to operate.
“Frankly, inflation is outpacing our revenue increases,” Benson said.
Eighty percent of school districts in Wisconsin have had to go to an operational referendum, but River Falls is not one of them. Since 2009, per pupil revenues lag inflation by more than $3,200 for the River Falls School District.
The two separate questions that will appear before voters Feb. 20 are:
Question 1: Authorization to exceed the state imposed revenue cap limit for day-to-day operational expenses.
Question 2: Allows a district to issue a bond which loans us money (similar to a home mortgage) for capital/facility improvements.
The operational deficit projection shows a $1 million deficit in 2024-25, a $2 million deficit in 2025-26, and a $3 million deficit in 2026-27.
Operational tax impact:
As for the facilities referendum, several buildings in the district are 50 years old and need ongoing maintenance and improvements not funded in the annual budget. The insufficient annual operating budget does not allow the district to meet all facility needs, Benson said. Some facility items were not financed in previous referenda, as items were prioritized.
Some items taken care of during past referenda include Meyer Middle School science lab and RFHS vocational/shop upgrades, additional classrooms at the elementary schools, outfitting the Academy building for the River Falls Public Montessori School, improving the MMS library, adding flex spaces, and general HVAC, electrical and maintenance items.
The $28 million facility bond referendum question can be broken down like this:
“I want to be clear that this is a multi-purpose space at the high school,” Benson said. “It is not, I repeat, it is not a fieldhouse. It’s a practical and reasonable amount of space, not a comprehensive indoor stadium by any means.”
The estimated property tax impact for the facility referendum question is $58.50 per $100,000 of assessed property value per year for the length of the bond.
As Benson closed his presentation, board member Alan Tuchtenhagen offered his thoughts.
“This is like Dorothy and the ruby slippers,” Tuchtenhagen said. “I mean, we’ve always had the potential to do this, we just never have gone out and asked the voters for an increase in operating referendum.”
He wondered if the district should have asked the voters to help with operating costs sooner. He said the board has always resisted asking voters to raise the tax levy until now.
“We’ve been going along, we’re one of the lowest in terms of per student aid in the state, so we need to do this,” he said. “This is part of my motivator and I’m really wondering in hindsight if maybe we shouldn’t have asked earlier.”
No matter what, the board will balance the budget, he said. If voters say no to the operating referendum. “then we will balance the budget by making cuts and other kinds of things. That was all implied in the survey.”
He also made clear the reason the board is voting on the referendum questions, to bring them to the voters, is because of feedback received in the community survey. That exact feedback is why the board is not pursuing a sports stadium: there wasn’t enough community support to back it.
Tuchtenhagen also highlighted the sound fiscal management of the district, which pays ahead on its bonds, renegotiates bonds down, keeps a healthy fund balance for emergencies and balances its budget each year.
“We’re doing our job, and part of our job is to ask the voters when there is a need, are you willing to go this extra distance or not,” Tuchtenhagen said. “I think ethically, professionally, responsibly, it’s our obligation to ask the voters, will you support this or not.”
Board member Alison Page wants the public to realize asking voters to fund operating referenda means shifting a greater balance of paying for schools onto local real estate, not the state as a whole.
“So that’s not right, that’s not the way it should be, but there’s been such a push to hold down the taxes and the people we’ve elected in Madison to say it’s not our problem, it’s the local problem…”
“Our legislators say they have increased funding for education, when in reality they’ve given school districts the ability to go deeper in the pockets of our local tax payers,” board member Bob Casey said. “It’s deceiving. There’s no additional money or very little additional money coming from the state of Wisconsin. It’s just giving local boards, like us, the ability to dig deeper and that’s just not right.”
Tuchtenhagen said he too, now that he’s retired, is on a fixed income and doesn’t like tax increases. However, he feels it’s his duty to help children as it was the duty of generations before him.
“There’s no generation that exists in this country today who has benefited more from the generosity of property tax payers than Baby Boomers, who especially in the 50s and 60s, the massive expansion of schools, increase in property taxes, and the voters, the generations before us, supported that. We were big supporters and it’s our turn.”
Director of Finance & Facilities Lynette Coy confirmed that 75-80% of schools’ operating costs are staff salaries and benefits, which is usually the first place to see cuts. Board member Cindy Holbrook said it’s important for the district to be able to offer job security to staff, who shouldn’t have to wonder if their jobs will be cut.
Benson also reiterated that the district makes facility improvements on an annual basis, but its budget doesn’t allow for the amount of capital funds needed to do it all.
Casey likened it to a household living check to check, that doesn’t have much savings built up (because there hasn’t been enough to set aside), who suddenly needs a new roof. Where is the money going to come from? It would have to be borrowed.
Coy said the state funding formula does not take into consideration what districts will need to maintain their buildings.
“It is strictly for operating costs,” Coy said. “So it’s built on a system that says, ‘these are your funds for operating, and oh, by the way, when you have facility needs, that’s a referendum.”
For more information on the upcoming referendum, visit the school district website and keep an eye out for informational sessions.
