The (Darlington school) district has two public forums on the referendum planned, but we question if taxpayers are being given a complete picture of its tax impact.
We have a hard time recommending any school referendum in the current economic climate. The local economy is still in a funk, the proposed state budget is mired in controversy and uncertainty, and taxpayers throughout the area are telling us they have no more to give.
The New Glarus referendum before district voters April 5, however, deserves taxpayer support.
There's actually two questions before voters: The first seeks $10 million for additions and renovations at the elementary and middle/high schools, while the second seeks $85,000 in operational costs each year on a recurring basis. The tax impact is estimated at 53 cents per $1,000 of property value for the building project, and an additional 22 cents per $1,000 for the second question.
Voters rejected a $20 million referendum in 2007 for a larger-scale project. But since then, the district has done its homework. It looked at consolidation and decided that wasn't the best route. Last spring, it started looking at space and maintenance needs, honing in on the best two options which were then presented in public meetings. After hearing public input, the district opted for a more conservative option that will still meet the district's needs for the coming decade, according to Superintendent Bill Conzemius. Despite the troubled economic climate, going forward with the renovations now will allow the district to address needed repairs and capitalize on lower interest and construction rates.
And the district has done a good job disseminating information. In addition to holding public meetings, sufficient information to make an informed decision about the referendum is available to taxpayers online.
The Monroe Times has been critical of the New Glarus school board in the past, including its 2007 referendum effort. But this time around, school officials have listened to residents to come up with a workable, reasonable solution for the district.
We can't say the same for Darlington, another area district putting forth a referendum questions on the April 5 ballot. The district seeks just more than $2 million in general obligation bonds to refinance debt and meet its obligation to the state retirement fund. It also seeks a non-recurring referendum to exceed the state revenue cap by $700,000 annually over the next five years.
The district has two public forums on the referendum planned, but we question if taxpayers are being given a complete picture of its tax impact. Information on the district's website has no hard numbers, although Superintendent Denise Wellnitz told the Times in February the referendums will add about $52 per $1,000 of property value per year. That's a relatively small amount, and the same level as under the existing referendum.
But the premise of the second referendum is to simply replace a similar four-year referendum that's retiring this year - "maintain the services and programs being offered to students," according to the district's fact sheet on the referendum.
We're troubled by this justification. Restructuring debt is fiscally sound, but in today's world, maintaining the status quo isn't sufficient for taxpayers.
The New Glarus referendum before district voters April 5, however, deserves taxpayer support.
There's actually two questions before voters: The first seeks $10 million for additions and renovations at the elementary and middle/high schools, while the second seeks $85,000 in operational costs each year on a recurring basis. The tax impact is estimated at 53 cents per $1,000 of property value for the building project, and an additional 22 cents per $1,000 for the second question.
Voters rejected a $20 million referendum in 2007 for a larger-scale project. But since then, the district has done its homework. It looked at consolidation and decided that wasn't the best route. Last spring, it started looking at space and maintenance needs, honing in on the best two options which were then presented in public meetings. After hearing public input, the district opted for a more conservative option that will still meet the district's needs for the coming decade, according to Superintendent Bill Conzemius. Despite the troubled economic climate, going forward with the renovations now will allow the district to address needed repairs and capitalize on lower interest and construction rates.
And the district has done a good job disseminating information. In addition to holding public meetings, sufficient information to make an informed decision about the referendum is available to taxpayers online.
The Monroe Times has been critical of the New Glarus school board in the past, including its 2007 referendum effort. But this time around, school officials have listened to residents to come up with a workable, reasonable solution for the district.
We can't say the same for Darlington, another area district putting forth a referendum questions on the April 5 ballot. The district seeks just more than $2 million in general obligation bonds to refinance debt and meet its obligation to the state retirement fund. It also seeks a non-recurring referendum to exceed the state revenue cap by $700,000 annually over the next five years.
The district has two public forums on the referendum planned, but we question if taxpayers are being given a complete picture of its tax impact. Information on the district's website has no hard numbers, although Superintendent Denise Wellnitz told the Times in February the referendums will add about $52 per $1,000 of property value per year. That's a relatively small amount, and the same level as under the existing referendum.
But the premise of the second referendum is to simply replace a similar four-year referendum that's retiring this year - "maintain the services and programs being offered to students," according to the district's fact sheet on the referendum.
We're troubled by this justification. Restructuring debt is fiscally sound, but in today's world, maintaining the status quo isn't sufficient for taxpayers.
