The Rhinelander school district board of educators gave the administration the go-ahead to draw up legal language for a two-question referendum at its regular meeting last Monday.

The first question asks voters to exceed the levy by $1.5 million for non-recurring purposes in each of the following three years. An affirmative on this question will raise the mill rate to $55.55 per $100,000 of property value over a one-year period. The money would be used to keep the district at its current level in buildings, programs and staff (excluding any drawdowns related to decline in student enrollment).

“The goal is to preserve the quality of education we have now, plus have no more losses in jobs,” said board president Deb Durchslag.

The second question asks voters to approve of a one-time bond issue of about $13.7 million to cover building construction costs. Key maintenance projects would be completed; the high school would be repaired and remodeled within the same footprint to squeeze out more classroom and physical education space; and four classrooms would be built at both of the elementary schools – Pelican and Crescent.

The mill rate for the bond issue would increase from $59 to $65 per $100,000 of property value, pending the state’s assessment report released in October. The bond would be for 25 years or less at an interest rate of 5 percent.

If the referendum passed, the district would qualify for state Recovery Act funds that would reduce the taxpayer burden by approximately $2 million, or 30 percent of one-half of the cost of the project.

Pool left out

Whether or not to include upgrades or maintenance to the pool was debated among the board members, including the idea of adding a third question to the referendum. Board member Jody Doro pointed out that to add a third question, or to include pool maintenance in the $1.5 million exceed the levy question, would add $200,000 per year to the referendum request.

Durchslag said, “I’m hearing [from the discussion] that we have to leave out the pool because it sinks our ship each time in a referendum. And adding a third question complicates a referendum.”

The board came to an agreement that, based on the current mood of the community, leaving the pool out of the referendum altogether would be prudent. “If we leave out the pool,” said board member Mary Peterson, “we could have a ‘Save the Pool’ campaign, like they did for the library years ago.”

The bottom line

Board member Judy Conlin said she was uncomfortable with approving a specific dollar amount on the referendum question to exceed the levy by $1.5 million. “We need to talk more about where to draw the line in the sand. We need more discussion,” she said.

District superintendent Roger Erdahl responded, “We can’t go below the $1.5 million point without going to our priority list [for cuts].” [See NNN article for the priority list.]

Durchslag said that the board needed to set a dollar amount. “This is the way this district does business.”

The board passed the motion on the two-question referendum 6 to 1, with Jim Winkler abstaining. Winkler, who was coming off a marathon stint in the three-day Oneida County Fair, said, “I can’t think quickly enough. My brain is too tired.”

The date for holding the referendum remains open. The administration put forth its recommendation for April 6, 2010. Some board members expressed hope the referendum would be held before then. The decision was deferred to a later time.