$1.95 million operational referendum on ballot

CLINTONVILLE – After almost three hours of discussion at a special board meeting Jan. 14, the Clintonville Board of Education unanimously agreed to set in motion the process to put a $1.95 million, five-year, non-recurring operational referendum on the ballot for the spring election scheduled for April 7.
The board still needs to approve the official referendum question that will be on the April 7 ballot. It is not guaranteed that the board will be unanimous for that approval, as board member Christopher Hoffmann told the other six board members that they must agree to a strategic planning process for the district, otherwise he will remove his support for the $1.95 million ask by the district.
Leading off the discussion, Nick Curran, director of Business Services with CESA 8, which the district uses for its finances, presented to the board updated financial projections going out five years if district residents passed a $2.25 million, a $1.95 million, or a $1.5 million referendum. These dollar amounts are less than the $3.3 million, $2.95 million, and $2.5 million that were included in a community survey to district residents to gauge their interest in passing a referendum at such dollar amounts. The survey results showed that residents would be more apt to pass a referendum if it were less than $2.5 million.
Curran told the board it needs to decide now on a final referendum amount to ask district residents to approve.
School Board President Glen Drew Lundt asked how the board is supposed to do that.

“I’ve been talking to you guys for over a year,” Curran said. “So, at some point, you as a board have got to come together and become very strategic how you approach your work in preparation for that.”
Curran said he recommended a referendum length of at least three years because the district is facing a $1.2 to $1.5 million project budget deficit.
With Fund 46 being a capital improvements and maintenance account, Curran said one strategy the district could use would be to transfer funds to Fund 46 if a referendum were passed. This would allow for future maintenance projects in the district to be planned for financially. The district would also be able to receive state aid on such funds.
Clintonville Superintendent Troy Kuhn told the board that the district currently budgets for maintenance items on a yearly basis in Fund 10.
From a financial standpoint, Curran said he recommended a $2.25 million referendum over five years.
“I feel that it’s the most fiscally strong option you have here to reduce taxes, stabilize your state aid, maximize your Fund 46 to create future flexibility,” Curran said.
He added that the district is working to save taxpayers a lot of money if the referendum is done correctly and cuts are done in the district.
Board Treasurer Jason Moder said it would be great if the district could get a $2.25 million referendum passed by taxpayers, but recommended the $1.95 referendum. Under a $1.95 million referendum, there would be a projected reduction in taxes of $1.4 million over five years.
Board member Ben Huber said a $1.95 million referendum would probably have a better chance of being approved by taxpayers than a $2.25 million referendum.
“It puts us (district) in a very good position going out forward,” Huber said. “Significant mill rate reductions. Significant tax reductions. Payments on our debt will be reduced. I think this is a win, win, win, win situation.”
Curran said the district has the luxury of decreasing taxes for the district’s taxpayers if a referendum is passed.
Moder said the most important aspect of stability is the education of students in the district.
“It guarantees that money goes toward the education of the kids, while we’re putting buckets (funds) away to cover the other stuff,” Moder said.
Board Vice President Kris Strauman and board member Mark Zachow agreed with trying to get a $1.95 million operational referendum approved.
Board Clerk Klint Barkow asked how much less state aid the district would receive in the $1.95 million referendum versus a $2.25 million referendum.
Curran said it would be around $37,000 less. He added that the amount going to Fund 46 for a $2.25 million referendum would be $5.2 million, and only $3.7 million for a $1.95 million referendum.
Lundt said he was leaning toward the $1.5 million referendum because it probably has the best chance of being approved by taxpayers.
“Whether you choose $1.5 (million) or you choose $2.25 (million), I would tell you the exact same thing, either direction you go, the argument from the community is still going to be the same,” Curran said. “No matter what the number is, the community is still going to want to know we’re still being responsible and we’re spending dollars financially responsibly in a strategic direction we put in place.”
Strauman said the message from the board will be important as to whether the referendum is passed or not.
Curran said the district’s taxes would be lowered even with a referendum passing, but the district cannot control the property values in the district.
“I don’t want to give the illusion that if you vote yes, you’re getting a tax decrease,” Curran said. “I hope that’s the case for everybody, but we can’t control that (property values).”
Hoffmann said he preferred a $1.5 million referendum, with larger dollar amounts in future years, and then have the board cut $400,000 of expenses from the Community Services Fund 80.
“I would be really, really hesitant to make that type of decision tonight,” Kuhn said.
Hoffmann said he was not sure a $1.95 million referendum would have the support of the community.
Huber said if all seven board members would agree on a referendum dollar amount, it would go a long way in gaining the trust of the community.
“Regardless if we went to a tiered approach to gain trust or not, it doesn’t matter, we’re going to have to take steps between now and April, regardless what dollar amount we pick as a board, to show the community that we’re willing to sacrifice things and make those hard decisions and reductions, no matter where it is, and Fund 80 makes the most sense because that does not hurt our aidable dollars,” Moder said.
Moder said residents don’t want to pay more taxes.
“We have to show them that we’re putting our best foot forward,” Moder said. “…We’re thinking with our minds, not with our hearts.”
He added, “We’re going to take some of the other things that people strongly don’t agree with paying for as a taxpayer and we’re going to reduce them. And we’re going to continue to reduce them until it’s not a taxpayer funded thing any longer.”
Hoffmann asked why the district needs a $1.95 million referendum when the budget deficit is projected to be $1.2 million.
Huber said it would allow the district to continue to pay off its debt early, and Barkow said it would allow the district to pay for upcoming maintenance items. Kuhn added that it would allow the district to maintain academic services.
“That is the most important,” Kuhn said. “If you want to compete with the Appletons, Freedoms, the Denmarks, we need to have the staff and the programs, the technology to do that.”
Moder said one of the reasons he is in favor of a $1.95 million referendum is because it would help increase the Fund 46 balance.
“I myself believe it is very important that we withhold a balance in Fund 46 to cover any maintenance or anything like that so we don’t have to worry about cutting 10 teachers because we have to put a roof on the school or the boiler system fails,” Moder said. “…That is setting us up so we do not jeopardize the education of the kids.”
Hoffmann said that in the past year the board has discussed short, medium, and long-range planning, and the board has done nothing to continue that discussion.
“I feel that if I hop on board and we go with a $1.9 (million referendum amount), we’re never going to readdress that situation and we’re never going to move forward. For that, I feel that I’m taking this stand to hold everybody up to accountability to follow through (with what) we promised you and all of this community three months ago.”
Huber asked Hoffmann if he preferred that a referendum fail because the district doesn’t have a unanimous board. Hoffmann countered by asking Huber if he preferred a referendum to fail because the district does not have mid and a long-term strategic planning.