Although I am not in favor of the present $62.2+ million dollar referendum, I was pleased to see this practical solution for creating larger classrooms while on the Central High School Tour this week. They are proposing removing the approx. 8' x 9' office cubes from some of the classrooms.

(These would be those classrooms you visit at the top of the stairs at the beginning of the tour--same ones that last year were mentioned as only having 3 working outlets: The Tale of Three Outlets)

I have no idea what they were thinking when this school addition was built--like so many "new" ideas, it seemed like a good idea at the time? But the office within the classroom really plays havoc with the arrangement of student desks.

You can see in the first photo the front of the classroom with the green board. The 15 student desks are arranged perpendicular to the front wall.

The second photo shows the teacher's office cube in the back. The
remaining 15 desks are arranged perpendicular to the back wall.

Each set of 15 desks face each other.

Now, I am not claiming credit for this idea. I think the referendum committee just saw what I saw, a relatively easy and inexpensive way to expand and improve the layout of some classrooms.
 

I had suggested removing those small teacher's office cubes last year in a posting : Post WW2 era buildings = modern construction: 

One “need” on the referendum wish list is larger classrooms. Classrooms at Central are not large enough. Solution: knock out the teacher’s office cube inside the classroom and suddenly the room meets No Child Left Behind standards. Presently we are told the rooms are 750 sq. ft. If the office were removed the room would exceed 825 sq. ft. The layout of the room would improve too. The concept of a teacher having their own classroom is necessary at elementary schools but not at the high school level. This work can all be done “in house” with maintenance staff during the summer as other districts do.

By removing the office cube, the layout of desks improves and the number of potential students per room could increase--if needed. The teacher would be moved to a department office room that would have a private area for student/teacher meetings. Moving the teacher's office out of the classroom also helps when the classroom is used by another teacher. Where this departmental teacher's office area will be is not know at this time Principal LaBonte told us.

I don't believe we need a $102 million referendum ($62.2 million dollar + interest) to make this type of improvement.  Like School Board Member Patrick Murphy, I favor increasing our Capital Improvement budget--I suggested  by $1million a year, last year Murphy suggested by $2 million.

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

(I am sorry, I still cannot access it from the 2008 referendum Table of Contents page.)

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

 

The countdown begins: Just 25 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

Yikes! Gas prices rise 14 cents overnight!.

Technology can be a wonderful thing. Two weeks ago, we had that snowstorm warning on Sunday and the weatherman cautioned people to stay home. We were rather torn as to what to do, but since we just had 2 weather related fender benders that week, we chickened out and stayed home. The great thing was though, we did not need to miss our church service.

Thanks to the internet and some tech. minded members, we sat around the computer screen and watched the live sermon  from the comfort of our home! Not quite as good as being there, but we did virtually see and hear the LIVE service. I can also go back to the church website and review a sermon if I want to.

This technology has hit our beloved Yellowstone National Park too. We are what is kindly referred to as Geyser Geeks*--people who love to sit and observe geysers. If all goes according to plan, this summer we'll make our 5th pilgrimage to geyserland in 7 years.

To help us bide our time until the day we set foot on the Upper Geyser Basin, we now have the option of watching some of the geysers LIVE on the park's newly installed geysercam. Just this afternoon we watched Old Faithful and Plume go off. Pretty terrific.

As time goes on, I believe we will see more and more of this type of LIVE broadcast technology. It will enable people to "attend" events from the comfort of their own homes.

Currently, our Elmbrook School District is proposing a $62.2 million dollar high school referendum. The District states this is needed to solve our future facility needs. But I believe, because of technological advances, we can implement this type of live, virtual broadcast technology in our schools and thereby reduce our classroom space needs.

Virtual live broadcast could be used for some classes for all students, and virtual technology could also be used for all classes for some students. Either way, virtual education reduces the burden on classrooms. It also reduces the need for having a teacher for every class.

Virtual, live broadcast and virtual school should be looked at BEFORE we commit to 20 years of higher taxes.

*The official geyser watchers are called Geyser Gazers.

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

.

The countdown begins: Just 29 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

Be sure to read Representative Rich Zipperer's Legislative Update: Right to Bear Arms, Tax Relief, Ending Sanctuary Cities, Banning Partial Birth Abortion, and Virtual Charter Schools.
 

 

When I read the Community Watch posting, Board considers change in Open Enrollment* headline, I thought, at last they are starting to "get it".  (*Sorry, this is not a perm. link)

I thought the posting was going to state that the board would be reducing the number of non-resident students. I was half right, but the posting was not exactly what I expected.

Certain board members, Sylla and Schwei, are actually proposing that the number of non-resident students increase instead of decrease!  Elmbrook's current policy is to give preference to Open Enrollment students' siblings but not to guarantee siblings a place in Elmbrook schools if no open seats exist.

According to the posting, "Cheri Sylla said the lack of open seats hurts some nonresident families who have sent all of their children to Elmbrook high schools." 

I have to ask, what about the hurt to Elmbrook taxpayers? Remember, Elmbrook taxpayers must pay the difference between the state reimbursement of about $5,500*/Open Enrollment student and the real cost per student in the Elmbrook School District of about $13,000! That means for each Open Enrollment student, Elmbrook taxpayers must kick in around $7,500. (*The exact reimbursement figure of $5,435 for 2005 was supplied to me by Bob Borch last spring.) And let's not forget that one of the reasons we are looking at a high school referendum is because of "crowding".

Steve Schwei, always one eager to increase enrollments at any cost to Elmbrook taxpayers--even if that means building more schools, dismissed the effect of Cheri's request.  Not because there are not many siblings who would want to attend Elmbrook schools, but because "most siblings enter during elementary school". Most siblings are already IN OUR SYSTEM!

Thankfully, not all of our board is supporting this change. Board President Meg Wartman seemed wary of making a change that could increase the crowding at the high school level.

Tom Gehl did not support the sibling guaranteed enrollment. Patrick Murphy and Glen Allgaier wondered about the expense of making this change and the crowding issue. 

The exact number of proposed Open Enrollment students would be 46 for this year. The posting stated this was a "downward trend". According to some correspondence with Bob Borch from 2007, the figure from 2006 was 80 new students.

Keep in mind that 46 is not the total number of Open Enrollment nonresident students in Elmbrook, it is just the additional new students for the year. The total number of nonresident Open Enrollment students in 2007 was 430. (FYI we also had and additional 294 nonresident Chapter 220 students last year too.) 

The whole nonresident student issue is a very important one to the Elmbrook School District and the Elmbrook taxpayers. A total of around 720 non Elmbrook School District students is not to be dismissed lightly. These students crowd our schools and use our support services. Student population is one of the driving forces for our high school needs.

Contact the board and let them know how you feel about nonresident students in Elmbrook. They could vote on this Jan. 22.

Links: Betterbrookfield, Brookfield7

 

Although I was pleased with the results from last night, it is clear from some comments at yesterday's common council meeting that those who were pro referendum really do not get it why we were not.

Last night I attended Brookfield's Common Council meeting and spoke up for keeping our fire stations where they were. I also said we were grossly understaffed and would need more stations in the future. Their new plan will not allow for additional stations to be added to serve the southeast side. Interestingly, for all the rhetoric over safety at the high schools, not one parent nor Dr. Gibson showed up to plea for keeping East's 1 minute EMS/fire response time to the high school.

Later during the discussion, Alderman Reddin slammed me for speaking out for the safety of East High School students when, according to him, I had spent the last 2 months saying we should do nothing for the high schools. That is his opinion and he is entitled to it. (You may watch the meeting to hear his exact comments on the cable broadcast. Alderman Nelson made a similar comment.)

I have a thick skin, I know not everyone agrees with me. BUT they obviously have not understood my position on the high schools at all.

I fear the board and administration will not "get it" either. Those who wanted this referendum will chalk up the NO vote to mean we are all against education. I don't believe that is true at all. We are against wasteful spending and poor stewardship. There is a BIG difference between the two.

PLEASE CONTACT ME IF YOU ARE AGAINST WASTEFUL SPENDING AND POOR STEWARDSHIP TOO. WE MUST BE BETTER ORGANIZED FOR THE NEXT REFERENDUM.

WE ALSO NEED TO STAY INVOLVED WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD AND ATTEND THE BUDGET HEARING & ANNUAL MEETING ON JUNE 25TH 7PM, (location to be determined). LAST YEAR THEY APPROVED THE $2.5 MILLION DEFEASANCE, WE NEED TO ALL BE THERE!


WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

One of my regular readers sent me this today. I think if fits in well with the latest vote yes postcard.

"Today's the big day! Will our community whimsically vote to add more debt to our already outstanding sum of $2,798.66* for every man, woman and child in the Elmbrook school district? (YIKES) Or will we Just Say No!"

The way you vote for this referendum today will speak volumes to your children about what is important in life.

If you are trying to teach them to be fiscally responsible, manage their money well, and live within their means, a Yes vote will not reinforce those ideas.

If you are trying to teach them to be good stewards, a Yes vote will reinforce the idea that you don't need to be responsible with "the little" to be entrusted with more.

If you are trying to teach your children to be considerate of others and respect their elders, a Yes vote again will not reinforce those ideals. Most seniors already have a hard time deciding on whether to eat or buy prescriptions. This referendum will bring them to tougher decisions.

Will your vote today teach your children to be ruled by wants and emotions and value only the shiny and new or will it teach them to base their decisions on facts and the reality of budgets.

Lastly, IF you had to bring a check to the polling place today, made out for the entire amount of the referendum and dated so that the district could take out their yearly allotment in order to cast a YES vote, would you still vote yes?

Today is MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! Go vote! Besides 2 no votes on the referendums, I am writing in Jon Wolff against Bob Ziegler and Cindy Kilkenny against Glen Allgaier.

Please attend the Public Comment session at Brookfield's City hall tonight at 7:45 pm. This will be your final opportunity to speak out against the moving of 2 fire stations to the west. East High School will lose its 1 minute response time.

Post WW2 era buildings = modern construction

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com


*Source:
Wold Printing Services, Chicago, Il - online muni's
School District of Elmbrook, Waukesha County, Wisconsin Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds, posted 01/20/2005: $9,780,000 bonds w/ maturity 2006-2024
"direct, overlapping and underlying bonded indebtedness per capita: $2,798.66"

This Vote Yes postcard is rather deceptive. It should have included an extra 44 cents. (I added it.) The confusion over the difference in money per day is because of the defeasance.

I did not know there even was such a word as defeasance, until the school district decided they would take an additional $2.5 million from us last year to save us money.

Here are some definitions that might be helpful in understanding all of this.

Defeasance: debt negation without repayment Finance the irrevocable setting aside of assets fro repayment of a debt without actual retirement of the debt, often for tax reasons.

Deception: practice of misleading somebody The practice of deliberately making somebody believe things that are not true.

Desilu: a harebrained plot cooked up by the creators of I Love Lucy Lucy Ricardo math is the reasoning process by which Lucy justifies a faulty fiscal policy in order to finagle what she wants out of Rickey.

We know our school board approved an extra $2.5 million tax bite last year; what was their real motivation to do that?

I cannot say, because there is no way I can know each board member’s reasoning for approving the defeasance.

We can, however, look at the facts surrounding that decision. On an Elmbrook information sheet entitled: DECREASE IN LEVY NEEDS FOR EXTISTING DEBT HELPS OFFSET COST OF HIGH SCHOOL PROJECTS, it states that:

“In 2005, the district finished paying off bonds borrowed for the Swanson and Wisconsin Hills referendum. The taxes needed for the payback of principal and interest on the districts debt would have decreased from $2.9 million to $1.7 million. However, knowing that the district would be borrowing for high school projects at some time in the future, the Board of Education chose to collect $4.2 million, with plans to use the additional funds received to pay back bonds for Brookfield Elementary and Dixon Elementary Schools early, thus saving an estimated $750,000 of interest costs. The 2006 (current year) tax bill of the average home reflects the collection of this $4.2 million dollars.”

According to Bob Borch, that $4.2 million included the defeasance $2.5 million. The $2.5M added $110.55 to the average home’s 2006 property tax bill or .33 / $1,000 of property value. That defeasance money did not go to immediately paying off some of the $11.78 M of principal on Dixon/Brookfield El’s debt, instead it is invested to pay off future callable bonds from 2012 – 2015.

So why did the Elmbrook board and district do this? I can’t say. Some board members may have voted for this because it would save the Elmbrook taxpayers $750,000. This would be the defeasance rational. (Funny though, the majority of the board was not too worried about implementing 4-K, costing us about $750,000 this year.)

The school district refers many times to the $108.8 Million referendum as only increasing our average property tax bill by $191 this year. Board member Tom Gehl made it very clear at a recent board meeting that it still COSTS us the $1.02/$1,000 valuation or $343/year for average Brookfield home.

Since the Elmbrook administration and the Vote Yes group continually use the increase of 50 some cents a day/ $191/year when the real cost is 94 cents/day and $342/year, I have a hard time swallowing this defeasance was done purely for our benefit.

Lastly, we come to the Desilu factor. Possible I Love Lucy show episode scenario? Lucy Ricardo has an existing furrier bill for her mink stole of $1,178.00, but she wants a new mink coat too. She knows Rickey will never agree to an even higher monthly payment, so she cooks up a scheme.

Lucy tells Rickey she must borrow $250.00 from him in order to save $75.00 in interest on her existing furrier bill. She then plans to invest that money for a few years in order to pay it down later.

What she really wants is the very expensive new mink coat. This costs $10,880.00. She knows he will never go for that idea. But she plans that she can tell Rickey he can afford to buy her that coat because their payment will only increase by about $1.15 a day for the first year. (This number is different from ours because the Ricardos must pay for the whole coat, not divide it across everyone in their apartment building.)

Rickey goes along with it because he knows there will be no living with her until she gets her way, not realizing that he just agreed to $945 extra for the next 20 years. We all laugh at the stupidity of poor Rickey.

So there are my 3 scenarios for why our board charged us $2,500,000 extra last year. You decide which one best fits the facts. (I am not laughing.)

P.S. Don’t forget, “And if both questions fail, that home would pay $70 or a decrease of $117.”

ONLY 1 MORE DAY UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com