Unsure about how an idea will go over? Test the waters!

I saw it happen at the June 9th Plan Commission meeting with AJS'  Percheron Square (VK). Their first plan came in with higher density and so AJS requested a PDD. It passed easily. (Sad part was, the more realistic plan--without the underground office parking--was not that much larger than the density already designated for.) Then, shortly after that approval, Community Watch (June 16) reported,

Property owner V.K. Development Corp. has requested a delay in the city's approval process for the proposed development, known as Percheron Square. The Common Council was to consider the site plan at its Tuesday meeting. But Ajay Kuttemperoor, V.K. Development president, asked the council to delay that action because of an inquiry from a prospective buyer of a portion of the site. That could result in changes to the proposal, Kuttemperoor said today.

To me that says, AJS was just testing the waters at the first plan commission meeting.

John McCain's campaign has also been testing the waters. They have been dropping running mate names like Pawlenty, waiting for a reaction. Testing the waters is an easy way to judge public acceptance.

Now the Elmbrook Swim Club is again testing the waters with their additional competition pool proposal.

The swim club in 2004 offered to raise $1 million to add lanes to one high school pool. Last fall the club called for expanding one pool to 10 lanes and pledged to help fund it.

The club must have thought those proposals were accepted fairly well, because now they have upped the ante. (My emphasis)  

But this week club officials presented a new plan to district officials: to have two pools at Brookfield Central.

The existing pool would be reduced in size and made shallower for use by physical education classes, community swim lessons and other uses requiring warmer, shallower water.

A new 25 yard-by-25 meter competition pool would be built immediately south of the existing pool. That deeper, colder pool would be used by physical education classes, the community, the swim club, and would host regional and state tournaments. It would be configured to run eight and 10-lane events.

The expansion does not stop there. 

The existing pools seat 300 spectators. The new pool would have 1,500 bleacher seats — slightly less than available at the Waukesha South Natatorium, a 25-yard-by-30 meter pool.

Just how many area schools have a facility like this? Three, if you include Madison.

[Swim coach] Rose said there are few competition pools in the area: Waukesha South, Schroeder Aquatic Center in Brown Deer and University of Wisconsin Madison’s natatorium.

The coach added that, "Holding meets could generate $25,000 in annual revenue for Elmbrook."

How much is this thing going to cost to build? $6 to $8 million!  Of that, Elmbrook taxpayers would pay around half.

Wow! We get a whopping $25,000 a year in fees and only have to spend $4,000,000* or so? (Yes, that was said tongue in cheek.)

What about the hidden costs? 

The annual costs to operate and maintain two pools are unknown.

Pools and their accompanying shower rooms are expensive to operate. They require lots of water, sewer, gas to heat the water, pool chemicals, electricity to run the filters and pumps, heating costs to heat the pool rooms, and don't forget the custodial costs for cleaning 2 pools and the expanded observation deck.

I took a look at the March 24 budget and although there is not a separate line item for pools, I did note the water usage differences between the high schools and other schools.

I may be all wet here (pun intended), but the high schools have about 36% of all Elmbrook students, but they use 53% of the district's water use: $15,682 for grade school and middle school water charges vs. $17,370 for the high schools. I'm thinking some of that disparity is due to the pool and shower use. (Some of that increase would be because of gym class showering, boiler use, and sports field watering too.)

The sewer bills were higher in the high schools too. $31,547 for lower grades, $31,571 for high school water going down the drain.

Now the swim club is proposing another pool. They are thinking of coming up with part of the purchase price. But who is going to pay for the increased utility costs to heat the room, buy the water, heat the water, filter the water, pay the sewer bill, pay the custodian, pay the chemical bill, pay for the lighting of the room, pay for the maintenance of the pool, and pay the custodians to clean the extra pool?

We, the taxpayers would...after that whopping estimated $25,000 a year revenue was deducted.

I think there is a reason there are really only 2 other area competition pools like this. They are EXPENSIVE! Expensive to build and to operate. Interesting that the coach needed to reach out to Madison to find a 3rd one, and that one was at the university level.

Here is an idea. The Elmbrook Swim Club pays for the entire 2nd competition pool, including operation costs. We leave our original pool alone, so then Elmbrook does not need it for phy. ed. purposes. (The school district could be a good sport and donate the land for the completion pool.) Elmbrook schools can then pay the swim club the fees for use of the competition pool. I think we would be cheaper off?   UPDATE: What was I thinking? Elmbrook should be able to use the competition pool for free because we donated the land. We could let the swim club collect the $25,000/year in revenue from other clubs to help compensate them for their expenditure.

True, the Elmbrook Swim Club is just contemplating this idea at this time, but notice that the size, scope, and cost of their project has increased dramatically in just the past 4 years. Another common phrase comes to mind regarding this completion pool project: The Elmbrook Swim Club thinks we should spend money like water!

If you think Elmbrook taxpayers already spend enough on education and sports, contact the school board about this completion pool idea. 

 

*There was no mention of the actual dollar amount the swim club was going to chip in, plus, our cost of the actual pool could be higher if it goes the route of the BC2 Astroturf project.

Links: 

 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin , Vicki Mckenna

People constantly ask me if I think the referendum will pass. I just answer, I don't know. Truly, I just don't know.

You would think that amid the sub-prime jitters, falling stock market, rising food prices, rising energy prices, and the probability that our state and federal taxes will go up, the public would not be too eager to take on more debt for the next 20 years. But then again, think, may be the key word here.

You would think people would know they cannot keep purchasing things with a credit card until they have thousands of dollars in carried balances. You would think people would know they cannot buy a home on an a.r.m. and not expect to pay more per month at some point.

You would think people would know that air conditioning 2 entire schools--including 2 acres of gymnasium space--in an era of rising energy costs, would raise a red flag with voters.

I gave up trying to predict what people will think or do a long time ago. By day's end tomorrow, we will find out what Elmbrook voters thought.

A reader sent me this link, urging that voters take a look at the Job Market, 2009 before they vote. It made me think. 

Brookfield Academy's $12.5 mil high school, we can too

Correction: C G SCHMIDT Cost summary of Referendum

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS AND AIR CONDITIONING--did you know they are air conditioning even the gyms?

Tomorrow is the big day, Millions of Dollars Tuesday!

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Frequently Asked Questions  Not to be missed!

Cost Breakdowns of Type of Work (cost per square footage)

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

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

Key Academic Benefits: click on that subject heading.

Tax Calculator  

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

Still no link to the 2008 Election Edition of the Link. Hope you got your copy.

Former 2007 Referendum Facilities Facts Sheets (Still a good read)

 

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

Jessica Rasmussen reports, "The Elmbrook superintendent will see $5,280 added to his salary for the 2008-2009 school year.", so that answers my question from last week, Will Gibson get hefty raise this year?

"The School Board voted, 5-1, to approve the 4 percent package increase, which will bump Superintendent Matt Gibson's salary to $147,510." (Remember that Dr. Gibson's complete wage and benefit package is substantially more than just salary.)

True to form, Patrick Murphy did not support that raise. I'm going to miss Patrick's presence on the board. " 'I think these wages are excessive,' Murphy said, adding that the administration should show restraint in light of a possible $62.2 million construction project, which will go to referendum April 1."

I agree. It is rather difficult to swallow the Superintendent telling us how dire the need is for improved facilities in our schools or how we face $1.5 to $2million dollars in budget cuts due to declining enrollments and then see him accept a raise like this one.

But Murphy's opinion was not shared by all. Some "viewed the increase as both deserved and as inconsequential in the district's budget."

The $5,280 raise is 3.58%, below the QEO of 3.8% (which I think only applies to teachers).  Often a person in Dr. Gibson's leadership position will make a gesture to refuse the raise or at least make an offer to donate it back to some cause connected with the schools. I have not heard any report of that.

I don't know how deserved the raise was however, since Gibson's contact was only extended by one year, through June 30, 2010--one year beyond the coming school year. If the board had not extended it, his contract expiration date would have ended at the end of June 2009.

.

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)

Still no link to the 2008 Election Edition of the Link. Hope you got your copy.

The countdown continues: Just 13 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

While on tour at Central on March 4th, our tour guides Principal LaBonte and Shawn from the maintenance department repeatedly emphasized that they were keeping as much that was usable as possible for this referendum. That was good news.

They directed our attention to the terrazzo floors, which will remain. Great, I thought. Terrazzo is a durable, but expensive flooring choice. I am glad they do not need to rip them out and replace with some sort of inferior tile.

But as we were walking down the halls, they mentioned they were going to replace all the lockers.  

The other people on the tour with me seemed pretty pro referendum, but even they questioned the en-mass replacement of lockers as being rather wasteful. The lockers looked fine to us. (This is not a criticism of the maintenance department. Maintenance department heads take their marching orders from the powers that be.)

Shawn explained that the problem with the lockers was that many of the handles or latch devices were broken. Replacement parts were no longer available, and so the district opted to replace them all.

I did not note any lockers without locks on them on our short tour route, but that is not to say that they don't exist. But do they really need to replace them ALL? It seems this is more of a maintenance issue than a referendum issue.

Are there any alternatives to replacing them all?

Sure there are.

Sometimes when you have a quantity of items needing a specific part, there are companies that will custom make the replacement parts you need. That is one option. It may cost a bit to get the part made, but if it is one you potentially need 100s of, it is the less expensive and easier method of dealing with the lack of replacement parts. Plus, you have to consider the labor involved in removing an entire locker and installing a new locker into your price comparison equation.

Option 2 would be something that anyone could do. Simply replace a bank of lockers with a new style and then use the locking devices and locker parts from those removed as replacement parts for the others in service.

Many school districts use this simple methodology for repairing/replacing ceiling tiles, light fixtures, cabinets, lockers, etc.

Say you have a water damaged ceiling in a room. The acoustical tiles are no longer available. If you have all one style ceiling tile in your school, frugal maintenance departments will remove the tiles from the leak-damaged room and save the usable tiles for future repairs. Now you replace the tiles in the water damaged room with something new. Next time there is need for tiles to repair the ceilings in the remaining school rooms and hallways, you have a stock from which to obtain the exact matching old tiles!

The same strategy could work for the lockers.

I would start by taking out the bank of lockers opposite the library at Central. This location for lockers interferes with the stairway traffic anyway, and since the school is not at maximum enrollment, you probably do not need any lockers there at all. (The wall would need to be repaired.)

Now you have around 25 lockers to use for replacement parts for your existing lockers. Depending on how many are needing new latches, you may have to replace other banks of them as well. Again, I would remove the ones from the most congested areas first and only replace them with new lockers if enrollments again are up to the all time highs.

So, just how much would a en-mass locker replacement cost if the referendum passes?

They don't know.

Very little of this referendum planning has gone that far. New items and space needs to be bid and spec'd out. That fact was repeated frequently on the tour whether it was in reference to the new windows, new uni-vent heaters/air conditioners, new lockers, new rooms, whatever.

This is my cost guesstimate. It is only a guesstimate because I really don't know and our tour guides did not know either.

If our highest enrollments were 1,646 at Central, 1,479 at East for a total of 3,126 students in 1982 and last year we were at 1413 Central and 1391 at East, it would seem they would not need every single locker. (Information: The Corridor Report: How wide will they be? We Don't Know.)

For very easy math, let's just say we wish to replace 3,000 lockers total. 

I looked a bit on the internet for new locker prices. They ranged from around $100 to $175 each--the lower price for larger quantities. So for the lockers alone, we are looking at at least $300,000 for the lockers themselves, not including labor to remove the old and install the new.

I think it is safe to say replacing the lockers could be at least a half million dollar project! 

Contrast this $1/2 million price tag with removing a bank of lockers to use for parts or purchasing and installing a replacement bank. If the district truly wanted to replace them all, they could nibble away at a section every summer.

$500,000 or more may not seem to be a lot of money to the school district, but it is to me. I usually think, where else could that money be better spent? I would think significant improvements to the chemistry room could a better place to spend that kind of cash than for just new lockers.

Like our roof replacement schedules, many other items in our schools should be on a routine maintenance or replacement schedule. I do believe the district when they say they do not have the money in the capital improvement budget to do this type of maintenance. The maintenance directors can only do so much with the budget they have. Whether that is because Elmbrook chooses to allocate monies elsewhere or if they truly do not have the funds, I don't know. Elmbrook will not stop coming at us with referendums that include maintenance items though, until we manage our facilities better, and that is one reason I favor increasing the yearly capital improvement budget.

 

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

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Referendum ad raises questions

The countdown continues: Just 15 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO!

 

 

I spent last night going through all of my past Practically Speaking postings from the last referendum up until Easter 2007. I gave them a quick read and made the appropriate subject tags.

Many of them are still very pertinent this year. I hope to make a master list with titles, but if that never materializes, you can just click on the High School tag or Elmbrook to the right and they all should come up.

Brookfield7's postings can be found by typing in High School in the search box at the top of that blog. (I will try to list those too if time allows.)

One tidbit I found of interest was about Matt Gibson's raise from last year, just before the referendum. Last year he got an extra $4,881.

Uncle Matt wants you, Even if it means we have to build bigger schools:

Why would the administration, led by Matt Gibson, want to recruit every possible student if this means greater expenses for district taxpayers and shortages of classroom space?

One reader commented, “He’s trying to build a for profit empire out of our wallet! The bigger the empire; the bigger the check.”

Well big empires justify big raises, and we just gave Dr. Matt Gibson a hefty one of $4,881 for a total of $142,230 this year.

 

I wonder what it will be this year? 

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 20 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

 

 

Recently, a reader of my other blog, Brookfield7, sent me this comment anonymously regarding my "cynical view on today's children" and my "gluttonous greedy miser who can't spare money on the children who need it" attitude. I would encourage you to read it and see if you agree. 

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Corridor Report: How wide will they be? We Don't Know!":

"guess wut...
schools get old and run down... its not like since that peak year... things have gotten better. You simply attack one thing but yes, the school is crowded and most of the students, although irritated at the bottleneck that occurs at every staircase but can live with it... You need to consider everything else that is of poor quality in the school. recently due to the freeze and melting of the ice, the orchestra/choir room has sustained considerable damage due to leaking in the roof. There are priceless instruments in that room, all suspecting of water damage. With a cynical view on todays children as you seem to have, why not cut the music program. why not cut out all extracurriculars while your at it. The fact of the matter is... all things come to an end, and BC is reaching its end. Nearly every school in southeastern wisco is better than BC/BE and yet, you still argue that its fine??? If you don't care for our nations future, then fine, be a gluttonous greedy miser who can't spare money on the children who need it."

Well, someone is not happy, but they are not very well informed.

First, the orchestra/choir room. I saw that room while on the Brookfield Central tour both last year and this year, and yes, the roof leaks. There was a woman in the room, I think she was the music teacher? She stated the roof leaks every year. She had a line of large, gray, plastic garbage cans under the ceiling beam where the leaks occur. The double basses were stored in a rolling rack near that area.

Now I know roof maintenance is a very expensive piece of the yearly operations budget. Most commercial facilities operate on a 20 year repair/replacement schedule cycle for their flat roofs.

Schools usually do a section every summer. In a 20 year time span, the whole roof then will be replaced. 

Principal LaBonte explained that there is an expansion joint above the structural beam. When there are freeze/thaw cycles, that joint leaks.

I think I asked about the 20 year roof replacement cycle, or he just volunteered the information, that with or without the referendum, that roof will be replaced this coming summer.

I hope they use that newer rubber membrane technology--at the very least for that problem area of the expansion joint. It is supposed to work well. (We have it on 2 flat areas on our home. So far so good--it is 13 years old.)

Want to know what roof area was replaced last year? That would be the gym roof. I don't know if it had a history of leaks. If the orchestra room was such a dire need, either the roof replacement schedule could have been re-prioritized, or the contingency fund used to make necessary repairs.

As for the Gluttonous greedy miser charge...

Often people forget that our community is still paying off the last referendum. 

If the commenter would have read TIME IN THE DISTRICT = NO VOTE OR WHY PAY AS YOU GO MAKES CENTS
they would have known that although I am frugal, I am not a greedy miser.

In this posting I proposed raising the Capital Improvement budget by $1,000,000/year. To me, this is the only way to keep our facilities in better condition and make improvements every year.

I am also on the record as stating I think we place too much emphasis on athletics and not enough on academics. I consider music to be an important part of a child's education. 

In fact, I think that idea would be a good slogan for this year's $98 million dollar referendum (referendum + bonding) that spends far too much on new athletic space--97% of new construction is for the gym:

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO! 

 

 

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 22 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

 

 

 

FYI: If you want to look up last year's referendum fact sheets, they are still available.
  

 

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

Win some, lose some.

High School referendum fails, Ziegler and Allgier are our new school board members, Fire Stations will be moved to Calhoun Road.

Click here for referendum totals so far.

I think this reader hit it on the head:

'I predicted, or maybe just suggested, about 3-weeks
ago a 60/40 "no" vote. I'm not psychic, just a
seasoned referendum observer. Consider this the
Districts first volley.

I'm just not sure where they
might go from $110 million? There are two
possibilities; one, another shot at the same proposal
coming possibly in November. We will see in the next
week how they respond. Second, a slightly scaled down
version which, if successful, would be followed by a
proposal to get the remainder of the original project
($110 million).

Now begins the real push to get the
proposal passed. This is when the District counts on
wearing down the public and counting on voter apathy
to bring this thing in. This obnoxious proposal is far
from dead. Gibson will be philosophical, the board
will be disappointed (after all their hard work?), and
the "yes" people will claim the sky will be falling on
Elmbrook.

Let's just try and figure out the best way
to address the issues without breaking the backs of
the taxpayers."

This is the way of referendums. Usually third time is a charm. I doubt very much that the next proposal will be much better than this one was, and in the meantime they will continue to let the buildings slide.

It would be a whole lot easier to influence change if we were organized better. Would you please contact me if you would like to be part of a group geared toward a more responsible approach to our schools? (Just click EMAIL KYLE at the top of this posting next to my photo.

Thanks for voting NO,

Kyle

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"

According to the Elmbrook LINK, “There has never been a greater need than now to recruit all possible resident-student enrollments into our schools.”

I heard that only 30% of the households in the district have school age children. Of that potential pool of students, 25% of them DO NOT attend Elmbrook schools. (This 25% either attend private or other district schools or are homeschooled. If taxes keep rising, it will be more difficult for parents to choose any option other than Elmbrook schools.)

Elmbrook has about 7,000 students in the system now or 75% of the total school age population. I figured that meant the remaining 25% of non-attendees would number about 2333. Elmbrook wants them all to come into the fold.

What is the reasoning behind Elmbrook recruiting each and every one of these potential students? Is it because we think we do such an outstanding job of educating them? Not according to The LINK. It went on to state that we need the higher enrollment totals to add to our numbers, which boosts our state revenue cap. That means we get more money from the state the higher our enrollments are. It is to avoid $1.5M yearly budget shortfalls.

If you recall, that was one of the reasons the majority of the board implemented our 4K program. Elmbrook wanted those new students to give the budget a boost.

So how much do we get for this lucrative business of enrolling a student in our system?

In 2004-05, Elmbrook received $1,701 per full time student. The state average was $5,500. There are some other Federal and Local revenue gains, but seeing as the total cost paid by property tax (us) was $9,480/student ($5,339 above state average) I fail to see how recruiting extra students helps us. (The total cost per student that year was $12,768, which was $1,724 above state average.)

What about those open enrollment transfer students from other school districts or the Chapter 220 students? The district always makes it seem like those students are money makers. In 2005 we had 397 open enrollment students and 317 Chapter 220. How much money does our district receive for these “money maker” students?

Open enrollment students gave us $5,500/student, but the total cost per student is $12,768. That is a $7,268 shortfall the taxpayers must make up*. (There may be some other funding here, but it would not be that much.)

Chapter 220 students bring a better dowry. We receive about $10,000/Chapter 220 student. Remember though, these students tend to be heavy users of special services such as social workers and vice principals for discipline issues. Taxpayers still must make up for the $2,768 shortfall between reimbursement and actual per student cost.

Much like the shop-a-holic racking up credit card debt to gain the free points or offers on their credit card, this kind of enrollment does not make any sense to me. Enrolling a student to gain $1,701, $5,500, or even $10,000 when the actual cost is $12,768 is purely Lucy Ricardo math. (I don’t mean to be picking on Lucy today, but it follows the same logic.)

Now let’s discuss the real cost of recruiting every last student we possibly can from within or without the district.

We have this unprecedented $108.8 million dollar referendum before us. One of the main reasons for it is that the district tells us we are short of classroom space—even though enrollments are declining. Current high school enrollment is 1,413 at Central, and 1,391 at East. (Projections show this number will decrease about 10% by 2011.)
In 2005, JSOnline reported, “At Wednesday's meeting, committee members expressed concerns that continuing to allow an unlimited number of non-resident students into the district would crowd the new high schools.
‘Then we would have to look at whether we need to build bigger high schools to accommodate all the open enrollment students,’ board member Steve Schwei said.”

The total non resident number of students this year is 724. 724? That is more than Swanson or Brookfield El’s maximum capacity. It is also greater than 10% of our own resident student enrollment.

Translating that to the high schools, in a ratio of high school enrollment compared to total enrollment, I estimated that non-resident high school students number about 265. Dividing that between Central and East, and you have 135 for Central and 130 at East. Divide that by 4 grade levels, and it comes to 30 - 34 students per grade level. 30 – 34 students = one classroom (at least).

Some English classes are at 30 students; the chemistry lab had 24 desks and lab stations. If you have a class full every hour, you also need a TEACHER for these students, EVERY HOUR. One reason we are short of classroom space at the high school level is that we have these non resident students. How many excess teachers do we have because of non-resident student enrollments?

Why would the administration, led by Matt Gibson, want to recruit every possible student if this means greater expenses for district taxpayers and shortages of classroom space?

One reader commented, “He’s trying to build a for profit empire out of our wallet! The bigger the empire; the bigger the check.”

Well big empires justify big raises, and we just gave Dr. Matt Gibson a hefty one of $4,881 for a total of $142,230 this year.

I don’t think that is the districts main reason for recruitment. I think it is more the Lucy Ricardo math factor. They just see what they are getting and forget what it costs. Of course it is easier for them to ignore costs when it is not coming out of their pocket.

IT IS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! Go vote!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

*2008 note: The Non-resident student cost is still not known. Much depends on if there was a true vacancy or if that student's presence required splitting the class into two new classes.  

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

(Please note, this posting was written in response to the 2007 referendum. The concept of better maintenance, however, is just as pertinent today.)


Have you noticed the definite correlation between long time residents = a NO vote, and newer residents = a YES vote? There are exceptions of course, but it is generally true. I would also say the YES vote group does not understand the usual sequence of referendums. Lets just say, third time’s a charm, but sometimes it takes five referendum attempts, such as the Swanson reopening before the public thinks the district got it right..

Those of us who have lived here a while know the reason why. Those of you who are newcomers probably wonder why more people aren’t supporting your cause.

Maybe this will help.

The pro-referendum sentiment is that it is up to every generation to support the schools. A generation is usually considered to be 20 years. I have lived here 21. I added up the various referendums people in the 20 year residency range have already paid for: $29,275,000. If you add in the debt servicing, it is probably close to $50,000,000 that residents of 20 years have or are still paying out on.

Have I already “paid my dues”? What about the retired Elmbrook residents who have lived here for 30, 40, or 50 years? Can you see why we are not too enthusiastic about an additional $188 million by the time all the interest is added on?

Another selling point this administration and pro referendum group is touting is that this $108.8 Million referendum is a 30 - 50 year solution. I ask that you look at the referendums from the last 42 years and look how the monies have been spent and how the plans have changed in that time.

Long time residents have seen many schools come and go over the years. They have seen and funded schools built at the wrong time and then paid for them to be altered again to suit a different grade level. The administration has moved its location from North Ave. to Lilly and Hope. Burleigh was a middle school, now is a grade school. They have seen district property and facilities sold for a song.

Wisconsin Hills, built as a middle school but not really needed, soon became an elementary school, which caused the closing of several neighborhood schools. The Swanson/Wisconsin Hills referendum funded reopening Swanson and switching Wisconsin Hills back to a middle school. The 3 story addition to Central is slated to be razed. I believe it is less than 30 years old.

Elmbrook’s facilities were expensive to build. Razing and rebuilding is even more costly. We must change our course from wasteful razing and rebuilding of our facilities and move to a more sustainable plan. We cannot continue taxing at such high amounts for referendum after referendum.

Matt Gibson says we cannot afford to maintain our facilities to the extent they need. I say we cannot afford not to. His idea of “maintaining” is to do the least and then just go to the taxpayers repeatedly to replace what we have already paid for. Remember, we are still paying for the replacement of 2 existing elementary schools and only just finished paying for Swanson/Wisc. Hills.

It is far more reasonable to spend an extra $1 million a year and make some of the repairs and capital improvements our buildings need than to be taxed for $10 million a year for this referendum and bonding for the next 20 years.

By increasing the capital improvement budget 100%, in a short time, we could put in a new science lab, improve the library or remodel bathrooms. The cost would be about .13 / $1,000. The yearly cost for that fabled average home would be $43.55. There are no added interest charges. It is the best bang for the buck for the taxpayers.

Breaking projects down to smaller increments is also beneficial to the students. Because these projects can be done over the summer, there is less disruption to the students during the school year.

Nicolet has adopted a pay as you go plan as has New Berlin. Nicolet started with a small referendum 20 years ago, and has added another $5 to $7 million in yearly $500,000 upgrades. New Berlin does theirs with just $100,000 a year.

Look at the debt history for our school district. The referendum costs keep going up every time.

Taxpayers cannot keep this up. It would be far better to do better upkeep!

ONLY 1 MORE DAY UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY, April 3, 2007!

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna