I admit it. I was surprised when Elmbrook's $62 million dollar referendum passed last April 1st. Usually, it takes 3 referendum tries before one will pass.

In my opinion, Elmbrook's referendum broke ranks and passed on the second try because of 3 reasons. One, it was held during a spring election (lower voter turnout) rather than a November presidential election (higher voter turnout), and two, there was virtually no get out the vote campaign from those opposed. (The third reason I call the secret weapon*, the HSST.  Voters really trusted that HSST committee theoretically made up of both "No and Yes" voters. But this third reason does not apply to this posting.)

Some might say, well, our 2007 referendum failed by a very high percentage. That one was also held in a lower voter turnout spring election too. True, but those opposed to that $108 million 2007 referendum leafleted nearly the entire Elmbrook school district with information as to why it was not a good plan. That did not happen in spring of 2008.

Why wasn't there an organized opposition? Fatigue. Those who worked hard to defeat the 2007 referendum were still too burned out from the last go round to muster much of a fight.

Why am I talking about this water over the dam now? Because Germantown's school board is sending their voters this coming November the very same referendum their residents defeated last April 1st! (H/T Jay Weber @ 7:35 am)

The Journal Sentinel's Mike Nichols wrote, Germantown School Board bucks voters. In that article, he reports how the Germantown board isn't even bothering to reduce and refine their April 2008 $16.5 million referendum. They are just sending the very same thing to voters again this fall.

"School boards do this sort of thing frequently. A referendum fails so they wait a little while, cut a little bit out and try again. And again. And again. Until the "no' voters get tired, or move.

"Germantown is taking it a step further. It's not waiting a little while, and it is not cutting.

Considering there are only so many pro referendum votes out there and there will be a larger voter turnout this November, it is hard to believe it will pass. Evidentially, the same thing happened in Hartford last November and this spring. Voters there defeated the referendum both times.

It seems unlikely Germantown's referendum will pass in November, but there aught to be a law against this!

Taxpayers need and deserve a break from this constant whining for more money from their school districts.

Jay Weber suggested this morning that a state law be made that would prohibit a school district from throwing referendum after referendum at their taxpayer base. A 2 to 3 year moratorium between referendums at least would be welcome. (He has mentioned this before.)

If districts knew they would have to wait for 2 years before they came at their taxpayers again, maybe, just maybe, they would present a more thought out and practical plan. Elmbrook's 2008 plan was not well thought out. For one, they budgeted for HVAC improvements before all of the condition reports were known.

While Elmbrook taxpayers know what they are in for now for the next 20 years (theoretically, we are nearly to the end of our referendums our district tells us), keep in mind many referendums are partially financed through the state. Remember Elmbrook paid for some of Janesville's referendum?

For our referendum, Elmbrook residents must pay “dollar for dollar” of all expenses. But according to Bob Borch, “They (Janesville) accounted for receiving 25% of every dollar needed to pay back the bonds as coming from state aid, this lowering the cost to the taxpayer for their borrowing.”

School districts should be prohibited from bombarding their taxpayers with repeated referendums. It would give taxpayers a breather in between referendum pleas, and that would be a breath of fresh air!

 

* The secret weapon, the HSST, made up of "No and Yes" voters, I think this was the main reason Elmbrook got voters to bite on their 2nd referendum try. Many people cited the reason they voted yes this time was that they trusted the opinion of that group's assessment of our needs. Many voters, for example, did not know they were voting for air conditioning both schools, including the gyms, or that the team started with the premise that new gymnasiums would be included. Members of the 2007 opposition expressed quiet doubts that the 3 No voters included on the HSST team were really No voters.

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna

 

 

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 

 

 

 

 

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.  

(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 

Last weekend, I went on the mechanical tour at both high schools. I saw many things that should have been attended to but did not require a referendum to do. Others were items that in other districts would have just been taken care of within their operations budget, like painting door jambs, etc.

The third category would fall into a capitol improvement project during the summer, such as new chemistry cabinetry and counter tops. Nothing I saw was anything that a bit of diligence and a modest increase in budget could not remedy.

Right now I would like to focus on two problems that were just out and out neglect: a hole in the ceiling and holes in the wall. These problems challenge the Elmbrook LINK statement: “While the schools are well maintained within the scope of annual operating budgets...”

I question this statement because both would have been inexpensive and relatively easy to fix.

The first picture is of the ceiling in the girls locker room at Central’s pool. I think it has been like this since I took a mother and child swim class (my son is now 18). It is an access panel for something. The question is why was the ceiling never re-plastered around the frame? This is not a functional problem, just a cosmetic. I could even repair this one!

But these holes in the electric room are a real problem. They are the remaining sleeves from the abandoned oil tank lines which passed through the electrical room at Central. As you can see from the photo, water is seeping in through these holes and collecting on the electrical room floor.

Now most people’s first reaction is that water and electricity don’t mix. Pity the poor electrician that needs to work on or shut off any circuit breakers in there! That is a problem, but it's not the worst problem. According to new standards, electricians are not supposed to work anything "hot" (live).

No, the real problem here is that the humidity is very high in this closed room, and humidity and electrical contacts don’t mix. High humidity causes the contacts in the circuit breakers to oxidize and corrode. This eventually will cause the breaker to fail. Considering how many breakers are in this vicinity and the expense of changing them out, you would think the district would get after this, or at the very least put in a dehumidifier.

This would be a prime example of a very inexpensive repair that the district is ignoring. It does not require a referendum to fix it, just effort.

We had a similar situation in our home. The underground oil tank lines came in through our basement wall and water leaked in around the pipes. My husband dug down with a shovel from the outside, cleaned up the area, and used hydraulic cement to patch the holes.

Presto. No more leak.

Cost? About $10.00 in cement and a bit of sweat equity. That is all it would cost the district too. If the area above that wall is not accessible, it could be patched from the inside with the cement and epoxy.

There is no reason that the district could not fix this either. They still can and save the circuitry. Any responsible property owner would do so.

So why have they been neglected? Seems to me the district is a strange mix of Slum Lord: do as little as possible, combined with a welfare entitlement mentality: why take care of it; the taxpayers will just buy me a new one.

I’m hard pressed to come up with any other explanation for neglecting these simple repairs.

ONLY 2 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Read Elmbrook paid for some of Janesville's referendum? first.

Is this happening here? "School board & (Janesville) Gazette mislead voters"

In Janesville, the school district knew they were in serious financial trouble but promoted their building referendum anyway. Jim Bahler, a frustrated Janesville resident, told of the boards referendum tunnel vision in a recent letter to the editor of the Gazette “It was three short days after the November elections that will bring four gymnasiums, air conditioning and new science labs to the high schools, that Superintendent Tom Evert announced there would not be enough money to pay for the actual education of students.”

It sounds as if the majority of Janesville voters were unaware of the seriousness of the $1.8 million budget shortfall. “It appears that this impending problem was intentionally ignored so the building referendums could pass”, Jim wrote.

“A few days later, the Gazette (newspaper) editorialized that the public should have read between the lines and seen this coming.” The Gazette posted an Editor’s Note after Jim’s letter: The Gazette reported March 14, 2006: "The district's budget outlook is bleak for 2007-08," and "a projection based on current state law would require another $1.8 million budget cut in 2007-08."

"Our editorial (Gazette) April 13, 2006: 'District residents should realize program and staff cuts likely will get harder in the years ahead.' We quoted then-board President Nancy Sonntag as saying, 'Next year, we're going to be looking at cutting programs.'"

So what happened in Janesville?

Same thing that is happening all over: falling enrollments.

The Rocknetroots, a Janesville area blog reported,
“...budget debates are now over and with further cuts looming down the road for the next budget, its beginning to appear like the successfully passed $70.8 million referendum will hang around the necks of the school board and taxpayers for years to come.”

The Gazette newspaper blames the public for not reading between the lines and seeing this coming. The Rocknetroots says that April 13th of 2006 “was the last time the taxpayers saw any major article about the impending budget cuts” until the referendum vote in Nov. of 2006.

Rocknetroots also notes that on Sept. 26, 2006 the “Gazette ran a front-page story about the TLC group promoting a ‘yes’ vote”—“not one word was mentioned of budget shortfalls”.

Interestingly, the Gazette editorial prior to the vote encouraged a “Yes” vote, “Use vision to vote “yes” to better schools without a mention of the impending school budget short-falls.

If you really want to have the hair stand up on the back of your neck, read the entire Rocknetroots posting: School Referendum How-To, March 30, 2007

Note: “Officials of the Elmbrook School district visited Janesville ‘and reviewed plans and politics surrounding our November 2006 high school facilities referendum’ according to a memo from Superintendent Tom Evert to the school board.” (Rocknetroots quote from Janesville Gazette)

Point 1 in Rocknetroots how to: “If your referendum includes expanding your schools while facing projections of declining enrollment, never connect the two. Just talk about declining enrollment as the reason why teachers and special aide programs must be cut and blame state enrollment guidelines, BUT ONLY AFTER the referendum has passed.”

Point 4: “DO NOT give the voters any choice by breaking the referendum into individual projects. If you do, people will naturally assume then that something is wrong and only vote for the things that are really necessary. Play hardball politics with this, throw as much in the referendum as you can.”

Point 5. “Although this is about education, impress upon people that even if they don’t care about the schools, they should still be selfish enough to vote YES because it may increase their property values.”

The handwriting was on the wall in Janesville, the school district just hoped no one would notice. They didn’t. What about here?

Brookfieldnow Community Watch posted on March 13, that 14 Elmbrook teachers were getting layoff notices. This is a sign of declining enrollments. Many will be recalled, but it shows that numbers are that uncertain. “Staffing needs will continue to be assessed as more reliable enrollment numbers and final building schedules are determined.”, the assistant superintendent of human resources said.

Enrollments are declining. Bob Borch addressed this topic in a Q & A with an area resident: A: Borch, "Current enrollment is 1,413 students at Central and 1,391 at East (2,804 current total.) The district does not do 20 year enrollment projections. We do five year projections which shows high school enrollment at 2,510 students total for both schools in 2011-12."

 

The Elmbrook LINK states, “There has never been a greater need than now to recruit all possible resident-student enrollments into our schools, according to...Bob Borch... Projections for enrollment and for operational revenues and expenditures show the district needs to reduce the budget by about $1.5 million in each of the next five years.”

One reader commented about our district’s budget problems, “Well, notice that our board has decided to wait until after the vote to begin discussing our cuts as well. 

The district is already operating at a significant deficit.  The need to cut $1.5 million dollars from the operating budget each year for the next 5 years means it may become necessary for the district to ask taxpayers for the money needed to exceed current revenue caps just to cover our basic needs.  Taxing our residents to the brink of what they can (or are willing to) afford does not leave room for future wants or needs.”

You know how they always say, Bricks and mortar don’t educate kids; teachers do? Janesville realized that too late.

 

Are Elmbrook residents savvier?

 

 

Referendum fever is hitting many school districts these days. Lisa Sink compiled a great chart of area referendums dating from 1988 to 2007 for her article, Elmbrook district casting big net. On it Janesville tops most costly, successful referendum list.

According to the article, “...most school districts with multiple high schools have chosen to spread work for the high schools over several referendums.” This is because it saves the taxpayers money—less money borrowed over a shorter time. But is that what Elmbrook is doing? No. If Janesville can do it all at once, certainly we can too? “Janesville was the only district Elmbrook Schools Superintendent Matt Gibson could cite that has sought large-scale improvements to two high schools at the same time”.

But wait a minute. Comparing Janesville to Elmbrook is not a fair comparison. Elmbrook taxpayers pay more in property tax to support their schools and state schools than Janesville taxpayers do. We are known as a “ ‘Primary Aid District’ due to our large tax base.” Because of that base, Elmbrook sends more money to the state than it receives back in state aid.

For our referendum, Elmbrook residents must pay “dollar for dollar” of all expenses. But according to Bob Borch, “They (Janesville) accounted for receiving 25% of every dollar needed to pay back the bonds as coming from state aid, this lowering the cost to the taxpayer for their borrowing.”

Elmbrook taxpayers also spend more per pupil than many other districts. Janesville gets $6,208 / student, while their property taxes contribute $2,900. Wausau recently passed a large referendum, but they receive $6,147 in state aid / student. Their taxpayers contribute $4,026. Closer to home Greenfield receives $4,317/student and pays $5,855.

What is Elmbrook’s benefit and cost? We receive only $1,701 in state aid, but our taxpayers must pay $9,480!

Do you see why comparing our district to Wausau, Greenfield or Janesville is not a fair comparison?

Coming up next: See why Janesville won the referendum, but lost anyway

ONLY 3 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Be sure to read this informative posting of Q & A between Bob Borch and an Elmbrook resident. Inquiring minds want to know! Q & A with Bob Borch as the source

When I was on the mechanical tour last weekend, I did watch the “informative” video playing in the lobby. (I cannot call it unbiased.) I kept waiting for the commercial to break in.... (Read this in your best announcer voice.)

...And now a word from our sponsor, your Elmbrook School District.

...They brought you referendum, after referendum, after referendum, after referendum, from 1991 to 1995, until the 5th one for Swanson finally passed.

...The ones who brought you the Swanson Swap that you only found out about before the fact because of a leak to the press.

...The same gang who, after the community spoke out loud and clear to save Swanson, tried to change our school district from a Unified to a Consolidated School District so they wouldn’t need public permission to sell school property ever again. (That measure failed.)

...The same group who purposely neglected maintaining our high schools for at least the past 6 years and then have the nerve to whine about our school’s condition. (This is solvable.)

...Don’t forget our board’s approval of that “needed” 4K program, overriding the publics' displeasure of adding another $67 to our tax bills. It required dipping into our reserves to implement. (It still has some openings, and they said it was such a need?)

...And, last but not least, don’t forget my favorite: the $2.5 million dollar tax bite (defeasance) they took out of your wallet last year on your 2006 property tax bill. NOT TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, but to invest!

When we voted in 2000 for the 2 new grade schools, we approved that referendum for $17,900,000 not an additional pre funding investment scheme.

Anyway, I thought you should remember who the SPONSOR is of this referendum.

Is it a name you can trust?

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Someone gave me their Vote Yes postcard yesterday, so I could take a look at it. (I did not receive one because I do not have children in the district.)

The first thing I noticed was that it was an appeal to the emotions. It asks: ...if you would FEEL compelled to help. It then portrays a list of below average and failing grades for various components in the high schools.

I don’t know what they based these grades on. To me a failing grade would mean it does not meet minimal standards—that it does not function at a reasonable expectation. Example: Mechanical Systems: “F” to me would mean we consistently have interrupted or inadequate service for heat, lights, water, electricity, etc. Anyway, that is their opinion; these grades are not based on facts. The school district's own literature contradicts those bad grades, stating that the schools have been "well maintained" (within operating budgets).

But this is one FACT they got WRONG: No opinion, it is simply incorrect.
And it's in regard to a major component: the price.

They state that the COST is roughly 50 cents a day.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

THE REAL COST IS ROUGHLY 94 CENTS A DAY.

I added up all of the columns on the district’s cost calculator for referendum question #1 and #2, and it totaled $6,837.65 for an average Brookfield home of $335,000. (That is the number the district has been using, if you would add Elm Grove’s average home value into the mix, that number would be higher).

The postcard also listed various other problems below the report card that I don’t believe are accurate. Hopefully I will address them in a future piece.

I realize the question of the high school referendums is something that can be looked at from both sides: the proverbial water glass half full or empty. BUT one must portray the fact of the glass’ contents accurately or the merit of the argument does not hold water!

ONLY 7 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

What do these dates have in common? They were the years the 3 houses I've lived in were built. The oldest one was our first home as newlyweds. That one saw a lot of improvements over the years before we bought it: indoor plumbing, going from gas light to electric, wood stove to gas heat. We gave it a cosmetic makeover, new roof, new sidewalk, and added a bathroom and attic bedroom for the rental unit in it—all within our budget: no loan.

The second date represents my childhood home in Shorewood. Built in 1922 it has nice oak woodwork. It went from coal to oil to gas heat in its day and still has its original bathroom. (Dad still lives there.)

Today, I live in the "newest" home of the trio, a more modern home, featuring plaster lath instead of wood lath. Original heat was oil; now it is gas. It was on septic, now city sewer.

Not once did we ever consider tearing any of them down because they needed a roof or a new faucet! Nor did we consider just stopping any maintenance, repair, or improvements because it wasn't a shiny and new mansion or what a wealthier friend had. No, we painted, repaired and improved each one. We worked within budget and only took out a loan once for our BIG remodeling addition in 1995.

Not one of these 3 buildings required a complete update of all new water pipes that the school district seems to infer is mandatory in any building over 50 years.

My present home still has its original 1942 kitchen. Yes, I would LOVE to remodel it and get some new cabinets in there. But the budget never seems to stretch far enough for that. So, I painted the cabinets and put in a new counter top. It still works.

The majority of Brookfield homes are pre 1978, the date of the last additions to the high schools. Our district acts as if these buildings are past their useful life and not worth maintaining.

We saw how the district purposely never finished the TEACH outlet project at the high school level.

The anonymous letter indicated that a teacher mentioned how the office stopped responding to maintenance requests. Those needs were 5 and 6 years ago.

I took the mechanical tour of both schools last weekend. I will be reporting on many other areas of neglect.

The district has clearly been ignoring many little problems until they start adding up to a big problem. This does not meant that the district couldn’t start doing an adequate job. Both of our 1895 and 1942 homes were in terrible shape when we purchased them. We transformed them into very nice functional residences.

I don't see most Brookfield residents tearing down their homes because they need a new furnace or water heater. Many have remodeled, as we have, and carefully maintain their largest asset: their home.

Matt Thomas, blogger on Newberlinnow and Vice President of the New Berlin School Board, sent our school district and board an email in January. In it he offered some free advice to our school board on how to maintain our buildings and even build new, all within budget and budget caps.

Matt said, No one from our district responded, except Andy Smith to say...thanks for contacting.... (Tom Gehl later did contact Matt but has not formally met to talk yet.) It seems pretty obvious our district just is not interested in doing what countless other districts do every year: maintain their largest asset: their high school facilities WELL, and WITHIN BUDGET!

One reader told me that Sussex/Hamilton was built the same year as East. It is very well maintained. Another told me of Milwaukee Lutheran--1958, Waukesha South—1958, and Longfellow (Tosa) 1958. All going strong, all well maintained.

Other districts do it; we could too. Of course, we would have to WANT to do it.

One of the many reasons Matt Gibson was sought out by our district was his reputation for getting building referendums passed. Mr. Chronin, Matts predecessor, was unsuccessful in his previous 4 tries for 2 new elementary schools from 1991 - 1994. They all failed. Cronin was released from his contract early.

It wasn’t until nearly 10 years later that the district finally wore the community down and got the 2000 Dixon/Brookfield El. $17,900,000 referendum passed. (We are still paying on that one!)

A school district’s high schools are their most costly asset. The price per square foot is far greater than any other type school building. As I mentioned, most homeowners know they need to maintain their largest asset: their home. It is time Elmbrook did the same.

Just 52 cents a day. Only $191 increase in school property tax per year.

It’s in all the district’s literature and on their website. It was in the Waukesha Freeman and Brookfield NOW. Lisabeth Passalis-Bain quotes the district in her article. “According to an Elmbrook School District-issued brochure, ‘the projected increase in the 2007 tax bill of an average ($335,000) home is $164 for the first question and/or $27 for the second question. (That impact) is projected to hold constant for the first 10 years and decline for the last 10 years of the repayment schedule.’ ”

I even misspoke about that .52 cents a day in my blog: My 2 cents on 52 cents a day

I compared their 52 cents of spare change argument to how the Christian Children’s Fund used to make their appeals. Trouble is, the Children’s Fund worked out to the real cost of the referendum for the average household, not the defeased amount! (The actual daily cost of $350/year is 96 cents/day.)

The real cost on the calculator of $308.20 a year works out to be $0.84 a day, or $378.55 a year--or $1.04 a day. depending on how you classify our Brookfield El. and Dixon debt.

Barbara Shore wrote the following very easy to understand explanation of defeasance and another thing to consider when deciding how you will vote on April 3: The Doyle tax increases.

"Twilight Zone"

Did you know? The Elmbrook School District wants the “average” homeowner, whose house is valued at $335,000, to pay either $378 or $191 extra school property tax every year.

The actual figure you use depends on whether you are giving a pass to the “prefunding” the Board included in the 2007 budget. In other words, we are already paying for the assumption that the referendum will pass by paying off prior debt earlier than scheduled.

On top of this, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article recently reported that under Doyle’s proposed state budget, the property tax rate statewide would increase 3.4%.

So in addition to the referendum increase of $191 or $378 or however you want to spin it, the “average” Brookfield homeowner would see another tax hike due to State budget issues, plus the $70 for the 4K, plus the usual 5% increase that EBSD adds on to their budget from year to year for operating expenses.

That’s without any increase from the city, county or WCTC. For all we know, the total cost of all the spending and budget issues could whack the “average” tax bill upward by $500 or more. This whole scenario is taking on other worldly proportions, reminiscent of ..."The Twilight Zone"

(Emphasis added)

Opinions and views expressed in guest postings do not necessarily reflect all of the opinions of Practically Speaking and Brookfield7. They are written by and are the opinion of the person listed at the bottom. Anonymous postings are submitted by persons who do not wish to have their name on the piece

ONLY 10 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! sat 24

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Please read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 first

On any given trip with children along you hear those familiar pleas: How many more miles? Are we there yet?

The parent then explains in terms a child can understand, just how long it will be before the destination is reached.

In my hypothetical $189,100,000 journey of placing those dollar bills end to end (representing the cost of the referendum and bond servicing--interest) you hopefully envisioned how that trail of dollars repeatedly crisscrossed our country and took from April to January to do it (walking nonstop).

Now the question remains, are we finished? Are we there yet? How many more miles?

To be perfectly honest, I don’t know. Matt Gibson doesn’t know. Bob Borch, the top bean counter, doesn’t know either. No one does.

You see, this journey that our school board and school district are asking Elmbrook taxpayers to embark upon has many unknown side trips waiting in the wings.

We know how much the referendum questions are: $108.8 Million dollars. We also know (about) what the bonding will be: $80.3 Million dollars. We do not know what the extras will be.

The extras are the trip into the unknown.

What will the additional operations costs be? The actual building process will incur cost overruns and the expected change orders. There is a small cushion for this, but normally, it runs higher than expected.

All the broker fees have not been accounted for and the district is counting on an additional 2% being added to the tax base every year.

More classrooms suggest more classes offered and the possibility of additional teachers and support staff.

The larger building sizes (footprints) will require more cleaning time and maintenance. (Yes, you still need to maintain new buildings, or they cease to look new.) The larger size may require an additional custodian and maintenance man—at least you would think they would if we want to keep those expensive buildings in tip top condition.

The point is: the referendum will cost that mythical, typical Elmbrook homeowner nearly $350 a year for the known costs. The unknown costs are a whole different trip!

I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to walk that far.

ONLY 10 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Oh, joy. I am doing my income taxes today. (One of the many things I do myself to save money.)

I would encourage you, as you prepare your own taxes or get the paperwork ready for your tax man , to look at your past property tax bills and income tax papers.

Look at the ratio between property tax increases and income increases.

Hopefully, I will get this done quickly and then I will report what I find.

P.S. Though it is a bit chilly today, there are signs of spring being right around the corner. I saw a robin and an election sign for Glen Allgaier on a business property--all on the same day!

Happy Saint Patrick's Day


ONLY 17 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Read Part 1 and Part 2 first.


As you might have suspected, our walking trip, lining up those 108,800,000 million dollar bills end to end, is not over. There is still the interest to pay on the $108.8 million dollar bonding (loan)!

How much will that debt service cost us? *Approximately $80.3 million. That’s right, $80,300,000.00 more dollars in interest for the 20 years of borrowing (debt service), ON TOP OF THE $108,800,000 referendum costs.

The taxpayers must go the extra mile, or miles I should say, to pay the $80.3 million in interest or yield on the debt service.

Going back to our hypothetical walking trip of laying those dollar bills end to end, you will need to travel 8,030 more miles! Instead of coming home from Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico, you must continue on your journey for 112 more days:

From Carlsbad Caverns, head due north to Glacier National Park in Montana.
After that chilly place, you might want a warmer venue.
Trek south to Grand Canyon National Park, North Rim in Arizona (a REAL favorite of mine).
Turn west to Yosemite National Park in California.
Do an about face and trot over to Walt Disney World in Florida.
Last, but not least, in fact this is my all time favorite place, head northwest to Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming.
By now you are pretty tired. Time to come home!

You will have traveled a total of 18,910 miles. You laid down 189,100,000 million dollar bills. If you left on April 3, you will not be back in time for school in September, but you will be back to welcome in the 2008 New Year. (Probably your feet will be too sore for much dancing though.)

Think you are finished yet? Nope. Stay tuned for, Part 4 - How many more miles?

*Approximate, because they do not know the yield rate yet (interest). The school district projects about a 5.5% annual interest rate.

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE
LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield

ONLY 22 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! Did you think I forgot?