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

 

 

Can you imagine going to the polls and not having an opinion on a $62.2 million dollar referendum? Well, at least 294 voters did just that on Tuesday.

Anyone have any ideas why that would be?

Elm Grove had 45 ballots left blank; Brookfield had 249, both work out to be around 2% of the vote.

I did speak to one younger woman about the referendum on Friday. She said she really did not know much about it. She didn't feel she needed to look into it, because she did not have any children.

You do pay taxes though, I said. She seemed confused by that.

Another person told me of an older neighbor who did not feel it was their place to make any decision about the referendum, because they no longer had school age children. I can only wonder how many people share this view.

I am not sure where that idea comes from, but the school system belongs to all of the taxpayers, not just the parents of the students. Collectively we make the decision to increase spending by referendum.

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna

Don't worry, I am not going to drag on about the referendum too much, but I think some things need analyzing before I move on to other areas of interest. It is important to understand why it passed and how the process works...for next time.

Some of us asked ourselves, how did the referendum pass in a climate of rising food prices, increasing taxes and the prospect of gasoline hitting $4/gal by summer? Pretty remarkable considering the dollar amount, $62.2 million, was sizable for a declining enrollment.

First, voter turn out was key to the referendum passing or failing. No question about it, apathy played a huge role in the referendum's passing, but the timing of the election played a larger part. The apathetic are always with us.

Voter turn out was expected to be higher. I expected it would be lower.

Holding an election the Tuesday after Easter vacation and before all the snow birds returned home, indicated to me turnout would be low. By placing the referendum question on the spring ballot then, known for lower turnout than a November Presidential election, timing alone eliminated a huge percentage of the voters. (I am pretty sure Waukesha County had a 97% turnout in 2004.)

The spring election, based on past voting trends, was sure to garner fewer total votes from the general public than the November election.

Some might be thinking that because of the dire need in our schools, the district felt it could not wait until November. They could have included the referendum question however, in the Presidential primary, where a broader field of voters participates. 

Second, there only are so many YES votes in the Elmbrook School district. Getting those likely Yes voters out to vote then was key to passage.

Elmbrook informed (they are not allowed to promote) the need to renovate their schools every chance they could on tours, at PTO meetings, on their cable channel, and in publications sent to residents. The only alternative they gave was to let things continue as they were.

Considering only 1 out of every 4 homes in the district have children in Elmbrook schools, getting out the vote amongst those parents* was very important. They were the key Yes voters.

Low voter turnout of the general voting population, who don't have children in Elmbrook Schools, then was key to this referendum's passage.

But the district also needed to add to that number of Yes votes. How would they do that? The HSST. 

Sure, some people changed their minds because the total dollar amount was lower. Maybe some thought this time the cost was not too outrageous. But next to timing the election, the HSST, I think accounted for a goodly portion of those 577 new yes votes this go around.

With referendums, timing and perception is everything. 

If you did not bother to vote last Tuesday and now are upset that the referendum passed, I can only say we get the government we deserve sometimes. Don't let it happen again. 

 

Next time, a look at the HSST and what it represented.

*Not all parents voted this time for the referendum. I don't blame those of you who did. As a parent we all want what is best for our children. I am just sorry Elmbrook did not get the most for our tax dollar here and we still have done nothing to address maintaining our schools.  

Links:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

I could have titled this STUNNING: Pt 2, Putting $26 mil for HVAC/mechanicals into perspective, but that would not have been as much fun. You may wish to read part 1 first.

I only recently realized that the dollar amount devoted to HVAC/mechanical upgrades for Elmbrook's $62.2 million referendum is an even greater percentage than the 25% ($15.8 mil) for the new athletic facilities. HVAC/mech. amounts to 41% of total dollars.

Again, these are my observations and conclusions based on the facts available that I have read in the paper, from an email from CG Schmidt, from district documents, from board members and from sources in HVAC related fields.

This is the way I see these HVAC/mechanical upgrades.

1st: The dollar amounts. In part one I concluded that $43/sq. ft. was the cost for replacing the HVAC/mechanicals for the existing gym space.Square footage of existing gym related space at both high schools is 120,000sq.ft. 

$5.2 million divided by 120,000sq ft = $43/sq.ft. for HVAC/mech. upgrade costs. This is a little lower because the pool areas are not to be air conditioned. Board member Glen Allgaier confirmed Monday that the gyms would be air conditioned though.

2nd: According to Glen, if the referendum does not pass, the dollar amount to do the "overall HVAC system replacement as proposed" is $26 million. Tom Gehl did not mention the total dollar amount, but did indicate that the amount was too large to "take out of the operational budget."

$26 million is such a large number it is difficult to fathom how that translates into the school space. How do you decide if it is worth it? How much is that in relationship to each classroom? How about to the gyms?

One way to look at it is the per square foot cost. This is often how construction is measured to give the buyer, in this case the school district and us, something to grasp at in terms of cost/ area. Glen confirmed this is how it is allocated at this point, "Given the absence of detailed architectural plans which will only be developed if the referendum passes, these estimates are all done on a 'per square foot' basis."

The district Facility "needs", rationale states both high schools have a total of 512,000 square feet.

If we take the $26 million designated for HVAC/mechanical upgrades/replacements, we can calculate the price / square foot. $26mil divided by 512,000 sq. ft. = $50.78/sq.ft.

That $50.78/sq.ft. figure covers new plumbing, electrical, sprinklers, and new HVAC. How much for just the new heating, ventilating, air conditioning system?

Glen did not have that information available. (My fault for asking too late.) But I did see in the HSST minutes from Aug. 1, 2007, pp 3, that members were given a figure of $24/sq.ft. from contractors.

One of my sources, who has been in the HVAC business for 40 years with several major companies said of Elmbrook's changeover from steam to new hot water/air conditioning, that no private industry or school would do it because it would be too expensive.

So let's see how expensive it would be. For a small sized classroom, 750 sq.ft. X $24.00 = $18,000. For a large sized classroom 1,250 average sq.ft. X $24.00 = $30,000. For an existing gym, 12,000 X $21.00 (half $43) = $252,000.

Are we sure we want to do this?

That seems to be a lot of money. No wonder private industry and private schools would not make a change of this scope. My HVAC source told me that Milwaukee Lutheran is about the same age. They never needed to do anything like this.

I have a hard time believing that the entire system needs replacing. The oldest parts of the school are 55 years old, but the youngest additions are 30.

But if you are looking at adding air conditioning from the start, then that maybe drove the complete system replacement question. For air conditioning with a hot water system (I am not sure you can do it with steam), the cold supply lines are usually insulated because otherwise they sweat inside the walls. (That suggests to me that walls need to be opened and that gets expensive too.)

They are talking of all new Univents, new 4 pipe system, cooling equipment, new boilers ( 7 - 8 high efficiency but shorter life span), and I am sure there is more.

The HVAC study article stated that the HSST, (emphasis added)

...budgeted for full replacement of heating pipes. However, without in-depth analysis (testing), full understanding of the conditions of the pipes cannot be known, Bill Armstrong, an engineer who served on the eProgress team, said at a Jan. 8 board meeting. "Newer pipes aren't always better pipes," said Armstrong, emphasizing that a brand new four-pipe system, as proposed in the current plan, might not be necessary.

They are budgeting for a new 4 pipe system. That sounds expensive. The report has come out. I wonder, if the results of that condition report showed all the pipes to be rotten, why haven't we heard about it? Glen Allgaier emailed this morning that, "the results of the HVAC study were presented and discussed at length at the last Board meeting, including the conclusion that the pipes at BEHS are in good shape and have no need to be replaced."

Few of the items in this referendum are spec'd out. There are just general dollar allocations assigned to certain areas. That is why when we asked on the tour if the windows would open, thus reducing the "want" for air conditioning, the answer was, we don't know that yet, nothing is specified at this time.

If the voters approve the referendum, then wherever the district can reduce costs results in the district having extra funds to work with for something else. 

If the referendum fails, next year East was looking at installing new burners anyway. (Not uncommon and they would be more efficient.) Those old steam boilers can chug on for a long time and if tweaked well, are not all that inefficient--especially considering the pay back.

Yes, the small, modular type high efficiency ones are more energy efficient, but at what price? (Think of a  Prius.) But they also have a much shorter lifespan--some around 15 years. Think disposable.

Efficiency is great, but pay back also needs to be part of the equation. 

In fairness, I do not know how much just making the burner improvements to the present boilers would run. Shawn the facility manager at Central said they were putting in one of those high efficient modular type boilers for heating pool water and domestic water during warm months. They will do it this summer if the referendum fails we were told. (Should have done that years ago instead of running the huge boiler all year.)

But Pilgrim Park (built in 1958) is making some boiler improvements this summer, I believe, with part of that $3.5 million dollar budget surplus we ended up with last fall. It cannot be that expensive. 

The HVAC article also indicated, "As part of the study, the contracted engineering firm will apply for grants through Focus on Energy..."  These grants allow for lighting projects that change out inefficient fluorescent lighting to efficient fluorescent. Focus on Energy grants were available off and on during the past 9 years. We should have done those too.

Is the change to air conditioning worth the money?

HVAC replacement, 20% (you decide how much is really necessary) + Athletics, 25% (fact). = 45% of $62.2mil

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS AND AIR CONDITIONING!

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

Correction: C G SCHMIDT Cost summary of Referendum

Today is the BIG MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY--no fooling  GO VOTE! 

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Frequently Asked Questions  Not to be missed!

HSST Meeting Minutes 

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

Tax Calculator  

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

 

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

I'm not sure who dropped off this referendum brochure; it is a copy of Elmbrook Schools April 1, 2008 High Schools Facilities info sheets.

There was no disclaimer on it stating where it came from or who paid for the printing.

When I opened it, it was obvious it was not just run off on someone's laser printer. The paper size was very unusual: 11 1/4 x 11 inches.

If it was from Elmbrook Schools, they should have known it is illegal to place any flier in or on a mailbox.

If it was from the Vote Yes group, then that should have been noted?

 

 

No matter. I was concerned that voters would not know there even was a referendum to be voted on come April 1st. I think this will let residents know. How was yours delivered?

 

FYI, affixing any kind of mail or flier to a mailbox, inside or out is not allowed. I checked with my favorite Postmistress today, and she said this type of delivery was not OK with the U.S.Postal Service. In fact, if any fliers survived the weekend and rain, if the mailman sees them on his route, he is to bring them back to the post office and the listed responsible party can be charged postage due. 

The picture is not from my home, by the way. I grabbed mine on my way out to do an errand on Saturday and then noticed that all of the mailboxes on my street had them stuck under the flags. This was true of other streets in other neighborhoods.

My flier had a personalized note on it. It read: "The referendum contains significant improvements to academic areas :)" 

I thought the word significant is a bit strong since by the flier's own statistics $22,694,288 goes for mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing for 275,707 square feet at Central and 243,675 square feet at East.

Add to the flier's $22.7mil (rounded) for mechanicals, and the $14, $15.8, $18.2, how much? million dollars for new gyms and we are well over 1/2 of the cost for non-academics. 

Today I found out that the referendum includes air conditioning the gyms: 2 acres of gyms at least 2 stories tall. That utility bill money is not going for academics!

As usual, the more information I get, the more questions I have. This $22.7mil struck me as not being consistent with some recent information I received on the HVAC replacement alone being $26 million. Glen Allgier was good enough to explain: The higher number reflects those "soft" costs that were included elsewhere.

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 plan on air conditioning even the gyms?

Tomorrow is the big day, Millions of Dollars Tuesday! Be sure to vote.

 

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

Tax Calculator  

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

 

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  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 

 

I still believe that we could manage our facilities needs without a referendum. Adding an unbonded $1 to $2 million a year, just for the high schools, to our capital improvement budget, could go a long way in improving our schools. (This would require referendum approval.) 

(Remember, we defeased $2.5 mil in 2006--did not require referendum approval--so that amount has been added to our tax bills before.)

When we finish paying on Dixon and Brookfield El, we could do even more without a tax increase.

In years we have surpluses at year end, this year we had $3.5 million, "most in 10 years",  we could make noticeable improvements.

But, for those of you who want NEW, quicker, consider how much Brookfield Academy is getting for their $12.5 million. We could do something like their high school as an addition. Be sure to take a look.

I have posted their plans and information on how much they are getting for their money, plus an idea on how Elmbrook could have come up with a total referendum with more new square footage for $31 million.

Think a little outside the box. 

Brookfield Academy's $12.5 mil high school

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 

Sometimes you just cannot see the forest for the trees. I know I didn't see the HVAC/mechanicals costs for the Athletics costs. I wish I had more answers for you right now, but the following musings are just some of my observations. Take them for what they are worth.

If we had more time before election day, I would wait until I had those answers nailed down. But seeing as the referendum is 2 days away, I believe you need to at least think about this huge dollar amount for yourself. If I receive any updates, I will post them as soon as possible. (Internet connection permitting)

I really didn't notice those HVAC/mechanicals costs until that YES vote resident's phone call to me on Friday. That person forwarded me an email from John Foster of CGSchmidt, informing that Athletics/Phy.Ed. related costs were not $21million as the document seemingly indicated but $15.8 million. This was because $5.2 million of the original $21 million was for HVAC replacements in the existing gym areas.

John wrote, "The $5.2 million renovation costs are associated with the HVAC ("mechanicals") upgrade being done at both schools and corresponds to the "square footage share" of the existing physical education spaces (gyms, pools, locker rooms, etc.) much of which are converted into academic space."

Wow. $5.2 million just to do the HVAC/mechanical upgrades to the existing gym space? Stunning. Especially when you consider that the pool areas will not be air conditioned. (At least that is what Facility Manager Shawn said on the Central tour. That also concurs with the opinion of an HVAC person I consulted.)

I thought, if it costs $5.2 million dollars to do the HVAC or "mechanicals" as Foster refers to it, how much is it to replace the entire HVAC system which will allow us to air conditioning the whole school? It must be astronomical.

I emailed Andy Smith, Tom Gehl, and Glen Allgaier that question. If the referendum fails, regarding HVAC improvements or replacements, "what will be done and what are the costs associated with those upgrades?"  An article in Brookfieldnow hinted that some things would be done with or without the referendum.

Tom and Glen answered promptly. Glen gave me a dollar amount: $26 million.  "In terms of the overall HVAC system replacement as proposed, however, it is difficult for me to envision any possible way that a $26 million total expenditure on HVAC could be absorbed within...budget..."

Oh, my goodness. $26 million? Just for HVAC replacement?

Look at the Summary of major drivers from CGSchmidt. This document shows Mechanical & Electrical Upgrades: $25.6 million. (I believe this would include the old gym space as well because the New Gymnasium Additions are listed at $15.8mil.)

The dollar amount attributed to replacing mechanical systems in Elmbrook clarifies athletic costs stated, "Of the $62.2 million project, the largest percentage of money will go to replacing mechanical systems: about $22.7 million." (Emphasis added.)

As happens so often, the article also gave a differing figure than the one John Foster gave for the total being spent on athletics and phy. ed., which just adds to the confusion. The article stated $18.2 million for the new gym related buildings rather than John's email of $15.8 million. I am to the point of frustration of not quibbling over a few million! (That is saying a lot.)

But something is just not sitting right with me about these numbers, beyond the seemingly $3.3million difference between the lowest HVAC replacement/upgrade number of $22.7 million and highest of $26 million, when you calculate out the per square foot costs for those replacements.

Stay with me now. I know this is long, but this is important and $20-something million is a LOT of money--more than the gyms--and most of it is not for academics!

If you use John Foster's $5.2 million exclusion from athletic costs for the "HVAC ("mechanicals") upgrade of the existing gyms, pools, locker rooms, etc" i.e.existing gym space, and divide that by the total square feet of existing gym space at both schools, you should some sort of average for HVAC upgrades/square foot cost.  

Dr. Gibson's square footage for existing PE/Athletics was 68,413 square feet, but that was for just gym areas. To calculate the existing gym, pools, locker rooms, etc. space, I measured the plans. I came up with about 120,000 total square feet of existing PE/Athletic space at both schools. $5.2 million divided by 120,000 = $43.33/sq. ft. for the HVAC ("mechanicals") upgrade. That ratio is without taking the converted space out. 

(I do think it should be taken out because if you are looking at how much per square foot it is to re purpose an area, the HVAC/mechanicals should be included for an honest assessment. With the re-purposed old gym at East and Aux gym at Central removed, the total PE/Athletic space at both schools is 94,660 sq. ft. Now take the $5.2 million divided by 94,660 sq. ft. = $54.93/sq. ft. for HVAC/mechanical upgrades. That gives a rather different perspective on the claim that repurposing former gym space is cheaper than building new classrooms?)

But either way, we are looking at around $43 to $55/square foot. Remember though, the pools are not air conditioned, so this number is a little lower than for the remaining portion of the schools.

Well as usual, I am long here and I think you need some time to digest this.

I am going to stop now and let you chew on this while I work on something else.  But be thinking of what else could be done with that $22.7 to $26million for HVAC/mechanicals upgrades for the entire old portion of the school. Seems to me we should be getting more academic bang for our buck.

 

Correction: C G SCHMIDT Cost summary of Referendum

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS AND AIR CONDITIONING!  

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Frequently Asked Questions  Not to be missed!

HSST Meeting Minutes 

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)

 

The countdown continues: Just 2 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

Have you noticed how compared to last year's referendum, where we were inundated with details, facts, and figures, that this year's specifics are rather late in coming or hard to come by?

While I did not agree with all the mailings and new kiosks full of papers last year (because it was expensive), having some of that information online was very helpful. Clear, concise information makes it easier for voters to discern if the plan had merit. This year, I find details, facts, and figures hard to come by.

There is a lot of controversy over how much is being spent on athletics. What even constitutes new athletic space? It is not the new gyms and related areas according to Dr. Gibson

Yesterday I had a pro referendum resident call me (first call so far) about my stating, "nearly $21 million dollars, over 1/3 of the total cost" was for Athletic/Physical Education portion of the referendum. The caller sent me the following information via email.

(To be fair, I have not received verification of its authenticity yet with CGSchmidt. I did send them an email with many HVAC questions, but have not had a reply--it was just sent yesterday. Foster's email was forwarded to the resident by Glen Allgaier though, and so I am confident it is accurate. FYI, I would have posted a correction yesterday but our internet/phone has been out. I am only able to be online now because my techno-child fixed me up with a cell phone connection today.) 

From Glen: 

I spoke with John Foster at CGSchmidt and the following is the explanation

"The summary of physical education costs ($20,983,755) on 17 December included both new construction ($15,799,267 million) and renovation ($5.2 million) of existing physical education spaces at the two high schools. The  $5.2 million renovation costs are associated with the HVAC ("mechanicals") upgrade being done at both schools and corresponds to the "square footage share" of the existing physical education spaces (gyms, pools, locker rooms, etc.) much of which are converted into academic space.  There are no other significant changes being made to the existing physical education spaces.  Note that the 17 December information also includes the separate breakout of mechanicals without allocating them to existing physical education space separately."

So, according to John Foster at CGSchmidt, the real cost assigned to the new physical education facilities for the referendum are $15.8 million dollars. Still over 1/4th of the total referendum costs I told the resident. I posted this in a correction on Brookfield7 yesterday and then did some errands, intending to post something like this piece later. Alas, no internet and techno-child not home either :( 

Then last night a friend called me (cell) and said there was a news brief on Brookfieldnow. Did I see it? No, no internet, I said. This is the explanation from the Community Watch:

On Friday, CG Schmidt said the $21 million figure ($20,983,755) for athletics and physical education includes that department's share of the total building's new mechanicals and other costs, such as insurance and fees for the architect, construction manager and owner's representative ($2,816,730).

CG Schmidt said if mechanicals and the other costs are removed, the total amount of money being spent on athletics and physical education is $18,167,025.

About $14 million of the $18 million will be to build new gyms... (I think this is the Dr. Gibson gym only figure.)

Note that the email from Foster states the HVAC removed from athletics adds up to $5.2mil. and new construction was nearly $15.8 mil.

"The summary of physical education costs ($20,983,755) on 17 December included both new construction ($15,799,267 million) and renovation ($5.2 million) of existing physical education spaces at the two high schools. The  $5.2 million renovation costs are associated with the HVAC ("mechanicals") upgrade being done at both schools and corresponds to the "square footage share" of the existing physical education spaces (gyms, pools, locker rooms, etc.) much of which are converted into academic space.

Is it any wonder we are all confused?

To me, there seems to be so many unknowns with this referendum*. I think we have some idea of the athletics expenses--somewhere between 1/4th and 1/3rd of the cost, depending how you look at it.

What was more startling to me was the HVAC portion of the existing gym related areas. $5.2 million? WOW, that is a lot of loot.

If the gym areas are $5.2 million, how much to replace the whole system and air condition both schools? I emailed Andy Smith, Tom Gehl, and Glen Allgier that question.

Stay tuned for: Double, Double Toil and Trouble; $26mil's a lot to make boilers chill & bubble

Maybe the slogan for this referendum should be: ACADEMICS, NOT AIR CONDITIONING AND ATHLETICS!

*Normally, I would have sat on this until I received confirmation, but in light of the April 1st election, I thought you should know. If I hear otherwise, I will post correction.
 

Correction: C G SCHMIDT Cost summary of Referendum

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Frequently Asked Questions  Not to be missed!

HSST Meeting Minutes 

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.

Tour Schedule  

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)

 

The countdown continues: Just 3 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

WELL, WE DO! 

A fleet of 28 new Apple iMac computers and they are Elmbrook's.

This is the print shop (I think it is called) in Central's Applied Technology wing.

The students use these new  iMacs to work on the yearbook and to learn about graphic arts.

The principal proudly showed us this room on the Central tour, and rightly so.

How did Elmbrook afford 28 new iMacs?

I believe it was a combination of the Elmbrook Foundation, a grant, and district funding. This shows that Elmbrook can come up with creative ways to improve the schools without resorting to a referendum.

Often our schools are presented as being so far behind the times. you would think our students are still using slates and chalk to do their lessons. But if you look at the 2nd photo, you can see there is a LCD projector in this room too (cords are hanging from it).

If memory serves me correctly, the Elmbrook Foundation also purchased some SMART boards for the schools in past years.

 

This was a fun project. The class photo shopped the Social Studies teachers for their own version of Washington crossing the Delaware.

They did a pretty good job!

 

 

 ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO.

C G SCHMIDT Cost summary of Referendum

 

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Frequently Asked Questions  Not to be missed!

HSST Meeting Minutes 

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.

Tour Schedule  

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)

 

The countdown continues: Just 5 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

UPDATE: Student busted for selling pot at school, Community Watch, Monday, April 14, 2008 (emphasis added)

"Brookfield police responded to the high school, 16900 W. Gebhardt Road, at 9:14 a.m. April 9 after school officials received an anonymous tip that the boy, a 16-year-old from Milwaukee, was selling marijuana to students. When police arrived, school officials had already found seven bags of marijuana totaling 4.85 grams in his possession."

 2nd UPDATE: Two arrests in two weeks for student, Community Watch, Monday, April 21, 2008 (my emphasis)

"A Brookfield Central student who was arrested two weeks ago for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver was arrested at the school again last week after a dispute over another student's digital music player.

According to police, a student was attempting to sell his digital music player when the suspect, a 16-year-old Milwaukee boy, [same person as in first incident] took possession of it and wouldn't give it back..." 

Parents are concerned about the safety of their children these days, regardless of their child's age. I know I am. I never worried about safety at school in years past, because I homeschooled. But this year, my adult son is at WCTC. So when I hear about tech. school shootings and campus crime, I am no longer immune to those issues.

We already looked at the potential for trouble if Elmbrook starts increasing the publics' access to our gyms, but were you as surprised as I was by the amount of crime in our schools as reported at the end of Safe & Secure? 

Now I shouldn't have been all that surprised by those crime statistics. I had touched on crime in our schools last year when I wrote,  The Cameras are coming WITH or WITHOUT 2007 referendum:

Time to dispel another fallacy: These cameras are not to protect against Stranger Danger or terrorist intrusion. I think when most people hear the words security system or closed circuit security cameras they immediately conjure up the image of the security checkpoint at the Pentagon!

THIS is NOT what these cameras are for. These cameras are primarily to monitor STUDENT activity, not STRANGER activity.

...Remember that most high school violence is caused by students, not strangers. The cameras record motion in the hallways or wherever they are mounted, and that information is stored for future use. As a rule, it is not monitored continually during the day as we would think of a closed circuit television system. It is only there if there is an incident; they can see who was involved.

While on the mechanical tour of Central, the guide told us that one of the stairways in the 3 story addition was seldom used. I asked why, since I had heard the other stairways were so crowded. He hesitated, then said, they were too isolated and things happened in the stairwells.

Whether we are talking hanky-panky or bullying or drug deals, I don’t know. I do know going back to the concept of a hall monitor might help. In any event, this is not a STRANGER problem; it is a STUDENT problem.

Here are the Police Call statistics cited in the article from the past 3 years.

                                      Central                       East

Assault:                               1                             - 

Battery:                               4                              5

Burglary:                              1                             1

Drugs/controlled substance: 13                            23

Fights:                                13                            10

Harassment:                         6                             4

Indecent exposure:                -                              1 

Theft:                                  38                           96

Threats:                                2                            3

Sexual assault:                      -                            3 

Underage drinking:                 6                           11

Both schools have their fair share of crimes, but it is a little hard to ignore the fact that East seems to have more.

What could account for that higher incidence of theft or drug use for example? East has a slightly smaller student population, so that does not explain it. All of Elm Grove attends East. Are those students rowdier?

East has a little higher population of non-resident students: Open enrollment - 71, Chapter 220 - 47, for a total of 8.67% of student population, while Central has about 6.17% this year: Open enrollment - 64, Chapter 220 - "about 2 doz.". Does that enter into the picture? 

For that matter, what percentage of these incidents are caused by resident students vs. non-resident students? We probably could get the nuclear launch codes for the Minute Man Missile System easier than obtaining that information, but I am curious just the same.  Parents, your high school students probably have a good idea of who commits these offenses.

By the way, the article stated Elmbrook is proposing they add more security measures again this time, with or without the 2008 referendum .

When the 2007 referendum failed, security cameras were funded separately. ...each school also was outfitted with about 25 security cameras this school year... If the 2008 referendum fails, the district might take some short-term measures to secure the front, Gibson said.

The interior and exterior cameras, which are not monitored live, serve primarily as preventive and investigative tools, and the camera system would be added to if the April 1 referendum passes.

Besides the $225,926 in additional measures, two "School Resource Officers" are proposed at a salary/benefit total of $225,000. That figure seems high to me since I am guessing they are only for the 9 month school year? 

Anyway, I don't know how many of these safety and security issues will be helped by putting alarms on the doors and adding more cameras, etc. Seems like much of the crime is an inside job and it is primarily dealt with after the fact.

UPDATE: Student busted for selling pot at school, Community Watch, Monday, April 14, 2008 (emphasis added)

"Brookfield police responded to the high school, 16900 W. Gebhardt Road, at 9:14 a.m. April 9 after school officials received an anonymous tip that the boy, a 16-year-old from Milwaukee, was selling marijuana to students. When police arrived, school officials had already found seven bags of marijuana totaling 4.85 grams in his possession."

 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO.

C G SCHMIDT Cost summary of Referendum

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Frequently Asked Questions  

HSST Meeting Minutes 

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.

Tour Schedule  

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)

 

The countdown continues: Just 6 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

 

STRANGER DANGER, we have all heard the phrase. We've taught it to our preschoolers; they teach it in our schools from kindergarten on up. We all want to protect our children from predators and those who would cause harm.

How do you keep your kids safe while they are at school? It is difficult.

Schools these days have enough trouble screening the people who belong in the schools like: Teachers, Coaches, Administrators, Custodians, and Support Staff.

Now it seems we are about to embark on an expanded plan to invite strangers into our schools? 

That HSST member justified building this referendum's huge gyms (they total over 2 acres in size) by encouraging community use stating, "Further the gym space will be used by our entire community (Park and Rec -- seniors will have a walking track instead of the mall which have kicked them out -- and we will be able to gain revenue by renting out the space)."

There was a line in the Vote Yes ad too, "Increased gym space to accommodate modern day demands including girls athletics and community usage."  

Contrast that HSST member's and Vote Yes group's desire to open our schools up to the community with the alarm sounded in Safe & Secure?, the article on Elmbrook's lack of security measures in the high schools.

That article opened with "An 8-by-11 piece of paper is Brookfield East's front line of defense. ' Visitors must register in the front office,'  as an attempt to control building guests." It also brought up the what ifs of school shootings.

Other school districts have opened their facilities to the community.

This is Shorewood's Community Fitness Center. It shares the building with the Industrial Arts Dept. I wonder if they opened the Fitness Center to the public in order to make it an easier sell to the community? (The Fitness Center took over the vacated space from the drafting/mechanical drawing department.)

But whatever the reason for including the public, I visited this building with a few Shorewood friends last fall. We walked right in during school time. There was a mix of adults and students in there.

Do you like that idea? 

Shorewood High School had no security that we could see. We toured all 5 buildings during school time. I don't even think there was a 8x11 sheet of paper on the doors directing us to the Administration building!

Now one little known fact from last year was that security measures would be implemented at Elmbrook high schools regardless of the 2007 referendum's passage. The article affirmed this,  "As a result of the principals' pleading, each school also was outfitted with about 25 security cameras this school year." (More about this in the next posting: Safety & Security: Threat from within or without?) 

So with all these security concerns, does it make sense to invite the public into the schools before, during, and after school?  Do you want your daughter at PomPoms or Cheer leading practice at night with non-school related adults hanging around? Even if they sign in, will there be anyone to do a Watchdog search?

Should we be inviting every Peeping Tom, Dick and Harry (or Harriet) to come use our gyms or tracks?

One reader already answered that question,  

This proposal for renting out the gym space had me confused as well.  One of the major referendum drivers (used to threaten people into lending support) is that our schools aren't "safe" enough?  Well then why would we want to invite non-students in during the day?  Are they really naive enough to assume that possessing an AARP card immediately absolves someone from potentially harming a child? 

 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

C G SCHMIDT Cost summary of Referendum

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

HSST Meeting Minutes 

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.

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.

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

 

The countdown continues: Just 6 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

 

 

OK, I have had enough of number crunching for the day with Part 1 and Part 2 of my 4th installment of Questioning "sadly mistaken when it comes to the facts..." regarding "...current gym space is being repurposed. It is more cost effective to build gym additions vs. classroom additions."

So now for a little lighter challenge to the remaining part of that statement about the gyms,"...Further the gym space will be used by our entire community (Park and Rec -- seniors will have a walking track instead of the mall which have kicked them out -- and we will be able to gain revenue by renting out the space)."

When the HSST member posted her original comment on March 10th, I did not respond to it because I trusted what she said: the mall must have "kicked...out" the walkers.

But then my husband went to Brookfield Square a few days later and came back with 2 brochures on their Mall Walking Program! 

 

This brochure from the mall's Stroller Walkers program is for moms on the 2nd Tuesday of each month during the school year. How fun.

Brookfield Square also has the Brookfield Square Mall Walking Program for Seniors. Why, Seniors can even get their blood pressure checked on the 3rd Wednesday of every month from 8:30 - 10am.

The Senior brochure states, "Brookfield Square Mall offers you all the amenities you need to walk comfortably every day. The mall opens at 7:30am every morning for mall walkers and offers you a secure environment with a controlled climate. Bring a family member, friend or join up with fellow walkers at the Mall."

Well, the Seniors aren't "kicked out", are they.

Someone told me the mall might have discontinued their Mall Walking program during the construction period.

But this proved not to be the case either. The only construction period restriction is to delay the opening by 30 minutes.

So the mall did not kick out the Senior citizens as our HSST and Vote Yes member stated.

Guess that means Elmbrook does not need to build that 4 station indoor track gym at East that measures 1.4 acres?

Oh wait, we should build this new huge gym at East and new gym at Central because "... we will be able to gain revenue by renting out the space"

If this gym space is so necessary, so that students don't have to practice until 9 pm, and there is not enough gym space at present or in the future that the PomPom girls must practice in the cafeterias, when would there be that idle time to rent out the gyms to the public? 

My past experience with Elmbrook and trying to use the school property for a homeschool event was not favorable. We were told we could not use the school because we did not have liability insurance. But now Elmbrook is opening the school to Senior citizens for a mild work out on the track or for renting out gyms for private use? Often the publics' presence in the buildings interferes with the evening custodial duties too. 

Plus, do we really want to be inviting the public into our buildings before, during, or after school? But, I will save that question for another posting.

Guest posting: Referendum: a blank check to build or add