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

 

 

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 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there any alternatives to replacing them all?

Sure there are.

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

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

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

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

The same strategy could work for the lockers.

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

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

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

They don't know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

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

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

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

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Referendum ad raises questions

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

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO!

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

I wonder what it will be this year? 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

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

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

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

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

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

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

 

The countdown begins: Just 20 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for the Gluttonous greedy miser charge...

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

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

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

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

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

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO! 

 

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

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

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

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

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

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

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

 

The countdown begins: Just 22 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Each set of 15 desks face each other.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

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

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

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

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

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

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

 

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

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

 

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

 

Yikes! Gas prices rise 14 cents overnight!.

(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