Practically Speaking

Kyle, I guess my first question is: Is this a formal written agreement with a legally identifiable organization? The second would be: Has our lawyer called their lawyer yet? And the third would be: How far has the law suit progressed?

Seems to me that in the absence of legal recourse against these miscreants, the district itself has a few questions for the Board regarding its exercise of sound fiduciary responsibilities to the district.

Hi Kyle. There always seems to be a duplication of services in a community. It is unfortunate that the different entities i.e. Parks, City, School District, all have lawn equipment and duplication of effort. Even when it comes to plowing the snow. Some how it would seem that those efforts could be combined to lessen the overall expense. FYI,

I did not agree with the artificial turf proposition. Doesn't seem to have cut the budget but just increased its cost.

Same thing happening with the Dousman relic. Groups that want to do good should also put there money where their mouth is. It is all to frequent that the goodie , goodie  people fall short and stick the public with there wants and desires. I call it pre-planning on their part.

For agreements like this, shouldn't those signing on (for both sides) check to be certain that there is some insurance or if the funding sources indicated fall through, that there is a concrete backup plan? I guess I am too much of an idealist and just imagine that agreements like this are not entered into unless there is proof of payments and not just alot of goodwill and hopeful thoughts. I am sure there were many pages of legally prepared papers that required many signatures to initiate the agreement, I certainly don't think the lawyers would let them be signed off based on goodwill.

Was the 'fall back' plan just to have the school district pay for any shortfall of funding from other sources?

What I did find interesting is the the “representative” of BC(2) that appears before the board, Karen Reichert, is married to a physician and they live at the following property:

dwprd.waukeshacounty.gov/.../ViewTaxListingB.asp

with an assessed value of $ 1,300,000+

Given that, I think they should be paying the $ 400,000 funding gap, even if they have to take a loan against their house.  I am tired of people who have personal resources to fund their own little pet projects, trying to stick it on the taxpayers. It would not surprise me if this group has other similar members who talk big but don’t put their money where their mouth is.