What if you went to the bond market and no one wanted to buy yours? What would you do? Well, not wanting to face that dilemma, the Elmbrook School district stayed home. They are "postponing $31 million worth of borrowing for construction [referendum] projects, citing an unfavorable bond market."

This is the second time they have put it off. Who can blame them? Investors aren't exactly champing at the bit, at the terms Elmbrook figured on, to buy up $31 million worth of debt. CNI's Amy Hetzner reported, Elmbrook again delays bond issue:

The district had delayed in October borrowing the second half of its $62.2 million high school renovation project, authorized by voters in a referendum last year. The district had planned to proceed on Tuesday to invite bids for a 20-year loan, Elmbrook Assistant Superintendent Robert Borch said.

But that doesn't appear like it will happen.

"We're concerned that we will have insufficient bidders and that those bidders ... will be at rates that will be unacceptable to what we have budgeted," Borch said.

The next opportunity for peddling our $31 million bond is Feb 10th. Will market conditions improve by then or will our little piggy still have none? (OK, half) If so, is it time to prioritize the referendum project the best we can within the $31 million we do have?

Stay tuned!

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Yesterday, Brookfieldnow informed us there was a Hearing set on high school additions. That got my attention.

Could it be the board was still allowing public input on the referendum? If so, I would have requested that since Elmbrook has classes that teach global warming*, they should put into practice what they are teaching. If the district would scrap their plans to air condition both high schools, they could reduce our carbon footprint and reduce energy use. I am not a global warming-ist, but I do favor reducing costs: Air conditioning installation and operation costs money!

Alas, my hopes were dashed. The hearing is a City Plan Commission hearing being held to address landscaping and parking lot issues:

The commission’s main concerns about the plans at East revolved around landscaping. Commission member Jennifer Donze said she wants the district to address the “seas of asphalt” at East by meeting the city’s standards and including landscaping islands in the parking lot.

District officials said they would work with city staff to reach and agreement on the landscaping in the parking lot along Lilly Road in front of East’s new main entrance.

At Central, members talked about the addition of 213 parking stalls near the school’s main entrance to the southwest of the building. The plans also call for a realignment of the school’s exit to the west with a proposed extension of Civic Drive north of City Hall.

The city has asked that the connection be built within 18 months of the approval of the conditional use and revised plan for the school or the end of 2010, whichever comes first.

I don't mean to trivialize these landscape and road issues--especially if you live near the schools. If they are important to you, go voice your opinion. (The date has not been set--the Common Council votes on July 15 to schedule hearing.)

Me? At this point I just want windows that open as part of our $62.2 million.  At least then we could have the option of opening a window instead of air conditioning when electricity prices go through the roof.

*Dr. Melanie Stewart informed me Elmbrook does cover Global Warming in the AP Environmental classes, Biology Ecology unit, and a bit in middle school science classes. 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

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:

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:

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.  

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)

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)

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)

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)

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..." 

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 athletic facilities? 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO.

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 7 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

Please note, for some reason this reposted itself to March 25th. It should be dated and placed March 24th.

This makes the 3rd posting in my series on Questioning "sadly mistaken when it comes to the facts..." This time we are discussing the science labs, "Science labs will be expanded and made safe for today's academics."

The Vote Yes ad in March 20th BrookfieldNOW follows much the same train of thought. (The same person who made the comment is the treasurer for the Vote Yes group and member of HSST.)

Photos are from Central High School's chemistry room from this year's tour.

I believe the chemistry rooms are currently set up for 24 students using the lab stations, at least that is what I wrote down last year in my tour notes from East.

Principal LaBonte said they had 28 student lab stations at Central this year. Should the referendum pass, they would be adding 2 more.

Regardless of the actual number, the administration thinks adding 2 is necessary. 

When I figured out how many students were in the average class in my last school post, I came up with 25. Out of that 25 student number, at Central, 1.5 were non-resident. At East, 2 out of 25 were non-resident.

Can you see why limiting our non-resident students becomes very important?

I can appreciate that certain improvements could be made to the science rooms. I just don't think we need a referendum to do it.

Photo 2 shows the chemical closet and emergency shower (yellow object on wall between doors).

Last year, after the referendum failed, I had requested a cost estimate for improving the chemistry rooms twice. Here is one of my email questions: "After the referendum, I had requested price information on how much replacing the chemistry labs would be. This would include new cabinets and counter tops, plumbing, gas supply, chemical storage lockers,  proper ventilation exhaust fans in the ceiling as well as vent hoods for chemical mixing.  I have not heard back from you."

My point being, how do you know you cannot afford to improvewhat you have, if you don't know how much the improvements would be? I have not received an answer. I think mainly because they really do not know.

If you look at  Facilities Fact Sheet 20: Science Classrooms Limit Instruction it states that there are a number of problems in the chem. labs: A lack of science-specific ventilation, lack of chemical storage so teachers would not need to transport chemicals via carts down the halls during busy class break times, corroded faucets, etc., and as mentioned on tour, cabinetry and drawers that do not work.

I think any one of these could be addressed without too much trouble. Ventilation? There was a new (2 years old) vent hood at Central for mixing chemicals (3rd picture).

These science rooms are on the top floor, so a ceiling vent exhaust fan could be installed to improve room air quality without too much difficulty.

Lack of chemical storage at East? Yes, that is a problem. But couldn't the teacher transport the needed items for the day to class and keep in a locked cabinet before school started? This would eliminate the cart transportation during class change times.

Corroded faucets and metal surfaces from caustic chemicals? Ever hear of replacing a faucet or surface as needed? We have done ours at our house. Haven't you? 

Actually, chemistry has become rather tame these days because there is so much concern about volatile chemicals and safety. My college student laments they don't use the fun stuff anymore at school in electronics and physics: its too dangerous.

Cabinetry that has doors and drawers that don't work? Well, if the maintenance staff was directed to stop responding to repair orders over 5 years ago in anticipation of the referendum, I guess that is a problem now. But they could have been repaired before they became such a problem. One solution now would be to install a new lab station or two and use the removed one for parts to repair the remainders?

Another issue raised in that fact sheet were AP classes. AP classes are often very small, yet command a classroom for an entire school period. If AP classes are driving the space issue, perhaps we should consider running them at a different time of day? Maybe extend the school day for AP so they can use labs longer? Maybe combine them at one school? Most students have their own cars (very few upper class men use the school bus system). It is a whole other topic that needs looking into. 

Please note that there is a LCD projector in the classroom in the 3rd photo. 

Next, I'll be working on the BIG issue for this referendum, and that of course is the amount of money being spent on sports. (Think 1.4 acres of new gym related facilities at east.) Stay tuned!

Guest posting: Referendum: a blank check to build or add athletic facilities? 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO.

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

HSST Meeting Minutes 

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

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: 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 8 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

This is part 2 of the 4th installment from my series on Questioning "sadly mistaken when it comes to the facts".

Part 1 earlier today dealt with the HSST / Vote Yes member's comment, "...Academics and the arts will be enhanced because current gym space is being repurposed.  It is more cost effective to build gym additions vs. classroom additions," at East High School.  

As I concluded in part 1, there was at least a $4 million dollar difference between building just the Black Box Theater complex and building both the gym and Black Box Theater complex.

Let's look at the plans for East. 

The dark brown area to the west is brand new construction--no building was ever there before. That big area is the proposed new 4 station gym and INDOOR TRACK, gym storage, event lobby and new locker rooms.

Square footage = 56,169 square feet (from actual Plunkett Raysich plan).

See the smaller, red outlined area to the right of new gym? That is East's present gym. The actual gymnasium measures about 110' x 115 feet = 12,650 square feet. Add onto that another 105 x 45 feet or so for drama related rooms and storage for another  4,725 square feet.  This makes a total of 17,375 square feet of gym converted to arts space: Black Box Theater and related storage, dressing rooms, and work room, plus Vocal, Ensemble, and Band rooms.

(Again, I think this is a waste of large space considering there is already a Little Theater in the school, plus this repurposing involves ripping out existing bathroom/shower rooms and rebuilding them in the new addition.)

What are the costs relating to this conversion? 17,375 square feet at $58.27/sq.ft. = $1,012,441.

What are the costs relating to the construction of a new 4 station gym and indoor track? That whole sports related area is about 1.4 acres in size: 56,169hsq. ft. at $167.19/sq ft = $9,390,895.

The total cost then for the repurposing conversion and building the new gyms = $10,403,336 in construction costs alone.

Total cost for just building a new theater/music addition? 17,375 sq. ft. at $167.19 = $2,904,926. 

As I stated in Part 1, the cost per new square foot from last year was less expensive because it was for adding single story classroom space. That cost would be about $155.00/sq ft, which would make the theater/music addition alone closer to $2,693,125.

Adding a 2 station gym (using Central's numbers) and the theater/arts complex would come to 44,352 square feet (about .4 acres smaller than what is proposed at East). Multiply this 44,352 sq.ft. at the new construction cost of $167.19 = $7,414,989 construction costs. This would be for adding 2 gym stations to East's total, giving East 4 gym stations and the theater/arts space.

If we reduce that gym addition to just one station in size for a bare minimum number, using the present Aux. Gym for a size comparison of 5,540 sq ft. + 17,375sq ft. theater/music complex = 22,915 square feet new construction at $167.19/sq ft = $3,831,158 construction cost.

So, if we built just the arts addition, we would save about $7,710,211. Build the arts addition and 1 station gym addition, we save $6,572,178. Build the arts addition and a new 2 station gym and we still save almost $3 million! ($2,988,347). 

Either way, I cannot understand how the HSST or Vote Yes ad's statement works that, "Current gym space is remodeled for academics and arts, as it is more economical to build gyms than classroom additions."

How is this re-purposing more economical? Did they think we would not notice?

Anyway, that is the way I see it.

Next posting will deal again with these new gym facilities. What else was the HSST team told?

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO.

Guest posting: Referendum: a blank check to build or add athletic facilities? 

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 7 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

We are now getting into some of the more interesting aspects of our $62.2 million dollar question in this 4th installment from my series on Questioning "sadly mistaken when it comes to the facts".

This posting continues to deal with the HSST and Vote Yes member's comment, "...Academics and the arts will be enhanced because current gym space is being repurposed.  It is more cost effective to build gym additions vs. classroom additions."  

After reading that comment (a concept repeated in the VOTE YES ad too), I wondered, is it more cost effective to build a gym addition rather than just some classrooms? Just off the top of my head, I didn't think so.

Gyms are BIG and TALL. A reader in the construction business suggested they were around 40 feet tall. At the very least they would be 2 stories tall.  Classrooms are what, 12 feet tall--one story? Right there you have a cost per square foot difference.

Let's look at the plans. 

The dark brown to the north is brand new construction--no building was ever  there before. That big area is the new  2 station gym and gym related storage and event lobby.

Square footage = 26,977 square feet (from actual Plunkett Raysich plan).

See the smaller, red outlined area below the old gym? That is Central's Axillary gym (the only gym Central had when it was first built.)  It measures about 100 x 55 feet. Square footage = 5,540 square feet (Dr. Gibson's figure)

This will be converted to a 55 ft. x 45 ft. (2,475 sq. ft.) Black Box Theater and Drama room with 2 dressing rooms and hallways. This seems like a real waste of a large space to me, but that must wait for another day.

Taking the figures from the District's Projected Cost Allocations sheet, Central's New Construction of 28,977 square feet is projected to cost $4,802,384. (There is about 2,000 square feet included in that number for 3 small new special ed. classrooms and a new small entrance way. These structures were not included at all on the Plunkett Raysich Architects' plan I got from the district website.) 

So using the figure from the actual Plunkett Raysich Architects' plan without those other structures, the plan states the new construction to be 26,977 square feet at a construction cost of $165.73/square foot = $4,470,922.

How much is it to "Heavy/major Remodel" the old Aux. gym into the theater complex?

I took 5,540 square feet at a construction cost of $61.46/square foot = $340,515 to convert gym to theater.

Now I never had New Math, but how is it the HSST and the district figured it was cheaper to convert existing gym to classroom, rather than just build the classroom space and be done with it?

How much would it have been to just build the theater addition and leave the Aux. gym alone?

Take 5,540 sq. ft. at $165.73/sq.ft (new construction) = $918,144. Actually, I bet it would be less than that because the theater/classroom addition would only need to be a 1 or 1 1/2 story tall building. According to last year's referendum costs, "Construction cost per square foot for Elmbrook’s referendum run $155.00/sq. ft. for new construction, and $95.00/sq.ft. for heavy remodeling."

So if we use that new classroom construction cost vs. a gym construction remodeling cost, we would get a cost of around $858,700 for a new theater complex addition at Central.

$858,700 for just the new classrooms vs. $4,470,922 for the new gym and we probably could add in the Aux. gym conversion fee there too to make a total of $4,811,437 for new gym and theater complex. Granted, you gain a 1 station gym (you had 3 total to start, now you will have 4). But let's face it, we had a little theater to start with too.

I think you could look at this as a $4 million dollar difference between building just the theater complex classrooms and converting the former gym space to classroom and building the new "more cost effective" gym.

One little surprise (at least to me) of looking on an actual print (I printed it out on a wide format printer) was that the cafeteria stage is going to be demoed. (See the red dotted x on the blue rectangle north of the cafeteria in photo 1.)

So if the referendum passes, the only theater opportunity at Central will be the 2,475 square foot Black Box Theater vs. using the much larger 8,000 sq. ft. cafeteria. Do we really want to do that?

My biggest surprise of looking at a real print came when I noted an outline for "Future 2 Station Gym Addition" directly to the west of the New 2 station gym. Guess they aren't finished with us yet? 

There is some discrepancy between some CGSchmidt figures regarding the costs associated with the Athletics/Physical Ed. costs, but I will save that for another day. (The costs are much higher than I stated in this posting.)

I am not sure what the Vote Yes and HSST groups really meant by stating that "Current gym space is remodeled for academics and arts, as it is more economical to build gyms than classroom additions" in their Vote Yes ad.

If they meant to say that it was not practical to remodel existing classrooms into a gym, Yes, that is a no brainer. But it assumes then we are adding new gyms in the first place.

Seems to me like they were trying to make us think re-purposing gyms to arts was a cheaper way to get arts space?

What else was the steering team told?

Next posting will deal with East's re-purposing of gym to arts. 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO.

Guest posting: Referendum: a blank check to build or add athletic facilities? 

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 7 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

OR, WHY LIMITING NON-RESIDENT STUDENTS IS VERY IMPORTANT

This is the 2nd in my series on Questioning "sadly mistaken when it comes to the facts" regarding the referendum.

Following the order of the HSST member's comments, she notes that "libraries will be expanded for the academic need (currently students can't get into the libraries to do research if a class is using the space)."

Now the first question I am asking myself is, what classes are the libraries being used for on a daily basis that prohibit a student from quietly searching the shelves or using a library computer?  A regular class size ranges from 18 to 30 students for the most part. Fact Sheet 19 from last year shows a photo of East's library. In a note to the side it states:

In modern libraries entire classes are brought in to conduct web-based literary and scientific research...Often two classes are being taught computer-based research simultaneously. In Elmbrook, this space is not separated from the traditional study areas...

Notice, it says "Often two classes". If you click the Fact Sheet 19 link, you see a color photo of East's library. I counted 50 computer stations in that sea of desks (there might be more beyond what the photo shows). Depending on the class size, even if there were those 2 classes in there "often" times, the student count would be 36 - 60.  It still seems a student or two extra could be accommodated to quietly do their own research.

Is the library space conflict a result of lack of planning on the teachers part?  If separate areas are desired, could they use those office cube walls that businesses use for privacy?

My second question is, what is a student doing roaming about during school hours anyway? It has been a while since I was in high school. Are students free to roam about when not in a class? If they are, Central students could go to the Brookfield Library if they are permitted to leave campus.  

But my questions aside, this points to how the non-resident student population causes problems for our own resident students.

If space is at such a premium that it is driving this referendum, shouldn't we really analyze what our schools would look like without the extra non-resident students before we build?

UPDATE: I am not sure what the high school's current enrollments are. I arrived just a few minutes late for the Central Tour this year and Principal LaBonte had already given that statistic. (I forgot to ask later.) According to the district website, Central is at 1,425, and East is now at 1,361 total students*, with 220 of those 2,792 combined students being non-residents. 

Cindy Kilkenny's Fairly Conservative estimates the high schools to be close to 1,400 each this year. 

Looking through a number of articles and other sources though suggests Central and East enrollments to be around 1,350 for this current year, according to a Dec. 2007 Freeman article, Board: With new facilities, more students could enroll:

Board members found issue with the prediction of 1,150 students total attending each high school, which is about 200 less than currently taking classes at the district high schools.

The 1,350 number is off by 11 at East, but it sounds too low for Central. If anyone knows the exact numbers at Central, please comment.  

Regardless of the current enrollments, the 1,150 recommended student total for each high school came from the HSST team, a Journal article stated. And the HSST is a: 

...board-commissioned group -- consisting of four residents who voted against the April referendum and three who voted in favor -- [they] recommended a $61.2 million plan to accommodate about 1,150 students who live in the district, based on projections of declining enrollment.

Districts weighing costs, benefits, is another article that speaks to the issue of fewer non resident students: 

Elmbrook's situation emanated from a task force crafting a second referendum to renovate and expand Brookfield Central and East high schools.

Task force members pushed to tie the buildings' planned capacity to resident-only enrollment projections. The School Board added back a little space, but not as much as the plan rejected in last spring's referendum would have provided. And it tightened its formula to decide how many open enrollment students to accept. Its total open enrollment population - which has grown steadily since 1998, from 19 students to 441 this year - could slightly decline next fall for the first time.

So if our non-resident student numbers could decline next year, and our resident student numbers are decreasing each year because of declining enrollments, we should be gaining extra space every year. Extra space in the library should become less of an issue then too IF we hold back on the non-resident student numbers.

Central's non-resident student population this year: Open enrollment - 64, Chapter 220 - "about 2 dozen" Principal LaBonte stated during our tour. Total non-resident students at Central = "about" 88. A reader commented that the Annual Report stated non-resident high school students = 220. Possibly Central is a bit more than 2 doz? (I will update this if I get an answer.)

East's non-resident student population this year: Open enrollment - 71, Chapter 220 - 47. Total non-resident students at East = 118.  

How does this impact the class sizes?

I will take East, because the numbers are known as of today. Divide the total enrollment, 1,361 by 4 grade levels = 340.25 students per grade level. Divide that 340.25 by 25 students, the average class size? = 14 (13.61) separate classes of 25 students each.

Divide the total 118 non-resident students by 4 grade levels = 30 (29.5) non-resident students / grade level. Divide that 30 students / grade level by the 14 separate classes = 2 (2.10) non-resident students per average class.

Of course the grades are not evenly distributed and the non-residents are not even through the grades either. But, you can see that non-residents do add 2 extras for some classes.

In some classes this is not a problem, but in others it is.

If the problem with the library is that we don't have room for that student who comes in from time to time to do independent research, eliminating 4 unnecessary students from those 2 classes using the library becomes important. 

As with most "problems" driving this referendum, I think there could be ways to work them out within the system...if the school district would want to.

* The actual enrollment number changes throughout the school year as students move in and out of the district. East's numbers were obtained today.

Guest posting: Referendum: a blank check to build or add athletic facilities? 

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO.

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

HSST Meeting Minutes 

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

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: 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 8 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

Often it seems that whenever people disagree with the school district about a program change such as the new Human Growth & Development curriculum, or what needs improving via referendum, if a citizen disagrees, that opposing person's view is chalked up to being uneducated or misinformed.

A week ago, I wrote "Gluttonous Greedy Misers" Don't usually propose spending more in response to an anonymous comment that addressed me as such. That posting prompted many comments: some positive, some negative.

In one of the negative comments, a member of the HHST team commented,

...I need to tell you that you are sadly mistaken when it comes to the facts.  This proposal is very much more academic than athletic.  Every classroom will be updated to meet today's technology needs, libraries will be expanded for the academic need (currently students can't get into the libraries to do research if a class is using the space).  Science labs will be expanded and made safe for today's academics.  Academics and the arts will be enhanced because current gym space is being repurposed.  It is more cost effective to build gym additions vs. classroom additions.  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).  Believe it or not only the crowded stairwells are being expanded so they can meet ADA standards.  Only 2 classrooms per core will be expanded and the room utilization will be 80%.  This is a plan that even Cindy said she thought she could support. It meets our academic needs and is fiscally responsible.  A home built in the 60's has most certainly been updated.  It is time for our schools too.   Believe me I have done my homework, I have spent seven months reviewing every part of this project.  I have made compromises.  There is no perfect plan but this one is fair!

There are a lot of people who don't agree with me. That is OK. But this person was a member of the HSST team and Elmbrook's $62.2 mil referendum supposedly is a result of their work. I found many statements in this comment that warranted a closer look.

It would be great if we could see the HSST's final recommendation, but I could not find it on the district's website anywhere. If a member of that team would wish to share a final copy of their hard work, I think the community would welcome it. 

In addressing these "sadly mistaken" comments, I will start with the first one first: "Every classroom will be updated to meet today's technology needs"

If I look at the Key ACADEMIC BENEFITS sheet, it states under heading, Expanded Electrical Capacity for Classroom Technology: Each school will accommodate wireless technology access and All classrooms will have electrical capacity for multiple teaching and learning technologies.

That sounded a lot like what was supposed to have happened back in 2001 with the TEACH Technology Wiring Loan totaling $1,153,374. I addressed this topic last year in The Tale of Three Outlets

 According to Dave Ross, Elmbrook’s Director of Facilities Management, The TEACH Wisconsin project “provided for data wiring and extra panels and outlets for computers throughout the district--for some strange reason, it did not provide for energizing those panels (running wire to activate). When we originally went out for bid, the cost for energizing the panels was broken out in the bid package. If I remember correctly, that cost was about $1.5 million - a bad case of sticker shock ensued.

Realizing that we needed to get things up and running, our electricians took on all the service upgrades and energizing of panels that needed to be done with the exception of the high schools. Of course it was done over time but saved the district about $400,000.

The high schools weren't done because at that time, the conversation was starting about what needed to be done with the high schools.”

The other schools in our district were finished in-house, which was a good way to complete the project. BUT IT WAS THE DISTRICT’S CHOICE NOT TO COMPLETE THE HIGH SCHOOL WIRING PROJECT, BECAUSE THEY WERE ANTICIPATING THE COMING REFERENDUM.

The fact is, the district could have had that extra wiring for electrical and data needs in every class in the high schools too back in 2001. It was their choice not to complete the work the TEACH program started.

We all know technology changes very rapidly. Elmbrook has now decided to go wireless.

If the building already had Ethernet wiring (the data wiring) then they would only need a wireless access point every 100 feet or so in the hallways. (This is what WCTC has done. In their electronics building, they have 2 W.A.P.s per floor.) If you did not have any data wiring, then new wiring would need to be strung from wherever their equipment is to the hall ceilings for these WAPs as needed.

When the next new technological development comes along in few years, will they say we need to have a referendum to implement that too? 

If we increased the capital improvement budget by at least $1million a year, we could address this and many more needs without going to referendum.

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)

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 12 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

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

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna