Tuesday, about 20 Elmbrook residents gathered at Brookfield El. to discuss state funding and its affect on class sizes. Board member Glen Allgaier attended as well.

We all introduced ourselves and stated the ages and grade level of our children in the Elmbrook school system. I think I was the only person there who never had a child in the Elmbrook system. (I homeschooled my son.) I would say most of the attendees were mothers of grade school aged children. 

Assistant Superintendent of Finance Bob Borch spent the majority of the time explaining the intricacies of state funding. (Very worthwhile.) As a result, there was not much time left for discussing class sizes.

Superintendent Matt Gibson did briefly outline how Elmbrook is embarking on a 5 year financial plan. Enrollments are dropping, wage and benefits to employees are rising, and the district is looking at budget shortfalls each year. He said it is estimated that by the 5th year, we are looking at a $9 - $10 million total reduction.

Since 83.5% of Elmbrook's "total expenses" came this school year from salaries and benefits, that leaves very little room for cutting. That remaining 16.5% goes for things like text books and utilities. Dr. Gibson stated that they like to keep salary/benefits percentages at 80% of the budget total; districts that are in trouble are at 90%.

Obviously, this will have to change at some point. Taxpayers cannot continue to support this ever growing percentage of the school budget. Not the percentage itself (83.5%) but the amount of money that 83.5% represents. The total budget from last year, 2007-08, was $82 million. I believe Bob Borch gave a figure of $95 million as the budget for next year, 2009-10.

One area where we could save Gibson said would be to limit special classes such as art, music, some of the applied tech, etc. (Somehow sports are never mentioned.) Another area would be to eliminate some teachers by increasing class sizes. 

Dr. Gibson gave a quick look at Elmbrook's current class size averages:

Elementary School: K - 5th grade - 22.5 students/class

Middle School: 6th - 8th grade - 25 - 26 students/class 

High School: 9th - 12th grade - English 23.5 students/class

                                             Math 22.4 students/class

Phy. Ed. would be a higher ratio.  AP, specialty, end of sequence classes (like German 4) have a much lower student/teacher ratio. (I believe some have as few as 12?)

The class sizes mentioned seemed very manageable. They could probably increase by a few students, especially if Chapter 220 students are no longer entering our system after 1st grade. (These students often require more help.)

I wondered how Elmbrook's class sizes compared to the "good old days." So I got out my photo album from my Shorewood grade school days. I counted up the students from the 4 class pictures I could find.

Half day K5 class, 39 students/ 2 teachers (1957) This large class used 1 room and 2 teachers in afternoon; (K4 used the same room and 2 teachers in the morning.)

4th grade - 23 students/class (1961)

5th grade - 23 students/class (1962)

6th grade - 25 students/class (1963)

Pretty close to what is current at Elmbrook. High School classes I remember as being larger than Elmbrook's 22.4 - 23.5/class. But then Elmbrook's figures are averages. That means some have more, some have fewer students/class.

Between now and June 2009, the Elmbrook School district is looking for community involvement in the financial planning process: 

The School District of Elmbrook is currently faced with a projected budget shortfall of $1.3 million for the 2009-10 school year.  This deficit is anticipated to increase over the subsequent three years.  It is a consequence of projected expenses increasing at a rate greater than the approximated 2.5% annual increase allowed by the legislated revenue cap on property taxes.

Here are some of the areas of study: 

• Enrollment revenue potential – resident and non-resident
• Other revenue potential
• Class size and/or program/service savings potential by level (elementary, middle & high school)
• Other staffing savings potential
• Negotiations and/or benefits plan design savings potential
• Energy savings potential

   If you are interested in participating on a study team, please contact Melinda Mueller at 262-781-3030 ext. 1176 or e-mail melinda.mueller@elmbrookschools.org.

I think it is good that the district is looking to long term planning. There is cushion built into the budget, since every year we are told there is this shortfall, yet most years end with a surplus. (At the 2007-08 fiscal year end "Elmbrook Schools spent $1.16 million or 1.4% less than the budget of $82 million.") At some point, with declining enrollment, thus less state aid, this might not always continue.

The district will also be looking at possibly closing a school or two, moving the district office, or even going to referendum to exceed the revenue cap. However, these measures wouldn't be looked into--if at all--until after June 2009 

Belt tightening is never pleasant. The real question is, can you find creative solutions that make it less painful? 

Links: 

I almost missed this little notice, it was tucked away on page 27 of Thursday's Brookfield NOW:

Members of the Elmbrook community are invited to attend a discussion about the effect of state funding on class sizes.

If you are interested, come to the meeting at Brookfield Elementary School, 2530 North Brookfield Road. It is being held in the LGI room from 1:30 to 3pm on Tuesday, Nov. 18th.

Because of our large tax base, Elmbrook schools get the shorter end of the stick when it comes to state aids for our resident students. Late in October, I asked Bob Borch what Elmbrook's per student costs and state aids were. He replied:

Using the budget approved last week and the methodology the district uses for calculating per student cost, the property tax portion of the total per pupil cost of $12,311 would be $10,384, with another portion coming from state aid at $1,161 and the remainder from local and federal sources.

The state contributes more for Chapter 220 and Open enrollment students, however, there is the perception that these students often are more disruptive in the classroom and school. From Brookfield NOW, "Elmbrook receives between $10,000 and $12,000 per Chapter 220 student in state integration aid." I don't have the Open enrollment reimbursement handy, but it is around half that number.

Because costs continue to rise (teacher and administration wage and benefit packages, rising utilities, etc.), I think larger class sizes are coming. I believe many classes at the high school level are in a 18 - 22 student range. But some of our classes, like German 4 for example, are very small because they are more specialized. The school feels they have a responsibility to high school students who already took 3 years of a language and wish to complete their studies by graduation.  

I don't know how many specifics will be discussed on Tuesday, but certainly I will post any new information if I attend the meeting. 

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: 

Elmbrook enrollment down by 103 students, but no need to worry...now. "The state exempts districts from fluctuations in enrollment for one year."

I first learned about this delay at the April 8th school board meeting when they discussed the 2008-09 budget. There was mention that although the 4K pilot program was discontinued, Elmbrook's budget would still be based on their higher 2007-08 enrollment numbers*. It was a boon--a bit of free money.

In other words 2008-09's budget included about $165,000 in extra state aid money, because the state based their funding on approximately 196 4K kindergarten students no longer enrolled in school. (Kindergarten students count as half a student in the state aid formula since they attend half day.) This money was free in the sense that there were not teacher expenses associated with it, because the 4K program no longer existed.

If memory serves me correctly, Board member Glen Allgaier asked if that extra money should be used to offset the coming budget shortfalls. That idea was quickly dismissed. (Thanks, Glen, for trying.) 

Anyway, this year, Elmbrook School District shows a 103 student enrollment decline since last year (97 resident, 5 non-resident) not counting the 196 4K students.

This came as no surprise though to the administration. The trend toward declining enrollment was "projected:"

Superintendent Matt Gibson said the decrease was on track with projections. He believes a decrease in the birth rate and slowdown in the housing market have contributed to the decrease in students.

Next year, though, the drop will be included in a three-year rolling average that is used to calculate funding for the district. This average figures into Elmbrook’s total revenue cap, the amount it is allowed to collect in aid and taxes.

As such, a drop in enrollment can mean less state aid and higher taxes to make up the difference.

Parents who homeschool or send their children to private schools often send their children to public school in the higher grades. But even at the high school level enrollment dropped by 57 students.

Voters just approved a $62 million dollar high school referendum last spring to expand and improve facilities. Guess we needed that extra room to accommodate those 57 fewer students?

Speaking of the referendum, remember how our additional yearly tax contribution was calculated on a 2% increase in tax base? That 2% has fizzled too.

No need for Elmbrook’s administration to worry though. All budget shortfalls, whether caused by an increase in referendum expenses or declining enrollment will be made up by us, the Elmbrook taxpayers.

*I had not thought about this before: If Elmbrook can collect state aid for students no longer enrolled (because of that enrollment fluctuation delay) does this mean Elmbrook calculates their tax levy on us based on students no longer enrolled too? Remember, Elmbrook taxpayers pay about $10,000 per student / per year for each resident student. I must ask about that!    

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: 

I almost missed this, but thanks to a reader, here it is: A group of pro 4K residents will be making an appeal to the school board this Tuesday during the Citizen's Forum time--first on the agenda.

My reader had this to say about the pro 4K group:

...Seems as though they believe that the old 'wear em down one request at a time' philosophy will work on the board as well as it works on the taxpayers.

...I was reminded of Tom Gehl's comment about where the taxpayers went the last time the proposal came up, forcing him to face an [emotionally charged crowd]** alone.

My reader then suggested a counter "No Way 4K" cheering section at the meeting, to give the board a little moral support.

Last fall, I was there when they made that difficult decision in discontinuing Elmbrook's 4K program. They made that tough choice because there was no proof that 4K made a long term academic improvement.

True, 4K will add money to the school district's budget, but it will also add more tax burden to Elmbrook taxpayers. We cannot afford to add programs that do not deliver real results. 4K shows no long lasting academic improvement, therefore it is a luxury. Right now is the time to tighten our belt, not indulge in self serving programs.

We will already see higher property tax bills because that magical 2% growth (projected by the experts) the referendum tax calculations were based on has not materialized.

We did not even hit 1% growth this year, and that was a figure from June, when our market was stronger. From Fairly Conservative, Brookfield assessed growth less than 1%: (My emphasis)

The Board of Review met this morning and assessed property values in the City of Brookfield only grew 0.987% to $6,300,693,600.

This low number has enormous implications for taxpayers who will be taxed above that growth according to state caps. Low growth also affects the estimates used for the Elmbrook referendum as well as the failing TIF district in our community.

Come to the School Board meeting on Tuesday to show your support for the board's decision to discontinue 4K. (Maybe I could make the Citizen Forum and still catch most of the Creation Science speaker?) If you plan on speaking, make your comments short (2 minutes) and please be polite.

Superintendent Matt Gibson and some of the board are looking at ways to increase their budget through "revenue enhancers." 4K would do that, but at an added expense to the taxpayer. Let's not even let them think about flirting with 4K** again! 

*I could not verify Tom Gehl's original words. This conveys the same meaning. Tom was one among 4 who voted the measure down: Meg Wartman, Patrick Murphy, and Glen Allgaier.

**I don't want to make more of this flirtation than it was: just a mention. But often "mentions" are made to test the waters of acceptance or opposition.

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

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: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,  Vicki Mckenna

Last night I caught a bit of the July school board meeting on cable TV*. The board was discussing Elmbrook's coming budget woes and the difficult decisions our district needs to make to keep our schools operating within budget. (Unfortunately, I missed at least the first half of the meeting, but I will watch again and take better notes.)

Glen Allgaier had created a list of cost saving possibilities--none of them an easy choice. The list included the unpleasant prospects of closing a school and increasing class sizes. The idea was we needed to dramatically cut spending in order to meet our financial obligations. There seemed to be agreement that drastic measures were necessary.

Then Dr. Gibson chimed in that we could also look at increasing revenue producers to solve our money problems as well as implementing cost savings measures. That was when he mentioned 4K as well as looking at nonresident students. Gibson acknowledged that we had decided to forgo 4K but it seemed the state aid dollar potential was still tempting him.

Another "revenue producer" would be to go to the taxpayers with a referendum to raise the spending cap!

The idea of coming at taxpayers on the heels of our $62mil high school referendum would be very distasteful to me--especially considering our budget shortfalls are nothing new.  While I had suggested a referendum to raise the spending cap to increase the maintenance/capital improvement budget as a way to deal with the high school improvements and needs, that spending cap referendum was to be instead of not in addition to the high school referendum!

4K was mentioned not as an improvement to education but solely as a cure for budget woes--as in increasing the school budget, not decreasing the taxpayer's burden. Our board decided last fall to eliminate 4K because it was not shown to improve student performance in the long run. But here we are again mentioning 4K as a possibility.

Universal 4K is also a subject of the presidential election. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support the idea of nationwide 4K. The Democrat party believes in pre-K as it is sometimes called.

Today, the Wall Street Journal's Protect Our Kids From Preschool summed up much of what I wrote last fall when Elmbrook was deciding their 4K question. In a nutshell, there is no longterm evidence that 4K is beneficial in the long run:

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he's elected president he'll pump "billions of dollars into early childhood education." Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list...

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.
...
Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use -- and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the nation's report card -- have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

The piece concludes with:

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too -- not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

Jay Weber talked about 4K in his 8am hour today too. A man whose wife taught in Elmbrook's kindergarten program called in. He said his wife presented 25 reasons 4K was beneficial at the board meeting, but the board voted to discontinue. The caller then added, he wouldn't send his children for 4K! (He must have had his own 26 reasons it wasn't beneficial?)

Finland was again mentioned as a standard. Finland doesn't start school until age 7. Their students do better than the rest of the world.

Taxpayers are asked for more and more money each year, whether at the local or national level. Can we at least narrow down the wish list to programs that actually work?

Past post: Does 4K deserve tax dollars? 

If you wish to read other past postings on this subject, just click the tag 4K and they will come up. 

*Our venture in to cable TV was short lived. We signed on with TimeWarner for a special deal that wasn't delivered as promised. Now to get the package that was presented would cost $30 more per month. Too much for television! Monday the cable TV will be shut off. 

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Unsure about how an idea will go over? Test the waters!

I saw it happen at the June 9th Plan Commission meeting with AJS'  Percheron Square (VK). Their first plan came in with higher density and so AJS requested a PDD. It passed easily. (Sad part was, the more realistic plan--without the underground office parking--was not that much larger than the density already designated for.) Then, shortly after that approval, Community Watch (June 16) reported,

Property owner V.K. Development Corp. has requested a delay in the city's approval process for the proposed development, known as Percheron Square. The Common Council was to consider the site plan at its Tuesday meeting. But Ajay Kuttemperoor, V.K. Development president, asked the council to delay that action because of an inquiry from a prospective buyer of a portion of the site. That could result in changes to the proposal, Kuttemperoor said today.

To me that says, AJS was just testing the waters at the first plan commission meeting.

John McCain's campaign has also been testing the waters. They have been dropping running mate names like Pawlenty, waiting for a reaction. Testing the waters is an easy way to judge public acceptance.

Now the Elmbrook Swim Club is again testing the waters with their additional competition pool proposal.

The swim club in 2004 offered to raise $1 million to add lanes to one high school pool. Last fall the club called for expanding one pool to 10 lanes and pledged to help fund it.

The club must have thought those proposals were accepted fairly well, because now they have upped the ante. (My emphasis)  

But this week club officials presented a new plan to district officials: to have two pools at Brookfield Central.

The existing pool would be reduced in size and made shallower for use by physical education classes, community swim lessons and other uses requiring warmer, shallower water.

A new 25 yard-by-25 meter competition pool would be built immediately south of the existing pool. That deeper, colder pool would be used by physical education classes, the community, the swim club, and would host regional and state tournaments. It would be configured to run eight and 10-lane events.

The expansion does not stop there. 

The existing pools seat 300 spectators. The new pool would have 1,500 bleacher seats — slightly less than available at the Waukesha South Natatorium, a 25-yard-by-30 meter pool.

Just how many area schools have a facility like this? Three, if you include Madison.

[Swim coach] Rose said there are few competition pools in the area: Waukesha South, Schroeder Aquatic Center in Brown Deer and University of Wisconsin Madison’s natatorium.

The coach added that, "Holding meets could generate $25,000 in annual revenue for Elmbrook."

How much is this thing going to cost to build? $6 to $8 million!  Of that, Elmbrook taxpayers would pay around half.

Wow! We get a whopping $25,000 a year in fees and only have to spend $4,000,000* or so? (Yes, that was said tongue in cheek.)

What about the hidden costs? 

The annual costs to operate and maintain two pools are unknown.

Pools and their accompanying shower rooms are expensive to operate. They require lots of water, sewer, gas to heat the water, pool chemicals, electricity to run the filters and pumps, heating costs to heat the pool rooms, and don't forget the custodial costs for cleaning 2 pools and the expanded observation deck.

I took a look at the March 24 budget and although there is not a separate line item for pools, I did note the water usage differences between the high schools and other schools.

I may be all wet here (pun intended), but the high schools have about 36% of all Elmbrook students, but they use 53% of the district's water use: $15,682 for grade school and middle school water charges vs. $17,370 for the high schools. I'm thinking some of that disparity is due to the pool and shower use. (Some of that increase would be because of gym class showering, boiler use, and sports field watering too.)

The sewer bills were higher in the high schools too. $31,547 for lower grades, $31,571 for high school water going down the drain.

Now the swim club is proposing another pool. They are thinking of coming up with part of the purchase price. But who is going to pay for the increased utility costs to heat the room, buy the water, heat the water, filter the water, pay the sewer bill, pay the custodian, pay the chemical bill, pay for the lighting of the room, pay for the maintenance of the pool, and pay the custodians to clean the extra pool?

We, the taxpayers would...after that whopping estimated $25,000 a year revenue was deducted.

I think there is a reason there are really only 2 other area competition pools like this. They are EXPENSIVE! Expensive to build and to operate. Interesting that the coach needed to reach out to Madison to find a 3rd one, and that one was at the university level.

Here is an idea. The Elmbrook Swim Club pays for the entire 2nd competition pool, including operation costs. We leave our original pool alone, so then Elmbrook does not need it for phy. ed. purposes. (The school district could be a good sport and donate the land for the completion pool.) Elmbrook schools can then pay the swim club the fees for use of the competition pool. I think we would be cheaper off?   UPDATE: What was I thinking? Elmbrook should be able to use the competition pool for free because we donated the land. We could let the swim club collect the $25,000/year in revenue from other clubs to help compensate them for their expenditure.

True, the Elmbrook Swim Club is just contemplating this idea at this time, but notice that the size, scope, and cost of their project has increased dramatically in just the past 4 years. Another common phrase comes to mind regarding this completion pool project: The Elmbrook Swim Club thinks we should spend money like water!

If you think Elmbrook taxpayers already spend enough on education and sports, contact the school board about this completion pool idea. 

*There was no mention of the actual dollar amount the swim club was going to chip in, plus, our cost of the actual pool could be higher if it goes the route of the BC2 Astroturf project.

Links: 

I remember being surprised the first time I heard BC(2) was behind in their payments for the artificial turf project at Central High School. Behind?  I would have thought they were required to pay their half up front?  After all, what do you do if they can't or won't pay up?

Best case scenario, even if they only needed to pay their half in installments, that would still mean the school district (us) needed to finance their share until all payments were made. 

Well, BC(2) is still behind and Elmbrook (ultimately us) is holding the bag.

I know the district looked at the artificial turf as a way to cut down on grounds keeping costs. Sports related lawn care accounts for about 80% of the grounds keeping crew's time during turf season (lawn mowing season), according to Rich Basil, our 2007 East High School Mechanical Tour guide. (It's one of the reasons I think we place too much emphasis on sports--it's too expensive! East High School for example has 2 full time groundskeepers--with wage and benefits--and 2 seasonal laborers at hourly wages, we were told.)

Sometimes the cost of a nicety goes beyond the initial purchase price. There is often upkeep associated with that item. In the case of the artificial turf, what happens when the rug wears out and needs replacing? Now who is going to foot the bill for the replacement? What if we did not like the artificial turf? To switch back to grass will be expensive too.

At the very least, I think we need a rule: If a group or club wants a nicety, they must pay their share, in full, up front!  I think the district knows that now.

(H/T Fairly Conservative) 

Yippee! Pier project begins at Kinsey Park pond 

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:

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)

Jessica Rasmussen reports, "The Elmbrook superintendent will see $5,280 added to his salary for the 2008-2009 school year.", so that answers my question from last week, Will Gibson get hefty raise this year?

"The School Board voted, 5-1, to approve the 4 percent package increase, which will bump Superintendent Matt Gibson's salary to $147,510." (Remember that Dr. Gibson's complete wage and benefit package is substantially more than just salary.)

True to form, Patrick Murphy did not support that raise. I'm going to miss Patrick's presence on the board. " 'I think these wages are excessive,' Murphy said, adding that the administration should show restraint in light of a possible $62.2 million construction project, which will go to referendum April 1."

I agree. It is rather difficult to swallow the Superintendent telling us how dire the need is for improved facilities in our schools or how we face $1.5 to $2million dollars in budget cuts due to declining enrollments and then see him accept a raise like this one.

But Murphy's opinion was not shared by all. Some "viewed the increase as both deserved and as inconsequential in the district's budget."

The $5,280 raise is 3.58%, below the QEO of 3.8% (which I think only applies to teachers).  Often a person in Dr. Gibson's leadership position will make a gesture to refuse the raise or at least make an offer to donate it back to some cause connected with the schools. I have not heard any report of that.

I don't know how deserved the raise was however, since Gibson's contact was only extended by one year, through June 30, 2010--one year beyond the coming school year. If the board had not extended it, his contract expiration date would have ended at the end of June 2009.

.

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.

The countdown continues: Just 13 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 

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 

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!.