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 

 

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 

 

 

 

One of my regular readers sent me this today. I think if fits in well with the latest vote yes postcard.

"Today's the big day! Will our community whimsically vote to add more debt to our already outstanding sum of $2,798.66* for every man, woman and child in the Elmbrook school district? (YIKES) Or will we Just Say No!"

The way you vote for this referendum today will speak volumes to your children about what is important in life.

If you are trying to teach them to be fiscally responsible, manage their money well, and live within their means, a Yes vote will not reinforce those ideas.

If you are trying to teach them to be good stewards, a Yes vote will reinforce the idea that you don't need to be responsible with "the little" to be entrusted with more.

If you are trying to teach your children to be considerate of others and respect their elders, a Yes vote again will not reinforce those ideals. Most seniors already have a hard time deciding on whether to eat or buy prescriptions. This referendum will bring them to tougher decisions.

Will your vote today teach your children to be ruled by wants and emotions and value only the shiny and new or will it teach them to base their decisions on facts and the reality of budgets.

Lastly, IF you had to bring a check to the polling place today, made out for the entire amount of the referendum and dated so that the district could take out their yearly allotment in order to cast a YES vote, would you still vote yes?

Today is MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! Go vote! Besides 2 no votes on the referendums, I am writing in Jon Wolff against Bob Ziegler and Cindy Kilkenny against Glen Allgaier.

Please attend the Public Comment session at Brookfield's City hall tonight at 7:45 pm. This will be your final opportunity to speak out against the moving of 2 fire stations to the west. East High School will lose its 1 minute response time.

Post WW2 era buildings = modern construction

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com


*Source:
Wold Printing Services, Chicago, Il - online muni's
School District of Elmbrook, Waukesha County, Wisconsin Taxable General Obligation Refunding Bonds, posted 01/20/2005: $9,780,000 bonds w/ maturity 2006-2024
"direct, overlapping and underlying bonded indebtedness per capita: $2,798.66"

Last weekend, I went on the mechanical tour at both high schools. I saw many things that should have been attended to but did not require a referendum to do. Others were items that in other districts would have just been taken care of within their operations budget, like painting door jambs, etc.

The third category would fall into a capitol improvement project during the summer, such as new chemistry cabinetry and counter tops. Nothing I saw was anything that a bit of diligence and a modest increase in budget could not remedy.

Right now I would like to focus on two problems that were just out and out neglect: a hole in the ceiling and holes in the wall. These problems challenge the Elmbrook LINK statement: “While the schools are well maintained within the scope of annual operating budgets...”

I question this statement because both would have been inexpensive and relatively easy to fix.

The first picture is of the ceiling in the girls locker room at Central’s pool. I think it has been like this since I took a mother and child swim class (my son is now 18). It is an access panel for something. The question is why was the ceiling never re-plastered around the frame? This is not a functional problem, just a cosmetic. I could even repair this one!

But these holes in the electric room are a real problem. They are the remaining sleeves from the abandoned oil tank lines which passed through the electrical room at Central. As you can see from the photo, water is seeping in through these holes and collecting on the electrical room floor.

Now most people’s first reaction is that water and electricity don’t mix. Pity the poor electrician that needs to work on or shut off any circuit breakers in there! That is a problem, but it's not the worst problem. According to new standards, electricians are not supposed to work anything "hot" (live).

No, the real problem here is that the humidity is very high in this closed room, and humidity and electrical contacts don’t mix. High humidity causes the contacts in the circuit breakers to oxidize and corrode. This eventually will cause the breaker to fail. Considering how many breakers are in this vicinity and the expense of changing them out, you would think the district would get after this, or at the very least put in a dehumidifier.

This would be a prime example of a very inexpensive repair that the district is ignoring. It does not require a referendum to fix it, just effort.

We had a similar situation in our home. The underground oil tank lines came in through our basement wall and water leaked in around the pipes. My husband dug down with a shovel from the outside, cleaned up the area, and used hydraulic cement to patch the holes.

Presto. No more leak.

Cost? About $10.00 in cement and a bit of sweat equity. That is all it would cost the district too. If the area above that wall is not accessible, it could be patched from the inside with the cement and epoxy.

There is no reason that the district could not fix this either. They still can and save the circuitry. Any responsible property owner would do so.

So why have they been neglected? Seems to me the district is a strange mix of Slum Lord: do as little as possible, combined with a welfare entitlement mentality: why take care of it; the taxpayers will just buy me a new one.

I’m hard pressed to come up with any other explanation for neglecting these simple repairs.

ONLY 2 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Be sure to read the Corridor Report

Read Elmbrook paid for some of Janesville's referendum? first.

Is this happening here? "School board & (Janesville) Gazette mislead voters"

In Janesville, the school district knew they were in serious financial trouble but promoted their building referendum anyway. Jim Bahler, a frustrated Janesville resident, told of the boards referendum tunnel vision in a recent letter to the editor of the Gazette “It was three short days after the November elections that will bring four gymnasiums, air conditioning and new science labs to the high schools, that Superintendent Tom Evert announced there would not be enough money to pay for the actual education of students.”

It sounds as if the majority of Janesville voters were unaware of the seriousness of the $1.8 million budget shortfall. “It appears that this impending problem was intentionally ignored so the building referendums could pass”, Jim wrote.

“A few days later, the Gazette (newspaper) editorialized that the public should have read between the lines and seen this coming.” The Gazette posted an Editor’s Note after Jim’s letter: The Gazette reported March 14, 2006: "The district's budget outlook is bleak for 2007-08," and "a projection based on current state law would require another $1.8 million budget cut in 2007-08."

"Our editorial (Gazette) April 13, 2006: 'District residents should realize program and staff cuts likely will get harder in the years ahead.' We quoted then-board President Nancy Sonntag as saying, 'Next year, we're going to be looking at cutting programs.'"

So what happened in Janesville?

Same thing that is happening all over: falling enrollments.

The Rocknetroots, a Janesville area blog reported,
“...budget debates are now over and with further cuts looming down the road for the next budget, its beginning to appear like the successfully passed $70.8 million referendum will hang around the necks of the school board and taxpayers for years to come.”

The Gazette newspaper blames the public for not reading between the lines and seeing this coming. The Rocknetroots says that April 13th of 2006 “was the last time the taxpayers saw any major article about the impending budget cuts” until the referendum vote in Nov. of 2006.

Rocknetroots also notes that on Sept. 26, 2006 the “Gazette ran a front-page story about the TLC group promoting a ‘yes’ vote”—“not one word was mentioned of budget shortfalls”.

Interestingly, the Gazette editorial prior to the vote encouraged a “Yes” vote, “Use vision to vote “yes” to better schools without a mention of the impending school budget short-falls.

If you really want to have the hair stand up on the back of your neck, read the entire Rocknetroots posting: School Referendum How-To, March 30, 2007

Note: “Officials of the Elmbrook School district visited Janesville ‘and reviewed plans and politics surrounding our November 2006 high school facilities referendum’ according to a memo from Superintendent Tom Evert to the school board.” (Rocknetroots quote from Janesville Gazette)

Point 1 in Rocknetroots how to: “If your referendum includes expanding your schools while facing projections of declining enrollment, never connect the two. Just talk about declining enrollment as the reason why teachers and special aide programs must be cut and blame state enrollment guidelines, BUT ONLY AFTER the referendum has passed.”

Point 4: “DO NOT give the voters any choice by breaking the referendum into individual projects. If you do, people will naturally assume then that something is wrong and only vote for the things that are really necessary. Play hardball politics with this, throw as much in the referendum as you can.”

Point 5. “Although this is about education, impress upon people that even if they don’t care about the schools, they should still be selfish enough to vote YES because it may increase their property values.”

The handwriting was on the wall in Janesville, the school district just hoped no one would notice. They didn’t. What about here?

Brookfieldnow Community Watch posted on March 13, that 14 Elmbrook teachers were getting layoff notices. This is a sign of declining enrollments. Many will be recalled, but it shows that numbers are that uncertain. “Staffing needs will continue to be assessed as more reliable enrollment numbers and final building schedules are determined.”, the assistant superintendent of human resources said.

Enrollments are declining. Bob Borch addressed this topic in a Q & A with an area resident: A: Borch, "Current enrollment is 1,413 students at Central and 1,391 at East (2,804 current total.) The district does not do 20 year enrollment projections. We do five year projections which shows high school enrollment at 2,510 students total for both schools in 2011-12."

 

The Elmbrook LINK states, “There has never been a greater need than now to recruit all possible resident-student enrollments into our schools, according to...Bob Borch... Projections for enrollment and for operational revenues and expenditures show the district needs to reduce the budget by about $1.5 million in each of the next five years.”

One reader commented about our district’s budget problems, “Well, notice that our board has decided to wait until after the vote to begin discussing our cuts as well. 

The district is already operating at a significant deficit.  The need to cut $1.5 million dollars from the operating budget each year for the next 5 years means it may become necessary for the district to ask taxpayers for the money needed to exceed current revenue caps just to cover our basic needs.  Taxing our residents to the brink of what they can (or are willing to) afford does not leave room for future wants or needs.”

You know how they always say, Bricks and mortar don’t educate kids; teachers do? Janesville realized that too late.

 

Are Elmbrook residents savvier?

 

 

The subject of safety seems to be a reoccurring theme in the high school referendum debate. Whether you are for the referendum or against, I think we can all see that moving the fire station at Lilly and Capitol Drive to Calhoun Road and Capitol Drive will add significant travel time for fire/EMS service to East High School.

Presently the Lilly station is less than one mile away from East High School with a travel time of just over a minute--driving at normal speed, under 1 minute for emergency vehicles.

The proposed new location would make the distance from East to fire station nearly 3 miles. (Look at page 10 screen 20). The travel time would be over 4 minutes (at normal speed). Fire/EMS vehicles may travel above speed limits; however, heavy traffic on Capitol may make this more difficult. Regardless of traffic conditions, the proposed distance is 3X greater than the present location.

That increase may not seem that significant if the school is on fire. Fire drill evacuation times average less than the travel time. But should a student or students require EMS services from a sports injury or accident at school, that increase is now life threatening. In addition, "These days, with the bomb threats and violence in our schools, prompt Fire/EMS service has never been more important."

The City of Brookfield Common Council is likely to approve the move of the Lilly and Moorland stations unless we all speak up, prior to April 3rd's Common Council meeting.

Please contact all of the aldermen and the mayor regarding this move. I urge you to ask them to keep the stations where they are. I also ask that you contact Matt Gibson. Certainly this move should be a concern to the school district.

Please come to the City of Brookfield’s Common Council meeting on April 3, at Brookfield City Hall, and speak up for the students at East and the residents of the east side. The Public Comment portion of the meeting begins promptly at 7:45 pm. This will be your final opportunity to speak about this proposal before a final vote is taken that evening.

The Common Council will be debating and voting on whether to relocate the Lilly and Moorland stations to Calhoun Road. If you stay for the meeting, you will also be privy to the election results of the referendum vote.

For additional information about the fire stations and other town/city fire service related issues, visit betterbrookfield.com.

Matt Gibson addressed the Common Council regarding the district’s referendums as a private citizen. I would hope he would address the Common Council as Superintendent to speak up for the safety and well being of Elmbrook’s students.

Reader Comment: 1. Make sure voters understand the irony of him (Gibson) wanting $108.8 million when saving $3 million (by keeping fire stations where they are) could give him so much more safety. And that fire isn’t the only issue – most “fire” calls are really EMS calls. The high schools house the largest daily concentration of people in Brookfield.

Reader 2. From someone who lives off of Capitol..."during morning rush hour from 7 to 9, noon time, and afternoons after about 2:30 pm, the road (Capitol) is jammed." (These would be times school is in session.)


My Note: 75% of all calls in Waukesha County are EMS, 70% of all calls occur in daytime, almost twice as many calls are northeast side compared to northwest side.



ONLY 4 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Certainly every parent wants to know their children are safe while at school. The district knows this too and makes it one of their reasons to vote for the referendum.

On Elmbrook’s “Fact” sheet #1, it states: “While it is now standard equipment in most high schools, neither Brookfield Central nor Brookfield East has a closed circuit security television system for monitoring activity in the hallways, common areas, or parking lots and for monitoring access to over 60 outside doors at each school.”

There is one BIG FACT missing from this sheet. The FACT that next year, the cameras will be installed regardless of referendum passage. Principal LaBonte told us this little known fact when I toured Central last month.

Here is another FACT you may be interested in. Other area schools have been in the process of getting their cameras installed for a few years now, working their way, school by school through their districts--without a 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.

A recent Brookfieldnow article stated, “In a time when many high schools around the nation have dealt with incidents of school violence, a closed-circuit security television system is necessary to monitor activity in the hallways, common areas and parking lots, according to principals.”

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.

The real question is: Why has Elmbrook neglected this “need” until now?

Could it be the same reason they have neglected other standard maintenance issues? They are trying to present a needier picture of our high schools than there really is, and in the case of security cameras, they will be installed next year—even without the referendum.

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

When I was on the mechanical tour last weekend, I did watch the “informative” video playing in the lobby. (I cannot call it unbiased.) I kept waiting for the commercial to break in.... (Read this in your best announcer voice.)

...And now a word from our sponsor, your Elmbrook School District.

...They brought you referendum, after referendum, after referendum, after referendum, from 1991 to 1995, until the 5th one for Swanson finally passed.

...The ones who brought you the Swanson Swap that you only found out about before the fact because of a leak to the press.

...The same gang who, after the community spoke out loud and clear to save Swanson, tried to change our school district from a Unified to a Consolidated School District so they wouldn’t need public permission to sell school property ever again. (That measure failed.)

...The same group who purposely neglected maintaining our high schools for at least the past 6 years and then have the nerve to whine about our school’s condition. (This is solvable.)

...Don’t forget our board’s approval of that “needed” 4K program, overriding the publics' displeasure of adding another $67 to our tax bills. It required dipping into our reserves to implement. (It still has some openings, and they said it was such a need?)

...And, last but not least, don’t forget my favorite: the $2.5 million dollar tax bite (defeasance) they took out of your wallet last year on your 2006 property tax bill. NOT TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, but to invest!

When we voted in 2000 for the 2 new grade schools, we approved that referendum for $17,900,000 not an additional pre funding investment scheme.

Anyway, I thought you should remember who the SPONSOR is of this referendum.

Is it a name you can trust?

ONLY 5 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Someone gave me their Vote Yes postcard yesterday, so I could take a look at it. (I did not receive one because I do not have children in the district.)

The first thing I noticed was that it was an appeal to the emotions. It asks: ...if you would FEEL compelled to help. It then portrays a list of below average and failing grades for various components in the high schools.

I don’t know what they based these grades on. To me a failing grade would mean it does not meet minimal standards—that it does not function at a reasonable expectation. Example: Mechanical Systems: “F” to me would mean we consistently have interrupted or inadequate service for heat, lights, water, electricity, etc. Anyway, that is their opinion; these grades are not based on facts. The school district's own literature contradicts those bad grades, stating that the schools have been "well maintained" (within operating budgets).

But this is one FACT they got WRONG: No opinion, it is simply incorrect.
And it's in regard to a major component: the price.

They state that the COST is roughly 50 cents a day.

THAT IS NOT TRUE!

THE REAL COST IS ROUGHLY 94 CENTS A DAY.

I added up all of the columns on the district’s cost calculator for referendum question #1 and #2, and it totaled $6,837.65 for an average Brookfield home of $335,000. (That is the number the district has been using, if you would add Elm Grove’s average home value into the mix, that number would be higher).

The postcard also listed various other problems below the report card that I don’t believe are accurate. Hopefully I will address them in a future piece.

I realize the question of the high school referendums is something that can be looked at from both sides: the proverbial water glass half full or empty. BUT one must portray the fact of the glass’ contents accurately or the merit of the argument does not hold water!

ONLY 7 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

In all the ACT benchmark hoopla last week, I neglected to point out a little detail.

Did you notice that Brookfield Central, the school that the Elmbrook School District maligns and makes disparaging remarks about in regards to its condition, outscored Brookfield East on the 2006 ACT scores?

Does that fact make you at least question the premise that the district and Vote Yes gang continually perpetuate, that the lack of facility amenities adversely affect learning?

The ACT scores certainly do not bear out their assumptions. Elmbrook ranks in the top ten, and Central last year beat East.

If you look at all of the scores from the past 5 years, you see that the two schools are pretty much tied neck and neck. Check out “Fact sheet #23”. East is said to be much better than Central, yet the students obviously learn at both schools.

Dr. Joe Schroeder, Assistant Superintendent for the School District of Elmbrook, submitted a letter to Brookfieldnow. Seems that Stefanie Scott selectively reported only parts of his report before the School Board on March 13th.

Dr. Schroeder sets the record straight in this letter. He says, “the press, ignoring multiple areas of very positive news of student achievement that preceded the ending” (of his report)... “This produced an incomplete story and a blazing headline that misrepresented the overall themes of the presentation.”

ONLY 7 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY!

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com

Just 52 cents a day. Only $191 increase in school property tax per year.

It’s in all the district’s literature and on their website. It was in the Waukesha Freeman and Brookfield NOW. Lisabeth Passalis-Bain quotes the district in her article. “According to an Elmbrook School District-issued brochure, ‘the projected increase in the 2007 tax bill of an average ($335,000) home is $164 for the first question and/or $27 for the second question. (That impact) is projected to hold constant for the first 10 years and decline for the last 10 years of the repayment schedule.’ ”

I even misspoke about that .52 cents a day in my blog: My 2 cents on 52 cents a day

I compared their 52 cents of spare change argument to how the Christian Children’s Fund used to make their appeals. Trouble is, the Children’s Fund worked out to the real cost of the referendum for the average household, not the defeased amount! (The actual daily cost of $350/year is 96 cents/day.)

The real cost on the calculator of $308.20 a year works out to be $0.84 a day, or $378.55 a year--or $1.04 a day. depending on how you classify our Brookfield El. and Dixon debt.

Barbara Shore wrote the following very easy to understand explanation of defeasance and another thing to consider when deciding how you will vote on April 3: The Doyle tax increases.

"Twilight Zone"

Did you know? The Elmbrook School District wants the “average” homeowner, whose house is valued at $335,000, to pay either $378 or $191 extra school property tax every year.

The actual figure you use depends on whether you are giving a pass to the “prefunding” the Board included in the 2007 budget. In other words, we are already paying for the assumption that the referendum will pass by paying off prior debt earlier than scheduled.

On top of this, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article recently reported that under Doyle’s proposed state budget, the property tax rate statewide would increase 3.4%.

So in addition to the referendum increase of $191 or $378 or however you want to spin it, the “average” Brookfield homeowner would see another tax hike due to State budget issues, plus the $70 for the 4K, plus the usual 5% increase that EBSD adds on to their budget from year to year for operating expenses.

That’s without any increase from the city, county or WCTC. For all we know, the total cost of all the spending and budget issues could whack the “average” tax bill upward by $500 or more. This whole scenario is taking on other worldly proportions, reminiscent of ..."The Twilight Zone"

(Emphasis added)

Opinions and views expressed in guest postings do not necessarily reflect all of the opinions of Practically Speaking and Brookfield7. They are written by and are the opinion of the person listed at the bottom. Anonymous postings are submitted by persons who do not wish to have their name on the piece

ONLY 10 MORE DAYS UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY! sat 24

WANT TO CONTACT ME ANONYMOUSLY? CLICK HERE

LINKS:Brookfield7 postings Betterbrookfield, Votenoapril3.com