That was the title of an editorial appearing this morning in the Journal Sentinel.  It went on with a header that read: "Germantown officials should drop the effort to secede from the Milwaukee Area Technical College.  The savings aren't worth the cost."

I was quite interested to see what logic had led the editorial group to reach this conclusion.  Even though the petition cannot be about money, they admit that this would probably save the Germantown taxpayer with a home valued at $300,000 about $129 per year, or a little more if the change requested led to a slight decrease in the tax rate for the new district, MPTC.

They opined that this was simply not worth the cost...not to those of us in Germantown necessarily, but to the seven county metropolitan area.  It would "deprive" MATC of some $5.5 million in revenue.  They talk about this being harmful to the students of MATC including those from Germantown.  If there are 100 students from our area attending MATC, the cost to the Germantown School District taxpayer has to be in the range of $55,000 per student per year.  If there are 200, then we drop all the way down to an average of $27,500 per student per year.  That is an over-simplification but it helps put all this into perspective.

They discuss what they see as the poor timing of this and, in essence, lay blame for whatever happens to the seven county area economic development efforts at our feet if the petition is approved.  Wow!  If only we'd known what power we had before this, we could've really gone for something big!

We now become an integral part of the Milwaukee metropolitan region.  Funny how that is always the case when they seek our money, but is never the case when they're formulating some master plan.

The editorial does finally admit that MATC's taxes are too high, and they say that officials there need to place "some restraint" on expenditures.  That message doesn't seem to get through, however, to an appointed (unelected) board that rolls over every time MATC President Darnell Cole says "roll over".

Now, back to that $129 that we're not supposed to be concerned about.   For the Germantown School District, that could easily have been converted to a new elementary school.  That would've taken some $84 of the tax relief had this been available when we all voted on that issue...before prices climbed.  It could've likely funded our village road repair coffers very nicely on the balance of $45 per $300,000 of home value.

$129 isn't 'chump change' as so many would try to shame us into believing. 

And why is it our responsibility to pump more and more money into MATC so that it can try, unsuccessfully, to repair some of the MPS damage?  Why is it our responsibility to sit out here in 'the boonies' (from the perspective of the decision-makers in Milwaukee) and continually cough up more money for their needs.  When do they reciprocate? 

MATC Secession...

It appears that we're finally moving ahead in the effort to have ourselves removed from the MATC district and moved into the Moraine Park Technical College (MPTC) district.  In spite of some village officials' assertions, the timing of this filing and its date of effect wouldn't have changed by filing three months earlier.  That complaint is a 'straw man' from my perspective.

I would suspect that a filing made on behalf of a school district would receive more consideration than had the village filed its own petition.  The school district speaks on behalf of the area while the village would speak on behalf of only the Village of Germantown.  While we're a significant part of the school district, we're not all of it by any means.

Can we make history and become only the second such petition to be successfully brought?  Wouldn't it be interesting since the first and only successful petition was that filed by our area to be removed from the MPTC area and realigned with the MATC area in 1971, if memory serves?

What goes around, comes around...maybe!

~~~~~~~~~~

Waste Management Strike...

The village is, of course, served by Waste Management.  The Local 200 teamster members who are employees of Waste Management went out on strike, as you've probably heard, after some four months of trying to resolve issues on behalf of those members.

Village President Tom Kempinski has reportedly threatened to terminate the village's contract with Waste Management apparently to protest the company's inaction, and has supposedly sought an opinion from the village attorney as to whether or not this is possible.  Kempinski is affiliated with Local 200 although he denies that has any direct involvement in this action.

Two things: 

Our service with Waste Management is much improved over that we received from the former servicing company.  I presume that many of those current teamster members were probably also former employees of the last firm that had the Germantown contract.

This seems a very convenient time for Kempinski to be pushing a termination; he appears to be using the village's business to bring even more heat on the Waste Management negotiating team in favor of his fellow teamsters.  That is inappropriate if true, and an unfortunate confluence of events if simply coincidence.

His two lives must be kept separate and distinct.

~~~~~~~~~~

The Harley Rumble...

The "Harley Rumble", as I'll call it, has returned to our area.  As I lay my head on the pillow last night, I could hear the sounds that are only made by Harleys waft through the open window.  We're a couple of miles away from Hwy 41/45 so my joy may well have been another's dismay, but it is a great sound that we last heard some five years ago.

Quite a tribute to the small motorized bicycle shop that started in a shed.

And, quite a bump for the local economy.  I had begun to see out-of-towners in Harley garb already patronizing local stores and hotels and watering holes yesterday. 

News reports indicate that Village President Tom Kempinski is considering asking the Board to approve a referendum that would appear on either the September ballot or the November ballot.  This referendum would deal with just how Germantown voters desire to fund some $2,000,000 per year in road repairs, if they desire to do so.  The choices apparently would be borrowing, increasing property taxes or a combination of both or none.

The referendum could be advisory or binding in nature.  Obviously, if advisory, the Board would then decide what, if any action it would take, but it would do so with some idea of the public's mood.  If binding, the results would stand as the electorate decided at least until the Board was reconstituted or until the Board found some other approach to achieve the end if that were possible.

If property taxes were increased by $2,000,000 annually, the increase in village taxes over 2008 would be some 20.5% without consideration for any other line item increases in the village budget. It is unrealistic to assume that all other expenses will remain constant.  If the amount were to be borrowed, the debt service would be part of the tax increase each year so that both the amount spent each year plus interest would be added to the tax bills over a number of years.

The village's portion of our total tax bill in 2008 was 24.52%; that share would climb to 30.67% if all other taxing units remained at 2008 levels which, unfortunately, is very unlikely.  The actual increase in total property taxes due to the village's portion of the total could be something in the range of 1% to 2% I would suspect.

Use of a referendum will please some people and anger others.  Some will say that this gives the voter the direct voice on specific items that they otherwise lack in representative government.  Others will say the referendum gives the Board a place to hide; still others will say that there should be no referendum.

There are several questions that come to mind about which you may wish to make your views known:

1.  Do we need $2 million worth of road repair every year?  For how many years?

2.  What portion of the village's road surfaces need to be repaired today? 

3.  Have past Boards avoided their responsibilities and not funded road repairs properly?

4.  Is a referendum a good idea or is it a convenient tool for a Board that doesn't wish to stake out a position that may be very unpopular?

5.  If this referendum appears on the ballot, what impact will that have on any issue the School Board may advance at the same time?

6.  If we are to see a referendum, should it be simply an advisory referendum or should it bind the Board to a specific direction?

What think you G'town?

There seems a very real sense in our community that bodes ill if the school board decides to pursue a re-vote on the same bonding issue from the spring election this fall.

Judging from the discussion that has ensued since that news was made public, whether or not formalized by the board at the time of its disclosure, the residents of the school district appear to feel very much opposed to the idea that a re-vote would follow so closely on the heels of the recent defeat.  And, they seem to be especially opposed to a re-vote on the identical bonding questions.

We are able to observe the 'test tube' that is called Hartford and what we see in that situation could easily be what we'll see in Germantown unless the school board steps to the plate with a different approach.  Even though the board used the services of a communications consultant, the communication seemed to be unidirectional.  The district voters' response was this: "you talk to us but you don't seem to listen to us".  That may be an over-simplification, but that is the essence of the problem today.  In Hartford, now, when the real damage is done, the board seems to have realized that it might need to reach out and learn why.  That may well be 'too little, too late' and that will be a shame because there are undoubtedly needs.

If the voters are 'given another opportunity' in the same form and in such a quick fashion, they may very well take that as an insult and seize that opportunity to really show their dissatisfaction. That will succeed in nothing more than polluting the well for a good long time to come.

There seems more a problem with feeling that the board has ignored the voters' feelings as expressed in the initial outcome, than outright opposition to anything the district wants to do.  Although, the district is getting very close to the edge of that chasm, in my opinion, and really needs to step back, reassess and reformulate its approach.  The outright distrust factor is growing and will only be overcome with earnest effort.  It will not be overcome with 'in your face' tactics...and that is what seems to be happening today. 

It seems from my vantage point that communication has been lacking.  I know that the school board hasn't taken that approach intentionally; at least I hope that has not been the case. Communication involves give and take.  It involves outreach in a form that seems more earnest than purely intended to show voters why the district is correct.  The district may well be correct, but the voters need to come to understand that.

Just as all students don't learn in the same way, all voters don't learn in the same way.  Maybe we need to slow the process a bit, engage the citizenry in other ways and have some earnest back and forth conversations.

My opinion is that a mistake was made when taxpayer money was spent on the Baird effort; it wasn't a lot of money, but it didn't sit well in the community.  I think that simply having had board members out in the community would've been better providing they were each on the same page.

We are, by all signs, involved in an oil cost run-up driven by demand being greater than supply.  It is exacerbated for us Americans because our monetary policy has seen an intentional softening of the dollar (our money is worth less than other peoples' money, so it takes more of it to buy a barrel of crude oil).  I paid $4.20 per gallon yesterday with the price of crude oil standing at about $130 +/- per barrel.  Predictions of crude oil prices of $150 per barrel or more are seen or heard regularly now.  And, the cost of oil could well be higher than that by year-end.

How did we get to this point?  We got there by congressional law making, by presidents rolling over and signing those bills, and by our country's increasing needs/demand for gasoline and diesel fuel.  Why would we permit ourselves to become part of such a quagmire?

Politics!  Politics played by those on both sides of the aisle.  Conservatives seem to have lost their voices.  Liberals never seem to lose their voices.

Laws were re-written more than thirty years ago to make it nearly impossible for a new refinery to be built.  Those were the result of congress being rolled by the environmentalists and presidents either believing the rhetoric of the day or fearing the backlash should they stand up to the rhetoric.  This has continued to this very day.  We are forbidden from drilling within 200 miles of the California and Florida coastlines but the Chinese are already doing so as we sit on our thumbs.  We are unable to pursue the shale oil deposits that span our northern plains and southwestern states.  We have ample untapped resources that are readily available but our laws don't permit us to make use of those resources.

We see the 'global warming' group and the 'environmentalist group' driving our economy into the ground...and we have not found the moral outrage/courage to stand up to them and say "no more"!  We could easily build new refineries in any number of locations around our country but we're not permitted to do so.  We know how to drill and refine today without ruining our world.  It takes from 6 to 10 years to bring a new refinery on-line so the time to have declared a moratorium on the rules that made it impossible to build new refining capacity has come and gone.  But, the typical congressional response of "that will take ten years" should remind us that if we don't roll back those silly laws today, it'll take ten years from whenever we do roll back those silly laws.  The time to begin is now, not next week or next month.

We witnessed the ridiculous 'hearings' held by congress in the past few weeks.  We watched as Sen. Herb Kohl embarrassed himself by chiding the 'big bad oil companies' for making a profit.  He is a former businessman who certainly understands that profit must be derived in order for businesses to exist and grow.  He knew how that worked when he ran Kohl's Food Stores.  He certainly must have some comprehension as the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks.  His statement to the oil company executives that their profits didn't seem fair gives one a lot of insight.  He knows better but he will play/pander to the crowd he favors.  He 'feels' as do most liberals.  He doesn't necessarily reason.  He has his millions, so he can set out to control everyone else who aspires to similar success.

Sen. Kohl is but one of the 535 members of congress.  Too many of those men and women are too intent on keeping their offices to actually vote the way they probably know they should.  You have probably heard the old phrase that states you must "go along to get along".  That should be inscribed over the doorways leading to the House and the Senate chambers since it is the rule that is followed by the vast majority of people who walk through those portals.  That is true on the national stage, the state stage and the local stage.

The people who go to Washington and who do not give in and play by the Washingtonian rules are few and very far between.

Whose fault is this dilemma in the final analysis?  Yours and mine. 

We're the men and women who have permitted this to happen.  We don't vote in the House or the Senate, but we do elect those who do...and we do not seem to unelect people very often once they've gotten into office.  Rep. Steve Kagen (D) from the Appleton area stands for re-election this November.  He is at his most defeatable point historically.  If he survives the first re-election campaign and keeps his seat, he is likely to be in that seat for so long as he desires without regard to how he votes or doesn't vote.

We're so unconcerned about our vote, it seems, that we don't even think voting is sacrosanct enough to require valid photo identification before we're permitted to cast a ballot. 

So, all this angst has been brought to us by us.  Remember that the next time you buy gasoline or diesel fuel.  Remember that the next time you go to the grocery store and try to make your food budget stretch.  Remember that when you ponder whether or not you'll be able to take a vacation this year, or buy new school clothing for your children, or go out for a fish fry.  Remember that when you try to stretch your retirement income to cover your basic needs.

And, when you've gotten yourself all 'cranked up', if that happens, make a resolution to get involved and stay involved and to talk with your elected representatives at every level of government and let them know what you think and what you want them to do on your behalf.  And, if they fail you, fire them with your vote at the polling place.

Had you and I done that two decades ago instead of simply going with the flow, maybe we'd not be in the situation we find ourselves in today.

The MATC has developed yet another draft budget after the first such exercise produced the need for a 6.4% property tax increase (see Blog of April 23rd).  At the time of that budget draft, the governor apparently said he would not countenance such an increase.  MATC announced then that it would go back to the old drawing board and see what could be done to get down into the range of 'as little' as a 5.0% to 5.5% property tax increase.

Guess what?  They can now apparently declare victory in this onerous task since the finance committee is only proposing a revised draft budget that would consume another 4.9% increase in property taxes.  The proposed draft will come to a vote by the full board on May 27th.

MATC has developed budgets since 2004 that will have caused property tax increases of more than 30% if this draft is ultimately approved.

Has your personal income increased by 30% in the past four years?  Has your savings account grown by 30% in the past four years?  Has yours become a single income family instead of a dual income family in the past four years?  I doubt it.  But, if so, congratulations!  Even with such an increase, if that has happened for you, I'll wager that you have better places to put your hard-earned money.

The MATC finance committee says it has cut all it could cut from the budget.  Jeannette Bell, committee member and former West Allis mayor, was in favor of not only this 4.9% property tax increase, but also favors reducing the reserve account held by MATC which has been done as part of this draft. 

People costs are budgeted to increase significantly.  Wages and salaries will go up about $1.5 million.  Health care costs will rise by some $2 million.  Other 'fringe' benefits will add another $4.5 million, including  $2 million required to bring the recognition of accrued benefits onto the MATC books like any other 'business' must do today.  That is $2 million of 'funny money'; where else would we find accounting tricks employed if we were to subject this institution to the standards maintained by businesses?

I cannot accept the statement that MATC has cut 'everything possible' and still needs this kind of increase budget over budget.  The paragraph above suggests to me that people costs are way too high, and a very quick way to achieve reductions there is to have fewer people.  Maybe MATC should think about outsourcing certain functions.  Maybe they should think about 'tough love' negotiations with union representatives.  There are or ought to be limits even for tax-funded entities.

Maybe MATC needs to review its class demand and determine the bottom third by attendance and end those classes.  If there is insufficient demand, there is apparently not an identifiable 'significant' need.  MATC cannot be providing services to a market that doesn't exist in sufficient numbers to show demand.  That would free up space for other uses, and it would, or should, enable staff cuts that will reduce costs.

It is impossible to forget, in this debate over MATC, that there is a very real problem with the Milwaukee schools system and we must recognize that some of MATC's costs should rightfully be paid for by the Milwaukee school system since MATC is mopping up after that dismal performance.  Adult high school education classes and GED classes are an example of how the public education structure in Milwaukee fails its students and the residents of the community.  Interestingly enough, this may well be an intended consequence rather than an unintended consequence.  It gets non-Milwaukee taxpayers to pay more of the Milwaukee education costs than is already done through state tax distribution formula.

Finally, I suggest once again that MATC needs to clean up its many acts.  It needs to get out of the failed business incubator function.  It needs to quit building physical monuments to itself and its leaders.  It needs to look at sale and lease-back arrangements.  It needs to reduce staff. 

Frankly, it is becoming more and more apparent that significant leadership changes may be required, as well.  MATC leadership seems to be ignorant of the public's needs.  This is an institution answerable to no one other than the governor through his ability to appoint members to the state technical college board.  The state legislature and the governor must act to bring this renegade system under absolute control.  There must be a change in the manner in which the state board and the district boards are created; voters need to determine who sits on those boards.  The current incestuous approach simply doesn't work...for anyone other than the leaders and those who sit on the rubber stamp boards.

All this brings me to the next obvious question:  Where do we stand in the quest for permission to move to another technical college district?  There seems to have been a long delay in the process; maybe it is justified.  I hope it doesn't mean that the movement has been quietly put to sleep.

I received an email from a regular reader this morning asking me what my opinion was concerning the announcement that the elementary school bond issue will be back on the November ballot.  He forced me to give thought to something I had managed to push from my mind for about a week, but that hiatus is over.

First, let me say that I think the district has had a poor public relations week.  The announcement that the bond issue, apparently unchanged, is expected to be on the ballot in November was probably awkward enough.  Then, we learn of the expected budget deficit for the current year, and we learn that the proposed budget will require a property tax increase if approved as explained.

I've not engaged anyone from the district on the subject of the reappearance of the bond issue, and have had no contact regarding budget shortfalls.

There was some analysis done as the result of the spring election where the bond issue was defeated.  That apparently showed some interesting results when reviewed area by area.  Remember that the Germantown School District encompasses more than simply the Village of Germantown.  The most recent election apparently showed results indicating that some non-village areas were quite opposed while the village proper was more evenly split, or at least that is my recollection.

My supposition, and it is only that, is this:  November will see a significantly higher turn-out of voters.  The district may have reasoned that this will be a 'fairer' review of the proposal and it may have reasoned that the outlying non-village areas' votes might be outweighed by greater village turn-out, desiring to take its chances on that populations' decision this time around.

Beyond this, the budget deficit is understandable given the economic conditions we're experiencing.  Energy and food costs are up significantly and those are the primary areas identified as the 'culprits' in the budget shortfall.  The fact that preliminary budget numbers for the next period are reflecting the need for greater revenue is not surprising on its face.  The amount of the deficit and the amount of the need for the next period will be of more interest.  The tactics employed by the school board and the district administration in meeting these issues will be very informative.  We are in a superintendent 'lame duck' position and the new person selected will have had little, if any, substantial input by the time hiring decisions have been taken.

I must say that I'm disappointed with this confluence of events.  I don't know what, if any, press releases may have been issued on the bond issue decision.  If there were such releases, there is little indication of that fact since the news was simply dropped in our laps without forewarning or preparation for receipt of the news.  Then, to see the news about the current and prospective budgets pop up within days, citizens were subjected to what in our small world is tantamount to a 'media blitz'.

I fear that some significant damage has been done to the district's credibility on both issues whether or not deserved.  Those opposed to the bond issue have a ready-made counter offensive dropped into their laps.  Those who favored the bond issue have been embarrassed, self included.

All the old bromides about school boards being more interested in buildings than students, etc., etc. will be front and center during the election season.  And, frankly, the district has brought that unto itself whether through arrogance or ignorance or simple mishandling.

It was reported a week ago that the school board had interviewed the desired applicants and narrowed the field to three 'finalists'.  Sources indicate that while three of the six who were interviewed were to be invited for a follow-up interview, none were labeled as 'finalists' at this point contrary to press reports.

Seventeen people responded with indications of interest in the position being vacated by Victor Rossetti on June 30th.  A handful were or had been superintendents and the balance were principals and/or human resource directors who were seeking the position as their next step up the leadership ladder.

Some on the board are concerned with the relatively small level of respondents for this position and wonder why that was the case.  Reports indicate that there are more open positions than qualified candidates across Wisconsin.  Was it due to the fact that the Germantown district does not pay as much as other districts?  Was it due to the recent vote on a new elementary school building initiative?  Is it due to the size of the district?  Is there something else at work that caused such a small initial response?

Given the fact that there were few sitting or experienced superintendents seeking our position, are we now faced with finding the best candidate without that level of initial experience and bringing her or him into the district?  Will the citizens support that approach or will they demand that Germantown keep interviewing until it finds an experienced and willing candidate who has no negative baggage.

If you were a member of the board and were faced with this open position, what do you think is most important?  Would you be willing to seek out the best candidate without actual experience?  Would you be willing to "take a chance" on a candidate that seems to have everything but experience?  Would you be looking for that next Jennifer Semmann or would you be content with the best of the lot that appears available to you?  Would you broaden the search if possible?

Please share your thoughts.  This is a very important position and the person selected will participate in shaping our community's future.

The question posed above is that which we will see on the April 1st ballots in the Germantown School District.  The District obviously encompasses more than just the Village of Germantown.

We have come to expect an almost constant preprogrammed reaction against proposed school building referenda issues and probably for good reason in many instances.  There has been over-reaching to be found in more than one referendum across the state, and each of those instances affects every other referendum issue to follow.  Taxpayers are being made to pay more and more virtually every year and there is the feeling that 'enough is enough' prevailing in our society.

Bruce Warnimont has taken a great deal of time to help you and me better understand the current referendum issue, and I want to thank him for the many hours I know he has given us.  There has been criticism about the Board hiring the Baird organization to assist in getting information out to the voters.  I do not think the relatively small amount paid for this service is a bad idea; instead, I think it is evidence of the Board's desire that we all be as informed as we can be when we step into the voting booth on April 1st.

My votes have typically been against such expenditures and probably for many of the reasons that the majority has held.  I am a fiscal conservative.  I do not like to see my tax bill increase.  I find more than sufficient waste in government already.  I have grandsons who are now making their way through our public education system, and I believe they are receiving a very solid education from very dedicated teachers and administrators.  My biases are thus exposed.

New Elementary School Or No New Elementary School?  That is the question.

I believe that there does come a time when all other workable options have been tried, exhausted or disproved.  I see the population increases that are projected by a very reliable firm.  I understand far better now the limitations imposed on the district in terms of remodeling or expanding existing structures.  I believe I have a better understanding of how state dollars flow and how some of the intricacies of district accounting can be deceiving.  I believe the tax 'hit' is reasonable...all things considered.

My answer is going to be Yes.  I believe that a new elementary school is necessary and I believe this is the time for that to happen.  I will be interested to see if I end up in the majority or the minority this time.

As a follow up to the last question, the question posed to Bruce Warnimont was this:

Question:  If the vote on April 1st is against the referendum question, will we see it again?

Response:  If a majority of the voters in the Germantown School District vote against the referendum on April 1st, it will come back again in November.

Passage this spring means that the school will be open for the start of the 2009-2010 school year, and the construction costs will be locked in at 2008 rates for materials, labor, etc.  Postponing approval until November 2008 or April 2009 will add a year to the completion date, and probably increase the construction costs by 10% or more.

Two years ago, the School Board was able to implement an optional full-day Kindergarten program, on a limited basis, because of moderate shifts in elementary school enrollments.  That opportunity will not exist after the coming school year, based on data produced by Applied Population Laboratory.  The APL has been extremely accurate thus far, and two major factors weren't included when the study was done: the new addition of water and sewer to the northern most part of the school district, and a new housing boom in Richfield.  Absent these developments, APL still projects that elementary school enrollments will top 1,800 in just a few years.

The effect of notoriety as the thirtieth best place to live will have an unexpected effect on migration into the school district.

Since implementing a new class size policy in 2002, Germantown's fourth grade test scores have marched upwards.  This past year, we were third best district in southeast Wisconsin when "advanced and proficient" scores were compared.  Teachers and children agree that small, controlled class sizes afford the time and attention needed to build the skills of struggling students and enhance the achievements of all.  So this becomes a "Catch-22" situation:  customers get attracted to our schools due to the proven success of smaller class sizes, then those children raise the class size to the point where less benefits are achieved.

I'd like to take the space that's available in this response to comment on "space".  Each grade level at each school, and the size of the classrooms available, has to be examined separately.  For example, School A may have 84 children enrolled in second grade and 66 enrolled in fourth grade: that's 150 children, total, and quick math might say "25 per classroom" when in actuality it's 22 in 3 fourth grade classrooms and 28 or 29 in 3 second grade classrooms - where 21 in 4 classrooms for second grade means better chances for high achievement.

*******

Once again, thanks to Bruce Warnimont for taking the time to respond to this question.  Please take the time to voice your comments and to pose other questions that come to mind.  Those can be done either through e-mails to me or comments posted to this Blog. 

As mentioned in the January 30th Blog that inaugurated this series of discussions about a new elementary school in Germantown, we sought questions to be posed to Bruce Warnimont, Committee Chair of the School Board's Building Committee.

Question:  How do us citizens know that this proposal is truly the best of the alternatives that were considered?

Answer by Bruce Warnimont:  Perhaps an appropriate way to answer this question is to briefly recount the building alternatives considered over the past five years.

• Building addition to Amy Belle:  Amy Belle's enrollment is constrained by the site's septic system, and the septic system is restricted by the lot size, system design and soil hydrology.  No expansion of this school can be done with any reasonable degree of feasibility and cost.
• Building additions to MacArthur and County Line:  These schools are land-locked.  Expansion would require the acquisition of adjoining homes and their subsequent demolition.  Additional art and music rooms would be required, and gymnasiums would have to be enlarged.  Also, the entire buildings would have to be brought up to the most current building codes at tremendous expense.
• Portable classrooms:  There's no such thing anymore.  The correct term would be 'modular classrooms' and they're nothing more than pre-fabricated buildings.  All of the other construction expenses, such as foundations and sprinkler systems, are required.  Local building codes prohibit them.  Plus, the same concerns expressed above for Amy Belle, County Line and MacArthur still apply.
• Adding on to Kennedy Middle School and relocating fifth graders:  This would require a sizable addition of at least 14 classrooms, and would have to include more art, music, PE and lunchroom space.  Construction would have to be coordinated around the school schedule/year.  And again, the entire KMS building would have to be renovated to meet all of the current codes.
• Renovate and re-open Highway View School or remodel the Administration Building (Victory Center School) for use as a half-day Kindergarten building:  This would only solve the Kindergarten issue, to a degree, and does not address any of the over-population issues in other grades.
• Build a new Kindergarten-only building, or K-1 building:  This would cost nearly the same as a K-5 building but with higher transportation costs.
• There is a non-building alternative:  Do nothing.  The immediate consequence to this option would be to realign attendance boundaries to conform to the restrictions on Amy Belle School, compounding the crowding at County Line and MacArthur.  And, abandon the full-day Kindergarten option, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in state aid (with a corresponding increase in local taxes).  Other losses would probably occur, as well, but since I'm charged with recounting 'knowns' rather than 'beliefs', I prefer not to speculate, regardless of how probable those beliefs might be.

I want to thank Bruce for the time and attention he has given this question, and I'd like to invite comments and other questions from readers.  Comments are easy and might help your neighbors reach a good decision.    

I encourage readers to click on the earlier Elementary School Blog for the give and take between citizen Irwin Fletcher and School Board member Bruce Warnimont.

This dialog will likely continue for some time and some of Mr. Warnimont's responses will appear at that location while others will comprise separate Blogs.  He has responded to questions that Mr. Fletcher had posted earlier, and the responses are very instructive.

Besides, this makes the Blog stay fresher while I'm out of town than it might otherwise :>). 

Seriously, the question as to a Yes or No vote on the elementary school issue is very important to our community, our parents and, especially, our children.  Mr. Warnimont has explained, I believe, how the expenditure of funds to build a new building might very well be offset ++ by state revenue increases. 

You need to be the judge, and you need information to be able to make the proper judgement.

That is our aim in this series.