Practically Speaking

I would like to know what research you have done on this project to know that the $62.1 million dollars is inflated.  I spent the past seven months working with a committee to come up with a fair plan.  We did the following:

• scrutinized the past proposal

• reviewed population projections

• looked at class offerings and class sizes and their needs not wants

• examined HVAC systems and if it is truly cost effective to replace them

• debated building and remodeling options including a one school option, two school option, or two remodeled schools  

As a member of the Next Steps High School Facilities Committee (made up of 4 no voters and 3 yes voters) I am confident that we put together a plan that meets the needs of our community and shows restraint.  Our plan is $48 million less than the proposal that went to referendum last April.  I would like to see the plan you would come up with after reviewing all that our committee did and what savings there would be.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Molly Steffen

Kyle's comment: First off, thank you Molly for using your real name. I do appreciate knowing who I am hearing from.

I don't have time right now to go into detail here (this is a hobby, not my life), but I think we just need to agree to disagree: My definition of needs is completely different from yours. Besides, I am not the one making the decision here. The voters in the Elmbrook school district will be the ones to decide if this plan is inflated or not. 

I still find it a bit odd that those 4 no vote members you mention were totally unknown to those of us in the Votenoapril3 group, but still you all did invest your personal time coming up with this plan. I don't blame you for defending it. 

Do remember that $62 Million is really nearer $100 Million after all the interest and commissions are paid. Wouldn't want anyone out there thinking we're getting a bargain now would we?

I wonder what $100 Million reduces to per nonresident student? And is this figured into the nonresident tuition? I'd Bet not!

Perhaps we ought to have an 'anyone who votes for it can pay for it' referendum. That'd separate the YES voters from their wannabe neighbors!

Kyle's reply: Thank you, Elf, for reminding us of the real cost...let's see, how many cups of coffee a day will this referendum cost us!
 

But didn't the board add more classrooms than Molly's group suggested? Didn't the board increase the enrollment numbers from what the group measured after hiring a professional?

I'd say those are two points to call the new referendum inflated.

Santa's Elf,

We've covered the ground on how to describe cost before.  I think you should use the standard, accepted way of talking about a referendum as the cost of the improvement (stated at $62M) along with the necessary financing.  Every government bond, and virtually every other large purchase is described this way.  Your $200K home is not thought of as a $500K home, even though that's what it will cost after a 30 year note.  Further, saying that this is a $100+M net cost after financing ignores the fact that a 30 year bond will have its last decade paid off in dollars much inflated from 2008, dramaticly reducing the effect to the taxpayer.  If you insist on marking this up 100% for the cost of money, make sure then that you compare this "$124M" bond with the "$218M" bond voted down last time.  Really makes the reduction look dramatic, doesn't it?

Kyle:  Asking for a redo after a failed referendum is not a plot, it is democracy in action.  After all, nearly 40% supported $109M, the other 60% wanted less.  Now we vote again on less.

Cindy:  We are down to some classrooms and estimates on enrollment, and a few other details.  No one gets exactly what they want.  The goal must be consensus, not some perfect fit.  Molly and others have earned the right to assert that they have done the best they can. They, after all, have done the heavy lifting of putting hours and hours in this process.

Kyle's reply:  Perhaps we would not be in the sub-prime mess we are currently in if more people looked at the complete picture of what their home really cost. My husband and I certainly considered the entire cost of our home (purchase price plus interest plus property taxes) BEFORE we signed on the dotted line.  

I understand your point about paying off the bond 30 years down the road with cheaper dollars, but that argument loses its impact when you consider you were also paying interest on the entire amount for those same 30 years. That is why I favored making improvements in smaller increments over a shorter time frame. It saves the taxpayers all that interest money.

As for the "Really makes the reduction look dramatic" $124M price tag, I can only state that a Lexus for me is still too expensive regardless if it is half the price of the truly extravagant automobile.  P.S. I did not say it was a "plot".

I'd like to see the list of 'needs' upon which the number is based, along with some rationale identifying each as a 'need' vs. a 'want'. (Nice list for Gibson's goto boy!)

I'd also like to see the student population projections along with existing and projected outside enrollment.

Gibson said the last referendum was the Caddy. If so, this must be the Lexus. What NO voters are looking for - during the current recession - is unfortunately the Ford version.

We've got an awful lot of 'new yuppie housing' out here. And should things not perk up as quickly as the pols hope, the city may end up owning a subdivision or two. That's going to significantly diminish the tax base which we are depending on to keep increases in the 'latte a day' range!

First of all, I respect Molly and the rest of the committee's efforts to find a better solution. Unfortunately, they didn't get it right again.

The majority of residents in Elmbrook feel that the capacity of the current buildings are sufficient. Also, I have suspicions that the residents are smart enough to know that we should not throw tens of millions of dollars into these structures. I will fight against anything that goes beyond mechanical replacement and small additions.

The long term solution is a dramatic one. We have come to a critical point where the one school/one campus is the solution that best answers all of the issues. Get over your emotional ties and fight for a real solution. It's like any other problem we face as a society. Incremental small solutions never get us to where we want to be, but actually prolong the problem. Let's build one beautiful school that will last for many years to come!

CONTRARIAN: Rather than having a full blown voiding contest right here in Kyle's blog, let's say that you and I have different approaches to solve problems.

First, I don't do real well in the 'committee' venue, so why frustrate myself by joining one? I'm real glad that you did join in, and - without regard to how I may assess your efforts - let me say 'thanks for your effort'.

Second, when I purchase a home, I look at both the price of the home and the magnitude of the monthly payments required to pay for the home. I can only 'afford' a $500K home if either I can pay cash up front, or make the monthly payments. By discussing a $62M bond issue, you are side-stepping the reality that, for each household, the bottom line cost to them of that referendum is the total amount of the annual tax levied upon the household which is used to pay the issue over the course of it's lifetime.

No wonder so many folks have trouble paying off their homes these days if - when making the decision to buy - they look at the sale price rather than the monthly (annual) (total) cost to own.

Last, it would be most realistic of us - when discussing financial transactions which require many years to complete - to realize that DEFLATION is just as possible as is inflation. And even more so during a recession.

Elf is right on!  I'm certain that the "needs" have been exceeded and the taxpayers will not be informed of the difference in cost between the "needs" and the "needs plus wants".  Without that information I am still a "NO" voter.

I think that remodeling doesn't get us the best bang for our buck.  I will only vote yes on a one high school option because it would force us to put our inflated enrollment through a sieve.  It's also more economical, less of a geographic footprint and the only option that is worth the money.

Regarding the one school proposal, I am really surprised by the support for a 1 school proposal.  Wouldn't that mean 2400 kids in one school, competing for school programs?  I understand that we might be able to provide some Latin or some strange language courses then....but I didn't move to Brookfield 9 years ago to put my kids in a big high school where individual identity becomes a concern (been there, done that).  From reading these blogs, the main argument for 1 school seems to center on cost only....which ignores the reality of the real comparison between keeping 2 schools versus 1 school.   Get Real people....

Kyle's reply: This is obviously a decision for the voters to make, not me. 

There is the possibility of reorganizing the grades back to high school being 10-12 instead of 9-12 and moving the 6th graders back to elementary schools. Or what about eliminating the New Berlin students from our schools? Of course, if we did either of these measures, we would not have a space shortage at the high schools and would not need much of the referendum.

Up until the 1980s, the high schools were grades 10-12. If projections for enrollment are around 2,500 for the 2011-2012 year, reduce that by 1/4 (9th graders) then you are at about 1875. Take out the nonresident students and it would be lower still.