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:

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna

 

 

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 

 

 

 

 

(Please note, this posting was written in response to the 2007 referendum. The concept of better maintenance, however, is just as pertinent today.)


Have you noticed the definite correlation between long time residents = a NO vote, and newer residents = a YES vote? There are exceptions of course, but it is generally true. I would also say the YES vote group does not understand the usual sequence of referendums. Lets just say, third time’s a charm, but sometimes it takes five referendum attempts, such as the Swanson reopening before the public thinks the district got it right..

Those of us who have lived here a while know the reason why. Those of you who are newcomers probably wonder why more people aren’t supporting your cause.

Maybe this will help.

The pro-referendum sentiment is that it is up to every generation to support the schools. A generation is usually considered to be 20 years. I have lived here 21. I added up the various referendums people in the 20 year residency range have already paid for: $29,275,000. If you add in the debt servicing, it is probably close to $50,000,000 that residents of 20 years have or are still paying out on.

Have I already “paid my dues”? What about the retired Elmbrook residents who have lived here for 30, 40, or 50 years? Can you see why we are not too enthusiastic about an additional $188 million by the time all the interest is added on?

Another selling point this administration and pro referendum group is touting is that this $108.8 Million referendum is a 30 - 50 year solution. I ask that you look at the referendums from the last 42 years and look how the monies have been spent and how the plans have changed in that time.

Long time residents have seen many schools come and go over the years. They have seen and funded schools built at the wrong time and then paid for them to be altered again to suit a different grade level. The administration has moved its location from North Ave. to Lilly and Hope. Burleigh was a middle school, now is a grade school. They have seen district property and facilities sold for a song.

Wisconsin Hills, built as a middle school but not really needed, soon became an elementary school, which caused the closing of several neighborhood schools. The Swanson/Wisconsin Hills referendum funded reopening Swanson and switching Wisconsin Hills back to a middle school. The 3 story addition to Central is slated to be razed. I believe it is less than 30 years old.

Elmbrook’s facilities were expensive to build. Razing and rebuilding is even more costly. We must change our course from wasteful razing and rebuilding of our facilities and move to a more sustainable plan. We cannot continue taxing at such high amounts for referendum after referendum.

Matt Gibson says we cannot afford to maintain our facilities to the extent they need. I say we cannot afford not to. His idea of “maintaining” is to do the least and then just go to the taxpayers repeatedly to replace what we have already paid for. Remember, we are still paying for the replacement of 2 existing elementary schools and only just finished paying for Swanson/Wisc. Hills.

It is far more reasonable to spend an extra $1 million a year and make some of the repairs and capital improvements our buildings need than to be taxed for $10 million a year for this referendum and bonding for the next 20 years.

By increasing the capital improvement budget 100%, in a short time, we could put in a new science lab, improve the library or remodel bathrooms. The cost would be about .13 / $1,000. The yearly cost for that fabled average home would be $43.55. There are no added interest charges. It is the best bang for the buck for the taxpayers.

Breaking projects down to smaller increments is also beneficial to the students. Because these projects can be done over the summer, there is less disruption to the students during the school year.

Nicolet has adopted a pay as you go plan as has New Berlin. Nicolet started with a small referendum 20 years ago, and has added another $5 to $7 million in yearly $500,000 upgrades. New Berlin does theirs with just $100,000 a year.

Look at the debt history for our school district. The referendum costs keep going up every time.

Taxpayers cannot keep this up. It would be far better to do better upkeep!

ONLY 1 MORE DAY UNTIL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TUESDAY, April 3, 2007!

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna