File this under: Plan ahead. Human Growth and Development team member Cheri Mastel left a comment reminding us of these upcoming HGD meetings. Since I don't want any interested parents or residents to miss this opportunity, I am posting portions of her comments here:

Soon we [team members] will give of time, effort, and talent to the HGD parent advisory committee again.  

Three 2-hour meetings are scheduled FOR ALL PARENTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES TO REVIEW THE ENTIRE K-12 CURRICULUM, OR ANY PORTIONS THEREOF.  Personally, I do not believe 6 hours is sufficient to review the entire k-12 curriculum including videos, DVDs, printed materials, etc, for this would imply 1/2 hour of instructional materials per grade level. Even viewing one video or DVD may use most or all of the time alloted.  More time has been requested of the district.  

The district has also been asked to provide copies of the not-yet-approved high-level-outcomes as a check-off-list for matching each of the instructional materials to their proposed outcomes during the review.

Meeting dates and times will undoubtedly be announced by the district but if you'd like as much advance notice as possible, and not risk overlooking a tiny notice on an obscure page, here is the info board members and HGD parent advisory committee members have received:

Tuesday, Dec. 9th 4:30–6:30PM, Friday, Dec,12th 1–3PM, and Tuesday, Jan. 6th 8:30–10:30AM

Again, many parents may be working at these times. The second meeting may be especially difficult to attend as it also coincides with school dismissal. Special arrangements may need to be made in advance, juggling schedules to attend.  I hope many will find it to be worth the effort.

I am glad there are a variety of times offered. I interested parents and residents should be at least able to attend one review meeting.

If I had a child in the district, I would want to know ahead of time what information my child would be given in class. You might be surprised by what is taught in the early grades.

Human Growth & Development (Sex Ed.) is a very personal issue. Opting out is always an option, but at what grade level do you need to start that? (For me, it would be K5, the school district's world view does not match mine.) The HG&D review should help you decide.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                             Math 22.4 students/class

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

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

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

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

4th grade - 23 students/class (1961)

5th grade - 23 students/class (1962)

6th grade - 25 students/class (1963)

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

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

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

Here are some of the areas of study: 

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

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

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

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

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

Links: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

The Elmbrook School Board will be discussing future Chapter 220 enrollment at their work session on Tuesday, Oct. 28th from 6:00 to 6:55pm at the District Offices.

The actual board meeting begins at 7pm with the 2009-2010 Chapter 220 and Open Enrollment planning topic starting at 8pm. 

Both meetings are open to the public. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Rumor has it that Elmbrook may discontinue cable broadcasts of BOE meetings, as they aren't sure anyone watches.  I cannot recall who told me this several weeks ago, but now I see there is an item scrolling at the top of the district home page to the effect of:  please tell us if you like the broadcasts.  

 

If you do, this is probably the time to let them know.  I certainly value them. 

 

Hi Kyle

Thank you for contacting Elmbrook Schools.  We are pleased that you are interested in how we make board meetings available for public viewing.

 

At this time, there is no plan to discontinue broadcasting the meetings on cable channels 13 and 96.  We will continue to do this.

 

We do not record the meetings digitally at this time, therefore they are not posted on the web.  It may be an option in the future for the district.

 

If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact me at 262-781-3030 ext. 1176, or melinda.mueller@elmbrookschools.org.

 

Thanks again!

  

Melinda Mueller
Communications Manager
School District of Elmbrook
Ph:   262-781-3030 ext. 1176
Cell:  414-587-3171
Fax:  262-901-0056
melinda.mueller@elmbrookschools.org

 

Thank you, Melinda. It would be great to have the meetings on the internet. Not everyone has cable TV. Plus, viewers could then watch at any time.

 

Kyle 

Lisa Sink reported that 4 year old kindergarten lacks support in Elmbrook. Am I breathing a little easier? 

Well, yes and no: (Emphasis mine)

Despite a renewed push by some parents to have Elmbrook schools offer 4-year-old kindergarten, it is unlikely to be implemented soon because three School Board members have asked to shelve the hot topic for the next two years.

...

The idea to add 4-K in the next one to two years was vetoed by board members Meg Wartman, Glen Allgaier and Tom Gehl.

There is no doubt in my mind that the subject will come up again. Elmbrook MUST cut $1+ million dollars from their budget each year. 4K is a tempting budget enhancer because it adds more students to the enrollment numbers, thus adding more state aid. (It also adds more expense!)

Please remember that improving Elmbrook's budget is NOT the same as improving the taxpayer's budget, because nearly all money coming into the school district comes one way or another from you, the taxpayers--local property tax, state aid, federal aid.

I believe our superintendent would like to bring back 4K but will not at this time because the public is watching. It seems he is having a hard time leaving those 4K state aid dollars on the table. It is only the resolve of the board members keeping this measure at bay. 

Superintendent Matt Gibson said 4-K was not dead and that the budget priorities were still being debated, but he said there was not strong board support for the program.

Pro 4K parents will swear up and down that their requests are not about free daycare but that they truly believe it is for the benefit of their child. Since there are private schools that offer pre-school--but at the parent's expense--if parents sincerely believe their child needs this, they can avail themselves of these opportunities.

Liberal politicians, such as Senator Obama, push for earlier and earlier public education--despite its lack of long term academic benefit. The topic will not go away. But for right now, thank you again, Tom Gehl, Meg Wartman, and Glen Allgaier for voicing your opposition to a program that doesn't perform.

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Last night I stopped in at the Elmbrook School Board meeting to say, thank you, to the board. I had heard there might be a group of impassioned pro-4K parents making their pleas during the public forum time and thought a different point of view might be in order.

I thanked them for acting in a fiscally responsible manner last fall when they discontinued 4K. True, parents and children loved 4K, but popularity alone isn't a valid reason for implementation. I also encouraged them to evaluate all programs and purchases in that same way because Elmbrook cannot afford to spend its precious taxpayer dollars on programs that don't show long term academic benefit.

Turns out, the group consisted of 2 pro 4K speakers. I came in half way through one woman's talk. She was disputing the validity of the Goldwater Institutes's preschool studies. She said something about that institute being against public education and so their results were skewed. (Watch the cable broadcast for her exact words.) 

There are of course many studies on the benefits of preschool. The ones I have seen all conclude the same: Students who attend preschool show short term benefit but no long lasting academic benefit.

Home School Legal Defense group still sends me email updates. This latest one cites some unpleasant results of preschool that are often ignored by the pro preschool groups. (Emphasis mine)

While proponents of institutionalized early education support their claim that pre-K is necessary and effective by pointing to childhood education research, the results of such studies are, at best, mixed. Many pre-K advocates cite the massive studies on child care and youth development sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) to bolster support for institutionalized early education programs. While many NICHD studies do, in fact, report some positive effects of pre-K, they simultaneously indicate several negative outcomes of early education programs. For example, in 2007 the NICHD reported in a single study that early childcare increased children's vocabulary, but that children who spent more time in institutionalized pre-K were more likely than their non pre-schooled counterparts to exhibit problematic behaviors, such as bullying, aggression, and acting out, through the sixth grade.¹ Proponents of government-funded early education often tout the first part of this study, which reflects favorably on pre-K, while ironically neglecting to mention the latter portion of the report. Such cherry picking is academically dishonest and hardly sound methodology for designing and implementing public education policy. ( “Early Child Care Linked to Increases in Vocabulary, Some Problem Behaviors in Fifth and Sixth Grades.” National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development (NICHD). NIH News. 26 March 2007.)

As I stated in an earlier post, you could also look at schools that have had 4K for a long time. Their ACT scores for example are not leaps and bounds higher than non pre school districts.

If 4K is so beneficial, shouldn’t Shorewood’s ACT scores be consistently higher than our school district’s that didn’t offer 4K? The data shows that this year was the first in the past few years that Shorewood edged out Elmbrook’s ACT scores by 1.23 points.  Of the top 10 schools in Wisconsin (Elmbrook consistently is in the top 10), at least 7 had no 4K program at the time those students tested started school. Incidentally, over 250 school districts have 4K so there should have been a better showing in the top 10 if it is so helpful.

The speaker after my turn spoke on a different subject. She was questioning the appropriateness of Elmbrook allowing R rated and PG13 rated movies being shown to underage students. Platoon and Saving Private Ryan were named. Those I know have very foul language in them. I'm in agreement with her!

I then went to the Creation Science meeting to hear Kitty Foth-Regner's talk on her journey from atheism to Christianity, so I don't know what else transpired at the school board meeting. Kitty's talk was pretty amazing. Hopefully I will get to blogging about if. 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

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

My posting on Dr. Gibson flirts with 4K again to cure Elmbrook budget woes sparked a bit of a controversy regarding Elmbrook's 5K enrollment requirements in the comment section.

MikeyD stated a startling bit of information in his/her comment, inferring that 4K was necessary: (My emphasis throughout. You can read all of the comments by clicking the above link.)

"...But I was very surprised that when entering 5K, children in Elmbrook are Expected to be able to read and write!  I was pretty astonished. Did any of you know that a 5K kindergartener is expected to be reading and writing? When I found this out, and in light of the very successful pilot program, I was all for 4K. Even if it only helps in the short term. Elmbrook has very high standards, a good thing, but if they expect this much from a 4.5 year old, they should have the means to make sure all students are at this level at the start of 5K, which would make 4K more than just a luxury and certainly not daycare.  They will be learning to read and write, doing math, it isn't all crackers and naps.

Then Kathryn relayed her experience: (Again, her entire comment is under the original posting.)

"MikeyD, I wonder if there was a miscommunication when this was discussed.  I too was startled when my non-reader brought home a book to "read."  Turns out it was more about getting going than presumed ability.  Certainly some children do enter kindergarten already reading and writing; in that sense  it is "expected."  Many other children enter unable to read and write, and that too is "expected." 

Which is it? Are children expected to be able to read and write to enter 5K, or is it just that some can?

So, I contacted Elmbrook Schools.

From:>>> "Kyle Prast"  8/25/2008 8:53 PM >>>

Could you please tell me what requirements or expectations there are for
enrolling a child in 5K? I would be interested in both the academic skills
necessary and social/emotional maturity level that you expect.

Thank you,
Kyle Prast

This was my reply on Sept. 9, 2008: 

The only requirement for enrolling a child in 5 year old kindergarten is that the child is 5 on or before September 1 of the enrolling year.  There are no academic or social-emotional benchmarks that the student needs to meet for entrance in to kindergarten.  

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Mary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The piece concludes with:

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

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

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

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

Past post: Does 4K deserve tax dollars? 

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

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

Links: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The expansion does not stop there. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about the hidden costs? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(H/T Fairly Conservative) 

Yippee! Pier project begins at Kinsey Park pond 

Links: 

Elmbrook may tap reserves for projects tonight after the Annual Meeting at 7pm*, at Brookfield El. What are the projects? The HVAC replacement, including air conditioning, at Pilgrim Park Middle School and some SmartBoards for some elementary schools. (*Actually, the budget hearing is at 7pm, the Annual Meeting is at 8pm.)

In an era of rising energy prices, I just cannot justify the cost to convert to and operate air conditioning our schools. I know the majority of Elmbrook voters disagreed with me on that since they just approved the $62+ million dollar referendum for the high schools--a significant portion going toward the air conditioning conversion and air conditioning gym areas. It still seems like a waste of tax dollars to me.

The commercials run by WE energies stating that Wisconsin pays 7% less than the national average for electric costs don't make me feel better about these HVAC decisions. My dad had a colorful saying about being better than the average, he would say, "He's/it's a little better than the average, but the average ain't so good!" Telling me I pay 7% less does little to ease the pain that occurs every time I look at my utility bill. Despite our efforts to cut back, the price keeps going up.

I think we all know that bigger utility bills are the shape of things to come. So why switch to a system that commits us to those higher bills now? It is hardly like money is growing on trees.

We have been told by the district that Elmbrook faces a $1 - 1.5 million dollar shortfall each year because of declining enrollments. Plus, there is that unfunded retirement liability lurking in the near future.

The district may try to sell the idea of air conditioning costs as being affordable. I seem to remember that they said the utility costs per square foot for Brookfield El. and Dixon actually went down compared to the old school buildings. Of course that was the per square foot cost.

Considering that the old schools probably still had the very inefficient florescent lighting and ballasts that use about a third more* electricity than the newer models, and the Univent valves all probably leaked (heating), it makes perfect sense that the per square foot cost went down in the new building. As it stands now, we are not saving the money from the increased efficiency in those schools but spending the savings on air conditioning.

The cost estimate to do install the air conditioning at Pilgrim is $1 million dollars. This is on top of the $3 mil. for boiler upgrades/replacements. One thing I learned from speaking with an expert in the HVAC field is that even if they can use the same pipes for the cold water as they do for the hot water heat, those pipes still need to be insulated. That means that each wall and ceiling the pipes run through need to be opened to install the insulation. Without insulation, the pipes sweat and drip into the walls and ceilings causing mold and damage. 

If it were my home, I would put the money into windows that opened from the top and bottom. That way, hot air off the ceiling vents out, and cooler outside air comes in from the bottom. I would install ceiling fans in most rooms and exhaust fans in the rooms that over heat.

For the few days that we have hot weather while school is still in session, I think proper ventilation would suffice. But then, those improvements would be because I was spending MY money, not someone else's (taxpayers).

We will see what this board does with this air conditioning question. Some on the board members are fiscally more responsible. Why, I heard Glen Allgaier ask at the budget intro meeting if we were going to use any of the 4K budget windfall to help offset some of our coming debt. (Good idea.) I think the answer was, No.

*Sorry, I cannot find my notes, but I think 1/3 is pretty close to correct. If I find my notes, I will post a correction.  

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links:

The Commission OKs plans for Ruby Farms site.  What I find so frustrating with our Plan Commission is that they grant PDDs and project proposals so easily. Oh, they raise all sorts of questions and concerns, but then vote as if with one "Aye."

Tuesday's meeting was interesting. There were a lot of points the mayor, AVS Development (VK), and commissioners were careful to make. These are not direct quotes, just my impression of the statements.  Watch cable broadcast for exact words:

Mayor makes a point of asking Ajay of AVS something about the amount of runoff water after development vs. before development.

Ajay: Considering the storms this weekend, there will be questions about storm water. We are meeting and exceeding ordinances.

Mayor: You're going to reduce current runoff?

Ajay: Yes,  AVS will sell construction ready pads [to other developers]. We, [AVS] are not requesting public assistance for storm water [or parking structures.]

In other words, no TID district to AVS. More details about what Percheron Square will include. Plans include 1/2 million sq. ft. in office space and parking structure buildings along with 210 condos, retail, an 126 unit extended stay hotel, fitness center, 80 resident assisted living, and Ruby farmsted.(Since Mrs. Ruby still lives there, I don't think they had much of a choice.)

More talk about how much tax base Percheron would add to Brookfield--estimated at $250 million.

Mayor questions Ajay about the office space.

Mayor: Our plan called for 1 million square feet in office space and you are saying less? 

The neighborhood plan did not have all the retail in it that Percheron Square has (852,000 sq. ft?).

Ajay: Yes, our office space was based on [5] parking decks, with that we get 420,000. With no decks, surface parking will cause office space to go down about 1/2.

 Mayor: You're not asking for any TID money for decks?

I think Ajay had to clarify this. The other developer could ask for TID to keep the decks and thus keep all office space of 420,000 of the freestanding office space, not the retail/office mix along Bluemound. 

The subject of connectivity came up several times. Approval based on Patrick Blvd. connecting to Percheron Square does not seem to be a major issue. (Patrick Blvd. extension runs through the neighboring DNR designated wetlands.)

Jennifer Donze raised some good points.

Donze: One of the things I feel is important to plan is the connection to office parks to the west. If we wait for DNR approval after plan [approval] that keeps us from other alternatives. I would request the permit to the DNR prior to the public hearing. 

She also brought up the narrow feel of Percheron Square Drive, a north south internal connection road between the tall office buildings.

Donze: 29 feet back to back is too narrow.

Mayor: "Narrower roads serve as traffic calming."  We have school on the other side, a narrower road puts drivers on notice that this is not a cut through, but a definite purpose.

Is that the same mayor who did not care that the Calhoun south neighborhood is now constructing a roadway the size of some highways cutting through it? 

Mark Nelson brought up this point and even said that other plans were denied because there were not other road connections within.

Mark Nelson: The dominoes needed to fall no matter who developed it. The one domino that is essential is the Patrick Blvd. We've stopped entire subdivisions because of too many culdusacs. We're lessening our standards without knowing what we can do with Patrick Blvd. 

The other domino is the Ruby and Swanson Swap. It seems to me those dominoes aren't going to fall in place right now. If we approve this, when can Mark Nelson step forward and say, Let's reduce buildings and heights

More work needs to be done to get it right.  

I heartily agree.  

Original plans of having Ruby Lane extended into the project have been scrapped. We were told that Elmbrook is not interested in any kind of playfield swap.

Jennifer Donze wished the future Ruby Lane extension would stay on the map.

Donze: There could be some time in the future that the school is no longer there. Why not keep it on the map for future use the city could not foresee? Sometimes plans aren't realized for 50 years.

Ertl fielded that one.

Ertl: School district lands are owned and controlled by the district... Matt Gibson was keen on the idea that the entire project was planned without needing school land.    

 Later Gary Mahkorn assured all that Swanson was off the table.

Mahkorn: I support taking Ruby Lane as a good will gesture to the School District off the map. It is an honorable gesture. I have a hard time believing Swanson will ever move. [Reference to I was at that Town Hall meeting with all the people.]

Why does that make me not feel assured? 

Talk of the poor economic climate and how this project was coming in not asking for TID money. Remember though, it is AVS not asking for TID money. There still could be a request for TID help for the parking structures. (Parking structures cost $15-16,000 each vs. surface parking at $2,000.)

This project is over the current FAR zoning of 30%. Of course the Plan Commission is salivating at the proposed $250 million increase to our tax base, so we know they will approve the PDD. I always ask myself, of that $250 mil, how much will it cost taxpayers in increased city services? Adding that much retail, office, and residential is bound to increase demand on fire, police, schools, and infrastructure, and add to traffic congestion. Plus, Brookfield does not have unlimited water supplies and certainly our sewer capacity does not seem to have excess capacity either.

There finally was some real clarification about the storm water. The Mayor again asked something about the water flow. 

Mayor: The water flow, once they do their grading it will decrease the amount?

Jeff  Chase: The devil is in the details. I haven't reviewed their plan yet, I have no reason to doubt their presentation.

Someone mentioned a standard of 120 ft/second. They propose 98 feet/second. (Sorry, I don't know if it was Chase or the next speaker.)

Then some "Expert" from the project stepped up to the podium. I think he felt he had to clarify.

Expert: The PEAK runoff rate, that is down 20%, not the total.

Jennifer Donze pipes up to help the mayor (and me) understand.

 Donze: They are slowing it down.

Bottom line is, after all the questions and doubts expressed, Gary Mahkorn makes his usual pronouncement...

Mahkorn: We're being asked to approve a PDD general plan, we're not committing to anything right now. Mark and Jennifer