School District Correlates School Cost to Achievement

Sun Prairie, WI
Educational subject experts here released a study this week revealing that test scores and achievement are strongly correlated to the value of the school buildings in which they learn.  Toss out theories on small class sizes, quality of teachers, and all other factors, they concluded.  It all boiled down to brick and mortar.

"If you build it, 

and it costs a really lot of money, 

they will achieve."

            ...W.E Think 
........................................................................
OK...so maybe THAT was an April Fool's day parody.
But this next story ain't no joke.

If one were to read today's Wisconsin State Journal, one might happen upon a small blurb about school referenda in this week's spring elections.  One of those is Beloit's referendum attempt for $70M.

Beloit has the largest proposal before voters, a $70 million question for improvements to schools and construction of a $17.2 million middle school for 660 students.
 Read more

So...let's get this straight....
Beloit has a plan for a school with a capacity of 660 kids for $17.2M ($26,060/kid).

Meanwhile, as part of the Sun Prairie School Board's Elementary Task Force, an estimate of $19.1M was presented for an elementary school with capacity of 500 ($38,200/kid).

The rendering looks pretty spanky...
...and the architect for Beloit is our very own Bray & Associates!

So...how come we need to spend 50% more per student on bricks and mortar?
Put in another way...how come Beloit can come up with a design that costs $2M less than our estimate with a capacity for 32% more kids?

It begs the questions...dontcha think?

Note:  In all fairness, there have been studies attempting to correlate academic achievement with building quality.  Typically, these focus more on older buildings.  One such article can be found here: http://www.ncef.org/pubs/outcomes.pdf

Turfing Ashley Field: Project PriceTag Rockets 42% to $2.4M

The hardest part of this story is how to title it.  There were so many subplots that were dragged into the daylight at the January 9, 2012 FTT Committee meeting:

• Stackhouse Tossed Under The Bus!
• "Better" Numbers Means Bigger Price Tag!
• Now Seeking Referendum to Turf Ashley!
• How Much Fundraising For Asley?  Zilch. Zero. Zed. Nada. 零.
• 18 Months Later  and NO Fundraising for Ashley Field!

It's been nearly a year since we heard anything about the project to put artificial turf on Ashley Field, build new team locker rooms, and add parking (after we cut out so much parking during the CHUMS re-model).  Many wondered if the idea had withered on the vine.

Now we learn that the project, which was originally (April 2010) said to cost $1.3M has soared off the charts to $2.4M. Asked for an explanation, district administration simply said, "We have better numbers now", effectively tossing former school board member and Ashley advocate David Stackhouse under the bus.

What Referendum?  Costs That Multiply Like Rabbits
How does a project increase 42% in less than a year?  How does it mushroom 83% in less than 2 years?
WHY WHY WHY does this district continue to pound for more than more, better than best?  And how do these numbers keep growing?  What originally was discussed as a maximum taxpayer commitment of $475,000 has ballooned into the idea of going to referendum with the "new building (elementary school) referendum?  Note once again that no decision has been made to even BUILD a new building...but athletic director McClowry and district administration put forth a Situation Report that sure seems certain that that is what's going to happen?

Let's stroll back through time, shall we?  Take a look see at how the landscape of the Ashley Project has changed.

April 26, 2010 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $1.314M ($475K District; $839K fundraising)
RECOMMENDATION:
The construction of locker rooms, toilet facilities, additional parking and installation of artificial turf will solve all of the above problems, as well as make the field more friendly to community use.

District obligation: To utilize a portion of the transportation and maintenance savings to build a parking lot on district property north of Ashley Field. Also, to finance a portion of the costs to construct and equip the locker room, toilet facilities and a mat for the SOAR gym. Approximate district commitment of $475,000.

May 24, 2010 FTT Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:
The construction of locker rooms, toilet facilities, additional parking and installation of artificial turf will solve all of the above problems, as well as make the field more friendly to community use.
Step 1: Allow the Sun Prairie Quarterback Club to actively campaign and be the primary contact for private donations and fundraising for artificial turf and to help create locker room facilities to be attached to the SOAR building. This will be done through a collaborative effort with other organizations that will utilize the facility.
Step 2: For the district to back the funding of the project, as they have done with the turf project for baseball, based upon the commitment of the fundraising effort. A complete plan will be submitted for board review.
Step 3: District obligation: To utilize a portion of the transportation and maintenance savings to build a parking lot on district property north of Ashley Field. Also, to finance a portion of the costs to construct and equip the locker room, toilet facilities and a mat for the SOAR gym. Approximate district commitment of $475,000.
Action needed at this time:
To approve Step #1 as outlined above, request details for Step #2, and request the Quarterback Club to obtain concept drawings and cost estimates for Step #3.
The result of school board action on that was to postpone the item and refer it back to the FTT committee for its 5-24-10 meeting.

June 14, 2010 School Board Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:

5.05 Ashley Field Improvements
Motion as recommended by the Facilities, Technology & Transportation
Committee  TO APPROVE STEP 1 AND ALLOW THE SUN PRAIRIE 
QUARTERBACK CLUB TO ACTIVELY CAMPAIGN AND BE THE PRIMARY 
CONTACT FOR PRIVATE DONATIONS AND FUNDRAISING FOR ARTIFICIAL 
TURF.
APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF STEP 2:
APPROVE THE CONCEPT OF STEP 3:
APPROXIMATE DISTRICT COMMITMENT OF $475,000.
Motion carried 


March 21, 2011 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $1.68M (no breakdown of who pays for what)
Fundraising: $0.
RECOMMENDATION:
6.04 Ashley Field Improvements

Motion by David Stackhouse, second by John Welke TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO APPROVE THE LOWEST BID FOR THE ARCHITECT WORK AT ASHLEY FIELD, AND FOR THE FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY & TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE TO ESTABLISH THE PRIORITIES FOR THE ASHLEY FIELD PROJECT. Motion Carried

Note:  The official recommendation from FTT included the following:
In exploring the project it was clear that the funding would be shared both by the district and independent fund-raising, with the majority coming from independent sources. The district funding would primarily come from maintenance savings, additional use fees and the yearly School Board approved capital projects budget.


At this point, the committee recommends that the board considers this project to be a future priority and one that will be explored as funding becomes available, while independent organizations are engaged in fundraising activities.

January 9, 2012 School Board Meeting
Projected Cost: $2.4M (no breakdown of who pays for what; discussion of referendum)
Fundraising to-date: $0.
RECOMMENDATION:

The Athletics & Activities Director, the Supervisor of Building & Grounds, the Deputy District Administrator (Business & Operations), the Principal of Alternative Programs, and the High School Football Coach met several times to discuss the next steps. The recommendation is:

1. To not anticipate nor ask for any school district contribution for the project outside the normal capital projects budget
2. To encourage the Quarterback Booster Club to begin fund raising to support this project.
3. To gain broader community input, ask the School Board to include upgrades to Ashley field with the next referendum; either as a separate question or included with the building question

And Nobody Came...
We're not sure which chaps us more...
....whether it was Mr. McClowry, when asked how much fundraising has occurred to date, stammering that none had occurred and that he wasn't aware that fundraising had been approved.
...or that a $2.4M project of this magnitude was being discussed and NON ONE from the football community (or any other sports that might benefit) even showed up to support it!

Is it apathy?  unmitigated gall? Or is it that the people behind this project don't want to spend one minute seeking donations?  Why should they?  When they can tack the whole project onto the elementary school referendum which the school board seems to think is not necessarily even in the cards?  What do the McClowry's, Frie's and Kaminski's know that the school board--and the public-- does not.

For Shame!
When baseball Coach Rob Hamilton wanted to upgrade the new baseball field and make it a state-of-the-art, drool-worthy competition site, he didn't ask for public monies.  He went out and solicited public donations to pay for the upgrades.

When the music boosters wanted to upgrade from a really nice concert piano to a breathtaking Steinway Model D, what did they do?  They busted their collective hump to solicit not only the funds needed for the upgrade, but also for funds to pay for future maintenance and tuning of the piano.

Even the agriculture program hit the streets and collected donations in support of the new greenhouse.

But footballers?  Not to mention all the other sports that could use an upgraded Ashley Field?
Nothing. Not one thin dime.  What IS up with that?
Epic failure.  SOMEONE ought to be ashamed.

Stackhouse pushing for a $475K Ashley Referendum?

Good news, folks...the recession's gotta be over.
"What?", you say. You didn't get that memo?
Well...it must be over if School Board member David Stackhouse is pushing for the district commit $475,000 MORE money to improve Ashley Field.

Read the Situation Report for the Monday 4-26-2010 meeting

Ok. Stand down (for now, anyway). It's only an "informational" agenda item--meaning the board cannot take action on it---but it's clear that the intent is to bring it BACK for action at the Board's May meeting.


But this is one loaded potato. The Stackhouse-Kaminski Report contains 13 attachments (several with multiple parts) and a total of over 50 MEGAbytes in downloads. Geez...think of all the Itunes you could get for that!

Seriously...we get it. We love football too. But you know what? Here's just the top tier of reasons why the school board needs to politely say, "NO, but thank you for bringing this forward".

1. The initial intent was to siphon off some of that referendum surplus (Hmmm...does that explain Stackhouse's opposition to several of the other projects proposed?). But the legal opinion was that referendum funds cannot be used for Ashley Field. Stay tuned though, because we hear that "they" are asking for a second opinion on that.

2. Talk is turning toward a referendum specifically for Ashley Field improvements. Stackhouse asked Tim Culver to research how much revenue could be generated by a one-year tax levy equal to $12 on a home valued at $200K. A referendum SOLELY to improve a sports field? Is Sun Prairie trying to be a great SPORTS district...or a great SCHOOL district?

3. Contrary to popular belief, there ain't no fat lady singin' and the recession most definitely is NOT over. The budget was tough to swallow last year, resulting in an unprecedented taxpayer vote to slash the levy by $2M. Newsflash...the economy isn't much better, and the proposed budget already calls for a nearly 8% rise in the mill rate!

4. The locker rooms at the existing high school were always sufficient. How could there be LESS space when the school will now house 50% fewer students?

5. If these changes were so sorely needed...why were they not part of the CHUMS modification plan 2 years ago?

---

A good school board separates "wants" from "needs". Like Caren Diedrich once said, There are many wants; [the board] provides what is needed".

As Al Borland would say, "We don't think so, Dave"

Operation "End Around": 1st Impressions, 2nd Thoughts, 3rd Degree

The more we think about Stackhouse's little shenanigans--we'll call it "Operation End Around", the more we think it stinks on multiple levels.

SP-EYE post: "Referendum shenanigans Afoot?"

Stackhouse's plan
It's pretty clear that Stackhouse is interested in emptying the piggy bank of leftover funds from the referendum. Assuming that's not enough, he's looking at a one-time special levy to fund his soggy reverie. How much is he looking for? Well...his plan for a $12.00 tax on a 200,000 home translates to a mill rate of $0.06. 6 cents....that's pretty harmless...right? Wouldn't you pay 6 cents per $1,000 for football? Hmmm? Assuming an equalized value of $3.9B for the tax base, a mill rate of 6 cents translates to about $235,000.

Board of 7 or Board of 1?
Stackhouse's e-mail is clearly directing Culver to take some action. Giving Stackhouse the benefit of the doubt, SOME of what he asks for could be considered an "Open Records request", which can be made by any citizen. Of course, what he's asking for could involve a lot of paper...and we don't see any offer to PAY for his request, as other citizens are required to do.

On the other hand, unless legal opinions already exist, Stackhouse is requesting that the district consult with legal...at a cost to the taxpayer of $250 per hour. Certainly, a legal opinion must be sought regarding whether or not the district MUST use Findorff.

More importantly, shouldn't such a directive come for the board itself? Wouldn't this have to be a specific board agenda item...open for discussion...and then a vote by the SEVEN board members regarding whether or not to direct administration to do anything?

Culver covers his bee-you-tox
You gotta love Culver's "Get Out of Jail Free" respond. By copying all 7 board members on his directive to McLowry/Frei, he is essentially telling the board to "speak now or forever hold your peace". That is...if no board member says, "Wait a minute, Tim...", and only LATER questions Culver....then Culver can say..."but...but... I alerted you to what I was doing. If only you had said something, I would have stopped." This is the old "It's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission" philosophy.

But...he's brilliant...because NONE of the board members will actually take issue with this and call Culver out on it. And Culver knows it.

Culver SHOULD have said, "Mr. Stackhouse, I'd be happy to do what you request, but I really need you to get this on the board agenda and have the full board make a motion".

Conflict of Interest?

"I have been approached by the football community to
spearhead a campaign to upgrade the facilities for Ashley field. "
--(Schoolboard member) David Stackhouse

Whoa! Since ultimately Stackhouse, as a board member will vote on this issue, won't he have to recuse himself?

" [The football community] will present at Monday's board meeting and I will follow-up with
a situation report for the April 26 meeting. "
--(Schoolboard member) David Stackhouse

Isn't this a tad presumptuous? We all remember board President telling us that the board cannot discuss, respond to, or take any action on anything raised via community resident comments. Yet Stackhouse seems to imply that the board will add this as an agenda item for its April 26th meeting. Oh wait....the board doesn't vote or discuss future agenda items publicly, does it? The board president (which mean Culver) sets the board agenda. Hmmmm.

Seabass, the athletic supporter?
This is "where the rubber meets the road" as Caren Diedrich likes to say. So...will she continue to vote as a fiscal conservative [as she professed during the elections] and vote this down? Will Seabass McCourt, now that he's been re-elected, vote like the budget conscious guy he claims to be? Or like the athletic supporter we all know him to be? Being decidedly sans cojones, we know that Whalen will vote to support Stackhouse's proposal. Hmmm...does Stackhouse have 4 votes?

This just smells increasingly rank the more we think about it.

Referendum Shenanigans Afoot?

Such questions!
A school board member SPEARHEADING a campaign to wrestle referendum dollars? Is that something an elected official WHO WILL VOTE ON ANY SUBSEQUENT NMOTION should be doing? Or worse yet...to create ANOTHER referendum? Here we go again...quiet Monday night shenanigans, hoping that only those voices "in the know" and who will support this movement will be in attendance.

Concerned Taxpayer has a valid point. Perhaps it was NOT a good idea in the first place. Why did we build a high school with new sports fields with the intention of playing football on Ashley Field? And more importantly...who declared this recession over with? Are people in any better financial shape to be spending MORE money? And why is it that---without community pressure---the music people would have had to pay 100% of the cost for a concert grand piano, yet Stackhouse wants to spend MORE tax dollars on sports?

It is time to blow the dust and cobwebs off of the mystery behind Ashley field. During the high school planning phases, several times comments from the school board table indicated that, as part of the Asley family agreement, something along the lines of "If the SPASD varsity football does not hold its home games at Ashley Field, then the school district loses the ownership of the land". It's time to tell the truth and tell it publicly. What legal holds are there on Ashley Field?

---

Here is something that needs to be blogged and squashed IMO. The football people made a decision to use Ashley field, and now they want to upgrade it when there is some extra money laying around. There is no way we get that money back just so the players can dress at the stadium. I think the original decision was dumb, but I don't think this is something that we should be dropping $600K+ on!

Concerned Tax Payer
.....................................................
Begin forwarded message:

From: "Tim Culver"
Date: April 10, 2010 8:09:39 AM CDT ......on a Saturday, no less!
Subject: Re: Ashley Field/ Football questions

Phil [Frei] & Jim [McClowry]:
Please prepare the response to David's request. Please put together and deliver your report to him (and the whole Board) by Friday April 16.

Thank you,

Tim

"DAVID STACKHOUSE" 4/9/2010 1:50 PM >>>
Tim, Phil and Jim,

I have been approached by the football community to spearhead a campaign to upgrade the facilities for Ashley field.
They will present at Monday's board meeting and I will follow-up with a situation report for the April 26 meeting.

Information that I am looking for:

Referendum presentation material for the new high school.

Bond counsel's opinion on using referendum dollars for improvements to Ashley Field.

Attendance at home football games for a typical season:
1. Number of paid attendees.
2. Dollar amount of admission receipts.

How much does the district anticipate it will cost annually to transport athletes from the new high school to Ashley field for games?

How much does it cost the district annually for maintenance and preparation at Ashley field?

How much revenue can be generated by a one year levy based on $12 increase to a house valued at $200,000.
I.E.: If a referendum was offered for a one year period that the average house paid $12, how much total dollars would we receive?

On construction at Ashley:
1. If we use referendum dollars, are we locked in to using Findorff?

2. If the funds are generated separately, are we locked in with Findorff or is another contractor acceptable?

I believe I will most likely have additional questions, but this should get me started.

Thanks,
David

Pop Quiz, Hotshot!

If the Sun Prairie Area School District was an appetizer from a national chain restaurant's menu, what would it be?

Some might answer: "Hot Wings".

Others might suggest, "Fried Cheese Curds" or "Cheese Sticks."

We're certain that a few might quietly chuckle and suggest some type of dip.

And we have to admit that a case could easily be made for that old staple of our youth from a Chinese restaurant --the "Poo Poo Platter".

But there's something even more fitting. We've got it.

The SPASD is like...

a "Bloomin' Onion"!

A "Bloomin Onion", you ask?

Yep. Because the more you dig at it, the more layers there seem to be. And the deeper you get towards the core, the greater the impact on your social graces--if you catch our drift.

The Computer Purchase Example

To illustrate the many layers of the district that one must peel to get at the "core", look no further than the recent announcement regarding computer purchases for the new High School (HS) and Upper Middle School (UMS). It's unfortunate that the Sun Prairie Star failed to cover ANY of this discussion from last Monday's school board meeting, because the more you know, the more you get ticked off.

The District initially announced plans to purchase 1375 computers. No...that's not a typo. At about $500 each, that amounts to a sizable chunk of referendum dollars. So you ask a few questions. How many for the new high school: 1100. 275 for the UMS. Whoa! you plan on opening the doors with 1400 kids and you want to buy 1100 computers????!!!

You ask a few more questions...like how many computers are at the existing HS (which will become the UMS). The answer is quite foggy...something along the lines of the fact that they don't really know exactly which computers are where. They have tag numbers, and when they have to be replaced, a technician just kind of hunts through the school till they find the computer? You mean a $68M "business" cannot track copmputers better than that? Wouldn't that facilitate quiet "movement" of computers from place to another? What about those purchased with referendum dollars? WTF?!

And then you get some information from a district insider and find that they want to have 779 computers in the UMS--for about 900-950 kids. And then they want to have 884 computers in the new HS--for 1400 kids. Do a little math, folks. Of course THIS information hasn't been shared with the community--or even the FTT.

Then they come out and REVISE the proposed purchase and want to buy MORE than 1100 computers for the new HS. What?! And then, you read a little further and see that....

" We estimate that 120 computers will be needed for adding classrooms in the next five years. We propose using these computers to create two additional computer labs at both the 8/9 school and the new high school. As computers are needed in the classrooms, they would be transferred from the computer labs."

WHAT!? You want to buy PCs for FIVE years in advance, when you KNOW district policy is to replace PCs every 5 years? Huh?

Anyone else smellin' what we're smellin'? It's kind of foul, innit?

6 Coffee Drinks Per Year, Huh???

In his STAR editorial this week, Chris Mertes says that the school board should go forward with a $3.9M referendum for a pool, equating the $20 per year property tax hike on a $200,000 home to "about six of your favorite coffee drinks".

First---and we have to get this out of the way-- Who in the HELL is buying coffee drinks that cost $3.33 a piece???? Some of have no interest in that mocha venti latte happy crappy. A wise old man, when I asked for cream and sugar for in my coffee asked, "Then why did you order coffee?" Webster's defines coffee as "a beverage made by percolation, infusion, or decoction from the roasted and ground seeds of a coffee plant ". That's it. Boiling water passing over ground coffee beans. And you can get $20 oz. at any Stop N' Go for $1.29 or less.

Chris is a decent guy...but he's either nuts or must make a pretty fat salary to support that kind of coffee jones. SP-EYE spoke frequently with Kaitlin Warriner, who used to write the Lifestyle and school columns. I guarantee you SHE couldn't afford to drink $3.33 cups of coffee. Now the $100K club? They most certainly can afford to drink high priced coffee to wash down their taxpayer funded pizza or Cousins' sub lunches.


Drowning in coffee

So...over the past 10-11 years, the community has gorged on coffees for:

• $ 188,760,000 in total building costs


• That's 216 of "your favorite coffee drinks" per year FOR 20 YEARS


• @3.33 piece = $722 of additional property taxes /year FOR 20 YEARS

...and THAT is why some people aren't jumping for joy about a pool that costs "only $3.9M" or "6 of your favorite coffee drinks per year".

Sure...a pool would be nice. And $20 doesn't seem like all that much...a movie (matinee) for 2 and a small bucket of popcorn. But that's really being disingenuous to the point here isn't it? The point is that for some folks, the camel's back has been broken.

SP-EYE: The school board has been quick to point out whenever they come in under budget on these building projects. Why don't they scale down the pool a little bit (The original Pool Task Force worked out a design with Bray that would meet WIAA standards and only cost $2.4M). Then, they could work with Bray and Findorff to slightly modify the high school design such that a pool could be included and still be UNDER the original $96M. Finally, with that in their pocket, they could go for a referendum to add the pool at NO ADDITIONAL construction cost.

...but THAT would be thinking outside the box.

Pool Referendum for November?

The school board is edging ever closer to setting up a November 4, 2008 referendum to add a pool to the high school construction project. The FTT discussed the project at its Monday August 11 meeting, and an informational update was provided during the full school board meeting.

Fast Facts on the Pool, Take 2.



The projected cost is $3,892,500.

Annual operating costs (1st year only) are projected to be an additional $397,000.

It is estimated that $96,000 of annual operating costs could be offset by public user fees.

Estimates assume 51,750 public "user visits" per year.

Initial estimates suggest that a referendum to exceed the annual Revenue Cap of $288,205 is required.

For a Nov. 4 2008 referendum, school board must vote to go to referendum by 9/8/08. That leaves 2 school board meetings (where the public may comment on the idea): 8/25/08 and 9/8/08.

STAR says: Vote 1. NO 2.yes 3.NO on Sun Prairie High School Referendum

SEE: http://www.sunprairiestar.com/editorial/editorial.html

Question 1 (new 10-12 High School; remodel HS to an 8-9 school)

The remodeling of the high school into a middle school will allow for construction of a larger high school, which we still think could be constructed for 2,400 students (that’s 600 students per grade) until space demands require construction of a second high school in roughly 10 years. That was always part of the district’s long-range planning for its west side piece of land – and our proposal would not change that. That size is consistent with previous editorials regarding this issue – as is the phasing. Of course, west siders want their own high school and will likely turn out against this proposal because of that.

There are plenty of reasons why we think voters will reject the Nov. 6 referendum, but the failure of the district to recognize the community’s desire for one large high school is perhaps the greatest among them. For those reasons, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE NO on Question 1 to authorize borrowing $96 million.

Question 2 (swimming pool for the new high school)

Although [the STAR] believe[s] the vote will be a symbolic one because [the STAR] believe[s] question 1 will go down in flames, [the STAR] suggest[s] voters VOTE YES on question 2 to support borrowing $3.325 million for a swimming pool.

Question 3 (exceed revenue cap each year for swimming pool operating costs)

Did the board make the same requirement when the district’s other athletic facilities were constructed? Did it require an exceed the revenue cap question when gymnasiums were constructed to pay for heat, lights and equipment? No. So why then would the school board require taxpayers to pick up the tab associated with the operation of this facility?It’s a question the board needs to answer – and until then, [the STAR] urge[s] voters to VOTE NO on Question 3.

School Board can't even make a simple determination.

How many school board members does it take to screw up? Just one. Take your pick.

Over a month ago, SP-EYE asked Jim McCourt, chair of the Finance Committee why Tim Culver's paid memberships exceeded the boundaries set by his contract.

http://sp-eye.blogspot.com/2007/09/is-anyone-watching-books.html

McCourt had no answer, and Mary Ellen Havel-Lang tried to shut the discussion down, crying "Point of Order!" SP-EYE pressed on and asked why the Finance Committee approved the check to pay for Culver's Rotary dues. McCourt said he would look into it and get back to us. RRRRRRRIIIIGGGGHHHTTTT!

This past Monday, Dr. James Murray asked about the status of the complaint and was told, "We're not going there." So much for open meetings, communicating with the public, and a decisive school board.

How hard is this? You were wrong. Culver over-extended his contract, and someone needs to own up to the responsibility. The dues need to be reimbursed by Culver, and the Board should be demanding it. You can even issue an empty apology for the "oversight". Again...what the hell are you teaching our children???

These "leaders" want us to approve $100M for a referendum, but can't even manage to watch these simple expenses. Gotta wonder how much Sun Prairie is being fleeced on the cost of this referendum.

Pool plan puts the damper on high school referendum

At last night's (9/10/07) school board meeting, girl's swim coach Nancy Harms, a number of girls swim team members, and Piranha club members spoke out about the pool plan being proposed alongside the high school referendum poised for November 6th.

The major issues cited were:

1. The pool exists as a separate referendum question, yet the field house and performing arts center were bundled into the high school plan.

2. Proponents felt that an 8-lane pool offered more to the school and the community than the proposed 6-lane pool.

3. Pool proponents believe that bleacher seating capacity of 100 is insufficient.

Board president David Stackhouse reminded the public that the Ad Hoc Pool Task Force was convened in the spring/summer of 2006 to draw up a plan for a pool and a curriculum. That effort involved at least 16 hours of Task Force members' time and effort. The Task Force was comprised of a number of pool managers, swim team coaches, and Bob Hollings, SP Director of Parks and Recreation (who also oversees the Aquatic Center). The final plan recommended by the Task Force represented a consensus of the group.

Board member Tim Boylen cautioned the public that ignoring the work of committees such as the Pool Task Force will not bode well for enlisting future involvement of community member volunteers for committees.

The school board voted to table any action on the referendum pending some re-evaluation of pool options. A meeting on the pool issue has been scheduled for next Monday 9/17/07. The final vote for the entire referendum must be completed at the 9/24/07 school board meeting in order to hold a Nov. 6th referendum.

"It is what it is" - The Sun Prairie High School Plan

At the August 2oth high school plan team meeting, school board member Mary Ellen Havel-Lang noted the estimated effect the plan would have on the mill rate and simply said,
"It is what it is."

What is it? $97M and $1.24 to $1.31 increase to the mill rate.

At the August 27th school board meeting, Rick Mealy cited the April 30th CRT results which showed that 90% of the CRT could only support a maximum mill rate increase of $1.00. District Administrator Tim Culver then offered a rebuttal and "corrected" Mr. Mealy's statement regarding the CRT. Culver stated that on May 21, the CRT voted 78% in favor of supporting "the plan" at a cost of $87.7 to $97M.

Most taxpayers care less about the total cost of something as they do about how it will affect them: i.e., the mill rate and a project's effect on property taxes. What the CRT actually voted for on May 21st was this:



This slide shows that the 78% supported a plan that would not cost more than $1.11 on the mill rate...which was far more generous than the CRT agreed to at the April 30th meeting. Note, however, that while the final plan came out at exactly the maximum of the range shown to the CRT, the final mill rate estimate at $1.24 (without a pool) is about 12% higher than the CRT agreed to support.

So...while Dr. Culver was technically correct in his "correction", he was without a doubt being disingenuous as to what the CRT requested. And in case there is any doubt about the CRT's priorities, here they are from the May 21st meeting: #1: One high school, #2 cost.

How much "fluff" is there in the Sun Prairie High School Plan?

At the 8/20/07 High School Planning Team meeting, Architect Larry Bray was asked to explain why the pool cost was estimated at $4.5M when plans his firm developed for the Ad Hoc Pool Task Force in July 2006 showed designs ranging from $2.5M to $3.6M.

Mr. Bray's response was " ...we had to add in site costs and materials cost increases. That brought us to about $4.2M. From there, we rounded it to $4.5M."

A quick calculation shows that this rounding results in a "fluff factor" of over 7%. How much fluff is in the $97M school construction plan? A similar 7% , or $7M?

Is this just a slick way that the school board and the district can later come back and want us to kiss their feet because they didn't have to spend all the money that was borrowed? Is this a means of artificially creating a construction slush fund to be used later to cover staffing costs so the board/district can say, "see...we didn't have to go to referendum to exceed the revenue cap???

It is information and statements such as these that are the root of public distrust in the school board and district administration. David Stackhouse may be right....there is no need to a "Community Engagement Task Force"...just stop the shenanigans !

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

Who Voted
Who Didn't

B4SPIN.com

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

Rushing towards Number 2

A $100M referendum.
That would put Sun Prairie #2 all-time behind only Milwaukee and their beyond belief $366M failed attempt in 1993. If this passes, we would have the top spot secured for successful referenda. The next in line is the New Richmond School District which passed (!) a $92M referendum this past April.

These are FACTS; check out the data on the DPI website:

https://www2.dpi.state.wi.us/safr/all_referenda.asp

If we pass a $100M referendum, we would also rocket to the #2 slot on another chart- the
DPI District Long-Term Debt report. As of June 30, 2006 we had a total debt of $74.1M + $14.7M for elementary #7 for a total of $88.8M. Add $100M and we more than double our long-term debt to just under $190M. Second only to....guess who....Milwaukee at $389M.

These are also FACTS; check out the data on the DPI website:

http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sfs/doc/debtmax4.doc

The school board and Tim Culver will tell you that a debt of $190M isn't bad, because state law allows us to borrow up to $356M. Great. I know a few banks that will loan you more money than you can afford...to help you buy a new house. What one can afford according to formulas does not equate to what one can afford based on a reasonable budget.

The school board also says that this new $100M project will make our schools "the envy of every district across the state". Do we want other to envy our schools? Or the education we provide our kids and how we prepare them for life beyond high school? $100M schools don't improve achievement scores, and they certainly don't address the achievement gap. Shouldn't we consider spending less money on bricks and mortar and more towards educating the kids underneath those mortarboards?

Is this too much number 2 for you?

High School solution....all over but the shouting?

On Monday, July 30, 2007, the Sun Prairie School Board's High School Planning Team (HSPT) met to review updated drawing and cost estimates from Bray & Associates.

The plan is to go to referendum in November. Surprise, surprise, but the architect seems to insist that we have to go to referendum in November in order to open the school for the fall of 2010 school year.

It will be a 3-story (some rooms on 3rd floor) structure for 2000 students grades 10,11, and 12, located on highway "N" just south of Angell Park. Note that there will be no further CRT meetings to review the final project.

What happened to the June 18 CRT meeting that was scheduled during the May 21^st CRT meeting? Members of the CRT that we have spoken with were not alerted of the HSPT's decision to "disband" the CRT.

The plan calls for a building of 407,798 square feet (SF)...or about 850 SF less than projected on July 16.

Price "range" is expected to be $73.2 to $78.5 M (down $200-250K from July 16).
Add on costs (which MAY be individual referendum questions) include:

• Fieldhouse additional $1.3 to $1.5M
• Fly loft (addition to performing arts center) - $0.6M ($600K)
• 8-lane swimming pool w/ exercise pool - $4.0 to $4.5M

That means the total cost for the school (including all options) is $79.1 to $85.1M

Now come the OTHER costs we have to contend with.

• Renovation of the existing high school for 1500 grade 8&9 "junior high": $22.0M
• Payment share due for Westside "greenway" project: $0.5M ($500K)
• Operating costs : ?????????????????????

Final tally of referendum dollars needed: at least $99.6 to $107.6M.

What does this mean for taxpayers?

It's too early to have exact figures, but if $14.6M recently borrowed for elementary school #7 translated to an effective mill rate of $0.19 per $1000 assessed value, then we can do some easy math. The projection would be $1.30 to $1.40, or $325 to $350 per year for an average $250,000 home.

At the April 30th CRT meeting, CRT members overwhelming voted that they would not support a mill rate increase over $1.00. Only 10% would support a mill rate over $1.00. 46% would support a solution with a mill rate of no more than $0.81 per $1,000. 36% said they could support a mill rate increase of $0.81 to $0.99.

The HSPT has not made any mention of discussing the mill rate with the CRT. The tone of Monday's meeting and the School Board's recent taxpayer-funded catered dinner with the City Council was all about getting to referendum in November.

It's time to speak up, residents, because the CRT is no longer. The next scheduled meeting is for August 20, 2007 at the School District Office.

FACTS: See how the rest of the nation and region compare with building:

http://www.peterli.com/global/pdfs/SPMConstruction2007.pdf