West Bend School District - 2007 Construction Referendum

In less than a month (November 6th), the voters of the West Bend Joint School District No. 1 will have to decide whether or not to approve the largest single referendum in state history, authorizing capital spending of $119.3 million over a four-year period. The District has produced and sent out several informational brochures explaining the plan.

A pro-referendum group has already emerged, has a web site up and is planning to make phone calls and distribute literature to urge passage. With an architectural background and experience with school facilities, I have to question the scope of the proposed project and challenge some of the statements made in support of the referendum.

In my life, one of the most important lessons I have tried to teach my children is the difference between "needs" and "wants". I believe the School Board and Administration diligently assessed the true needs, but used them as a mere starting point, then added in their 'wish list' as well as long-ignored maintenance items. Finally, in a calculated effort, they made sure to top it off with something tangible at every school to ensure that every parent and staff member would see a benefit to voting 'yes'.

Solid facts:Population growth is occurring - This is no surprise to anyone familiar with the area; especially the Village of Jackson; over 400 new students are expected to enter school in the next four years. Code issues - almost any work at existing public buildings triggers modern codes, including ADA requirements; this drives up costs by forcing additional work (a huge factor at Badger Middle School).

Debt-free in 2010 - the District will have retired all existing capital debt in a few years, allowing for redirection of that spending, where needed, in the future. Prevailing wage rate law - people may wonder why these construction estimates are so high. Many are not aware of the requirement to pay prevailing (union) labor rates on public projects; this law alone is responsible for an estimated $35-40 million of the total cost, compared with similar private-sector projects.

Distorted facts: The age and condition of the existing buildings has been exaggerated. Jackson Elementary School, "antiquated, built in 1894" - this date refers only to the original one-room school house; a large portion of the school is considerably newer, including one addition only 5 years old. The community has not built a new school since 1969 and student enrollment has doubled - while no all-new schools have been built, additions and renovations have been completed to accommodate needs over the years. On average, the school buildings are 62 years old - again, a majority of the space, by square footage, is considerably newer than that.

The Superintendent repeatedly cites the fact that the District is in the bottom 5% statewide in spending - as if that is a negative; quite the contrary, it is a tremendous credit to the Board, teachers and parents that get high achievement at lower cost than other districts. She has also resorted to the tired playbook used by other districts to drum up sympathy and support for referendums - including pictures of a boy with his leg in a cast on the stairs, cracked masonry walls, gaps next to windows, no window screens, etc. - relatively minor issues, but good propaganda. Many of these problems are a result of postponing maintenance work during development of the comprehensive facility plan. Supporters writing letters to the editor have used highly-charged phrases like "no insulation in roof", "chock full of asbestos", "dangerously crumbling to dust", "claustrophobic closet" and so on...again, typical distortions of the facts meant to create a sense of crisis. I have personal knowledge of many of these buildings and can vouch for the fact that they are not in the horrific shape that has been portrayed. Generations of children have passed through these facilities, impressive in their academic performance right up to the present day, and now we're told that no less than three of the nine are substandard, unusable and simply have to be replaced.

There is no argument that classroom space will be needed to accommodate the influx of new students, especially at the elementary school level in the next few years. Legitimate questions arise when the needs are said to also include new, larger gymnasiums, larger music and art rooms, renovations for secure entrances and a new weight room at the high school. These things might be nice, but are they critical to education? Do we really need extra space to hold an occasional all-school event that every relative can attend? Are the school entrances really "unsecured" now, or is this an excuse to remodel and increase the administrative space in each school? Is the population growth a sustained level or just a bubble due to the recent housing boom (suggested by the slight decrease in 2006)? These questions may have been answered to the satisfaction of some, and those assumptions have been included in the referendum amount, but I cannot agree with them as "needs".

In community feedback meetings, I also heard a lot of "building envy" - people who had visited schools or attended sporting events in other districts that had recently constructed buildings. They'd say, "That's what we need, too!" without any concern for the cost to the taxpayers. Today's parents seem to think that schools should be rebuilt on a 20- or 30-year schedule or their children will be learning in "outdated" facilities. Replacing bricks-and-mortar with new bricks-and-mortar is a largely futile exercise. When survey questions were put before the public, they were worded in a way that produced the desired results; less than 1,400 responses were received, 16% of which were from District employees. Enacting this plan in its entirety has been a foregone conclusion from the start - a fact that was proven when the Board took the all-or-nothing approach by approving a single referendum question.

I believe that this referendum is simply too large and needs to be voted down to send a message - continue to exercise fiscal responsibility and do not go on a spending spree just because "everybody else has". Buildings, whether brand new, or aged and worn, have little to do with the quality of education our children receive. Taking the District's facility study at face value, I could personally support the new school in Jackson, and can grudgingly accept the reasoning behind the new twin middle school concept that includes closing Barton Elementary and Badger Middle and renovation of Silverbrook Middle to serve as a new elementary school. Those portions of the plan comprise about $80 million (or 2/3) of the total, which is still a very large number - the remaining items are a list of things that might be nice, but should be budgeted for and completed over time if deemed worthwhile. Multiple questions might have allowed the taxpayers to separate the "needs" from the "wants", as they view them - maybe that will be the case the next time around. I would like to urge my fellow voters to take some time to review the available information and make an informed judgment on this important question.