Elmbrook referendum impact

We’ve got an estimate of $163/year for the average $320,000 home figured as $0.51/$1,000 in value. We know the referendum amount of $62,190,000. We also have 20 years.

Elmbrook has a current tax base estimated at $7.5 billion according to this MJS article. So, $7,500,000,000 x $0.51/1,000 (also written as 0.00051) = $3,825,000 collected each year. Multiply that by 20 years and you get $76,500,000, or the total cost of the referendum.

That would be $163 x 20 = $3,260 total cost for an average homeowner.

Maybe it’s really a 30 year borrowing period, which would be $114,750,000 in total. That sounds more like what I would expect. Then the cost would be $4,890 per average home. (I thought the last referendum used 20 years, though, so it might not be an apples to apples comparison on the district Web site.)

I’m a little surprised that it’s only costing $14,310,000 to borrow $62,190,000 for 20 years. Maybe I’m wrong. Anyone else want to dig into this?


  1. I’d love to have a mortgage like that! Does the $0.51/$1000 of equalized value stay ‘static? If so, as the equalized value of Brookfield increases doesn’t the take increase? If not, there’s something else missing…

  2. I agree, something’s up with these numbers.

  3. If you use the same math on the failed referendum, does it calculate out just as odd?

  4. Previous referendum comes up with $162,000,00 over 20 years to borrow $108,800,000.

  5. Aarrgh! I’m trying to pack, you know. (I know, turn off the computer…)

    That’s what I got. SO the cost of borrowing was 49% before. ($53.2/$108.8)

    It’s 23% with the current estimate. ($14.31/$62.19)

  6. It’s the new math

  7. Again, I will vote against every referendum until it does two things: Combine into one high school, on campus.

    The second is to limit non-resident enrollment to the seats that are open as set by quotas. No more of this “creating more sections for non-residents.”

  8. Dan, that was a little cryptic. Why don’t you explain? (I get it, but don’t know if others will.)

  9. Cindy, you don’t remember Gore’s ‘lock box’ for Social Security funds? He got ribbed pretty good for it, and then parodied himself on SNL – http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/algore/a/prezgoresnl.htm

  10. No, I didn’t remember that one. I was wondering if Dan was referring to something else that’s going around.

  11. Cindy, I’m with you on this one… the numbers aren’t adding up to me… don’t mean that in a positive or negative light, I just “don’t get it.” Wouldn’t be the first time.

    Shawn, you sound pretty sure in that statement. Closing down to any new suggestions never got anyone anywhere. How could that one high school one campus possibly be cost effective when you think BEYOND the cost of building? Where would we put it? What do to with the old schools? What about all those kids? What about athletic facilities? How do we transport athletes to said facilities to practice? How do we merge two fully athletically competitive schools into a joint team without huge headaches? I’m already hearing the athletic directors talk about huge time conflicts for practice… we’d need a lot of practice space. Ugh, I can already hear the kids moaning and groaning…

    The joys of parenting, I’m sure.

  12. I’ll take a temporary headache if it remedies our non-resident and tax problems.

    Besides, the whole issue has been a headache for over a year now.

  13. Shawn –
    How would one high school remedy our non-resident problem? Are you assuming the administration would only build to resident population? Guess again. Clearly, this Board is lured by the promise of money brought in by these non-resident students – regardless of what the costs ultimately are on the other end. Proof is our continued participation in Chapter 220 despite the Supreme Court ruling declaring it unconstitutional in its current state.
    Driver brings some excellent questions/issues to the table.

  14. Look back to my original criterion. The criterion was one high school, and curbing non-resident enrollment. Those two must be taken in tandem in order for me to vote yes. Not one or the other.

    To me, the claim that it will be hard to combine athletic teams is a little bit of a poor excuse.

    As enrollment declines it will only make more sense to have one high school.

  15. It’s not an excuse, rather, just one point I’m making. No need to list my entire thought process here. But I agree 100% Shawn in that non-resident enrollment has got to go. Chapter 220 also needs to be eliminated but I’m almost afraid that the district just wants to have diversity quotas and they’re relying on that in part to do it.

  16. I don’t have a problem with 220 as long as they fill unused spots instead of creating new seats.

  17. The problem with filling “unused spots” is that those spots might be needed next year. Any one seat could be the tipping point for a new section. We saw that last year as they opened an extra section of kindergarten at Burleigh Elementary. There were TOO MANY slots made available in the first place, new enrollment was anticipated, so an extra classroom had to be provided.

  18. which is why you set up a system that says that in each grade level you have roughly the same amount of seats available.

    However, have a few more seats open in middle school and even more in high school as that’s when enrollment starts to increase.

    I don’t think ending non-resident enrollment entirely is a good idea, but I think we need to severely minimize it.

    Cindy, this isn’t a science so of course there will be anomalies here and there with new kids coming into the district, but make it a requirement that nonresidents can only begin in Kindergarten or 9th grade.