Presenter outlines Elmbrook School District 20-year facility plan and three funding options
Loading...
Summary
The presenter updated the Board on a proposed 20-year facility plan proposing renovations at four aging schools with estimated costs of about $100 million, three funding scenarios (including an 11¢ mill-rate referendum option), and a SchoolPerceptions survey due to report May 12 ahead of a June 30 plan target.
Presenter updated the Board of Education on the Elmbrook School District’s effort to complete a 20-year facility plan by June 30, 2026, outlining renovation needs at four aging schools and presenting three funding scenarios. She said the options were developed with Bray Architects and CG Schmidt Construction and are intended to balance student learning environments with fiscal responsibility to taxpayers.
The presenter said the district identified four schools with material facility needs: Tonawanda Elementary (built 1969), Swanson Elementary, Pilgrim Park Middle and Wisconsin Hills. She described Tonawanda as an open-concept building with three pods of pie-shaped classrooms that are 10–15% smaller than district norms and said Tonawanda’s enrollment has grown by more than 150 students in the last 10 years; the proposed Tonawanda renovation was listed at $33,000,000. Swanson’s needs focus on creating dedicated academic-support and small-group instruction spaces and an updated library; the cost estimate presented was $9,000,000. At Pilgrim Park, the presenter highlighted accessibility barriers in music and choir rooms and an undersized gym that limits community use; the Pilgrim Park renovation figure presented was $27,000,000. Wisconsin Hills’ work focuses on updating electives (robotics, woods, art, technology) and reconfiguring large common spaces such as the cafeteria so they can be sectioned for daytime instruction and after-school use.
On district-funded maintenance and repair, the presenter said the best estimate for the next 10 years is $57,000,000, leaving about $14,000,000 for smaller improvements funded from district savings and an annual operating commitment. She said those district funds were not sufficient to cover the full renovation scope for all four schools, which is why the board is weighing referendum options.
The presenter presented three funding scenarios. The comprehensive 20-year option would fund renovations at all four schools with a combined construction estimate near $100,000,000 and, as presented, would require an 11¢ mill-rate increase; combined with the 56¢ of referendum debt that will retire in 2028, she said the total mill impact would be about 67¢. Using the Brookfield example the presenter offered, a $600,000 home would see a roughly $66 annual increase from the 11¢ addition and about $336 tied to the existing 56¢ portion that would be returned to taxpayers if the board did not pursue a new referendum. A second “debt-replacement” plan would replace retiring debt to support two complete renovations (Pilgrim Park and Tonawanda) for about $85,000,000 without increasing the mill rate above current levels. A third, more targeted scenario would prioritize Tonawanda and selected Pilgrim Park upgrades (figures shown as $33,000,000 and $27,000,000 respectively) and rely more heavily on district operations dollars for remaining needs.
The presenter noted the district’s needs-assessment process used educational-program adequacy, facility maintenance and safety/security reviews, facility tours attended by more than 100 community members at each of the four schools, and comparisons to the district’s newer elementary standards (Brookfield Elementary and Dixon Elementary). She said Bray Architects and CG Schmidt Construction produced options intended to last 30 to 50 years if the district continues lifecycle maintenance.
For community engagement, the district will use SchoolPerceptions to mail a survey to every household in April, providing paper and online response options with a unique code per household; results will be weighted to reflect district demographics and reported to the board on May 12. The presenter said the board anticipates additional engagement as the plan develops and hopes to have a facility plan and funding strategy in place by June 30, 2026. No formal vote or referendum was taken at this meeting.
Quotes attributed to the presenter included: “This is not an easy task and yet the work is vital to our district's long term success,” and that the renovation options “seem to be the fiscally responsible thing to do” given projected lifespans of 30 to 50 years for the solutions presented.
The board did not take formal action during the presentation; the next procedural steps described were the April survey, the May 12 SchoolPerceptions report to the board, and continued public engagement ahead of the June 30 plan target.
