Elmbrook board approves community survey for 20-year facilities plan after debate over cost wording

The Elmbrook School District board voted 5–2 on March 20 to approve a community survey that would gauge public support for a possible facilities referendum, after a lengthy discussion about how the plan’s costs are described.

The survey, presented by district staff member Chris, asks whether residents would support options that could result in an estimated increase of about 11¢ per $1,000 of assessed value on the mill rate or, alternatively, letting debt fall off and seeing a 56¢ reduction. Chris said the document focuses on the funding question and uses conservative estimates so numbers can be tightened if the board moves toward a referendum.

Why it matters: Board members and residents pressed staff over the survey’s phrasing about a proposed $85,000,000 investment, debate that turned on whether that figure refers only to principal or to principal plus interest — a distinction some trustees and public commenters said affects public understanding of total cost.

Resident Elizabeth Tice, who requested to speak during the item, told the board the district should avoid inserting positions into the survey. "By hiring an outside firm to facilitate the survey, the school district is removing itself from the process so that it can capture accurate and impartial data," she said, adding that she was "concerned that some members of this school board are inserting a position about the potential referendum to the public. With fear mongering tactics, they are establishing a bias within the community." (Elizabeth Tice.)

Several trustees asked staff to clarify that the $85,000,000 figure referenced facility improvements and does not by itself include interest. Trustee Sam Hughes argued voters will read the number as a total project cost and urged clearer language or an asterisk noting whether the figure excludes interest. "I think it needs to be clarified that the $85,000,000 does not include the interest," Cheryl Milnes said during discussion.

District staff defended the wording as vetted by the consultant School Perceptions and said the survey is designed to keep questions simple so more residents will respond. "The most important thing are the funding questions," Chris said, pointing to consultant guidance and an intent to present plain-language options for community feedback.

Public response and motion: Resident Angie Pingel, who also spoke during public comment, said the survey understates deferred maintenance and urged the district to list total projected costs somewhere in the materials. "There's a huge difference between an $85,000,000 principal debt and a total cost of a $154,000,000," she said. (Angie Pingel.)

After discussion the board moved to approve the survey as presented. The roll-call vote, recorded by the clerk, was: Mary Wacker, Yes; Preetha Kurtyara, Yes; Jean Lambert, Yes; Wes Scylla, Yes; Cheryl Milnes, No; Sam Hughes, No; Scott Wheeler, Yes. The motion carried 5–2.

Next steps: Staff said the district would retain the consultant and move forward with survey distribution; if results show community support for an option, the board could later move to place a referendum question on the ballot with updated cost and interest figures.

The meeting’s minutes show the board concluded action items after the vote and moved to the scheduled discussion about school start times.