Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elmbrook board reviews 20-year facility plan and $100M referendum option after survey shows majority support
Summary
The board heard a draft 20-year facilities plan that pairs annual capital spending with an optional $100 million referendum; staff cited a 2,900-response survey with 67% weighted support and outlined phasing, governance and timelines for possible June/July board action to place a November referendum on the ballot.
The Elmbrook School District board heard a detailed presentation of a draft 20-year facility plan organized into three phases and a discussion of funding options that included a potential $100 million capital referendum.
Chris Aldis, the facilities lead presenting the plan, said the draft draws on education adequacy, security and maintenance assessments and concept estimates developed with Bray Architects and CG Schmidt. He described two funding tracks: continuing annual capital investment (including a $2 million annual transfer into Fund 46) and, as an option, a $100 million referendum that could be paired with replacing expiring high-school referendum debt to preserve the district's long-term capital capacity.
A staff-cited community survey (2,900 responses; consultant-reported margin of error ~1.85%) showed weighted favorability of about 67% for the $100 million referendum scenario. Staff provided an illustrative tax-impact example: combining the referendum with debt replacement could cost about 11 cents per $1,000 of equalized property value in the district's modeling, though presenters emphasized that numbers are planning estimates and would be refined before formal action.
The plan lays out phased work by priority: phase 1 (years 1-5) identifies near-term, assessed projects; phase 2 (years 6-15) contains less-certain yet anticipated investments; and phase 3 (years 16-20) is intended to preserve the district's long-range options for legacy high-school work. Aldis said Tonawanda can be fit into the referendum scenario at about $33.7 million, explaining that some schools require different investments based on construction history and program needs.
Board members questioned operational impacts and risks. Cheryl asked whether construction would require rental or temporary learning space; staff described phasing strategies (build an addition first, then renovate existing wings, perform summer work and isolate active construction zones) and said earlier high-school renovations had been staged successfully over 18-24 months without broad use of off-site rentals. Other members urged clearer descriptions of how the facility plan ties to instructional space needs and suggested the board require a compact summary of design criteria and projected phase totals.
Staff outlined governance and next steps: the administration will bring a referendum resolution and draft ballot question for board discussion on June 16 and, if the board chooses to proceed, would seek board action in July to meet the statutory timeline for a November referendum. No binding referendum decision was made at the meeting.
