WFB "Vote No" Flyer
Did you receive a "Vote NO" referendum flyer this week? I did.
The group "Concerned WFB Voters 2009" (hereafter called CWFB) is suggesting that the School District is, well, trying to bamboozle voters by claiming the cost of the referendums are actually much higher than written.
This accounting piques my interest, so I decided to investigate and write.
I am not associated with either the "YesYes" group, the Advocates for Education, nor the CWFB group. I have, however, lived in Whitefish Bay 12 years, all the while paying into the School District while not having children attend.
What I've found is that .. CWFB gets credit for raising some issues, although the presentation tends to scare more than inform.
First up, the "Concerned WFB" group suggests the Referendum questions are somehow falsely suggesting pricetags of $9m and $13.6m because of the cost of interest on the borrowed money.
The referendum on the ballot grants the District the ability to issue "general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $9m.." and $13.6 for the second item.
Question: Did anyone think those bonds wouldn't have an interest cost?
School District estimations assumed a worst-case scenario of 5.5% bond interest. -- Notice how mortgage rates are at historic lows? Guess what .. so are municipal bond rates. You can see the recent bond trades for the WFB District here.
Actually, if you ever wanted to borrow money for public improvements, now would be that time.
And here's an unmentioned bit: There is a decent chance the WFB District will luck out with a zero interest loan from the US Government, thanks to stimulus packages.
Back to the flyer:
This is true and false. It is absolutely not "unforeseen." It is a given fact that the School District knows full well about, and has included in all calculations. Property "rich" districts lose aid when they raise money through referendum, and for Q2, the District has calculated that they will lose $5m of aid over time.
(There is some irony that the CWFB flyer uses a figure calculated by the School District, yet calls it an "unforeseen consequence.")
Here are the facts:
In the next year, District debt is retiring that costs taxpayers about $125/year in taxes on a $350k house. For question 1, the District is asking for $9m in new debt for maintenance projects to replace that debt.
- If Q1 is voted down, and you own a $350k house, your property tax will decrease $125/year. Yes, you can vote yourself a tax cut, plain and simple.
- If Q1 is passed, your property tax for schools will remain unchanged, as it will go down $125, then up $125, which is a wash. That's the way Q1 was designed.
The CWFB group suggests the above is "misleading." Personally, I don't find it complicated.
---
For question 2, the District is asking for $13.9m in new debt for maintenance projects.
- If Q2 is passed, your property tax for schools will increase $248/year on a $350k house.
It's important to note that is a WORST-CASE scenario, since the School District used 5.5% as their bond interest rate, which is literally a maximum. Could be 4%, could be 2.5%, could be 0%.
In these estimates, the District has INCLUDED the cost of the project, the debt, the interest, AND the lost state aid. -- Suggesting otherwise is disappointing political fluffery.
--
There are indeed good reasons to vote for and against the referendums. You might consider it too personally costly, or too risky, or unnecessary. You might not have children in the public school system.
My advice is to read and understand, get the facts online or in person, and make your own judgment call, based on your own political and financial position. Decide whether you want maintenance performed on the schools for Q1, the improvements in Q2, and how that fits in with your pocketbook and personal outlook concerning our schools.
Seek out your own answers by going to the official School District referendum site, the YesYes group's site, and the CWFB Voters site. Compare and contrast.
Or you can find out in person .. there've been almost a dozen public forums and there's one more: October 27th, 7pm, in the Middle School Media Center.
39 COMMENTS
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Big K,
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
What about building a network of underground sidewalks to improve pedestrian safety? We could build tunnels from our homes that lead directly into the schools so our children would not have to brave the elements or the rampant street crime that is apparently spilling into our schools.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
gr8schools4bay - Many of the improvements will be outdated and probably have to be replaced before we finish paying for them. Just look at the technology improvements, or the proposal for energy efficient lighting. The energy efficient lighting industry is still just starting to develop, why pay for inferior technologies now, at premium prices, when in just a few years we will see technologies that will offer a much better value. Lower cost and better for the environment. I am not against improving schools, just doing it foolishly. That’s why we need to vote NO.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Great news!! I just searched the internet, it appears that nowhere in the country does anyone have anything remotely like this; this could be huge for Silver Spring. Imagine what this can do for our property values. All for only $85*, I estimate for another $20 we could build the first underwater village hall*…………*per year, per household, for an extended period of time to be determined at a later date once I establish what the final costs will be. In the meantime, please discuss amongst yourselves.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Gosh, well, after WFB's accountants, legal advisers, and Moody's gives us an opinion on your Silver Spring Extension project and its necessary debt load, (not to mention the DNR) we'll be sure to give it our full attention.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Wfbalumni, I agree with KB the greater question here should be whether or not individuals can afford this referendum. Not its necessity. KB I hope I can count on your support when I bring my proposal to extend Silver Spring drive 500ft out into Lake Michigan before the Village board next year. I estimate that it will only cost $85 per year, per household for an extended period of time [TBD]. We can all afford this if we can afford to pay $300 for these projects. It will be great for the local economy, as we will be the only community in the state to have a major thoroughfare protruding out into a lake. We can afford it so let’s do it!!!
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
(cont)
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
While I agree with (your recital of) what I said before, the concept that "supporters are trying to pass this before any real public debate can happen" is malarkey. There's a vast difference between "low voter turnout" and "no real debate".
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
wfbalumni01 - It could be that I'm missing the point of the car salesman analogy, but I don't think so. A more important point seems to me that, as citizens, we are being given one of those rare opportunities to directly improve the community in which we live. These school improvements will be of lasting value and serve thousands of children and the community well into the future and at a modest cost (which could even be less than advertised) to the citizenry. How often are citizens presented with a chance to directly make their local environment better? Not very often. We need to take advantage of these opportunities to make lasting improvements by voting "YES" twice.
- Share
-
-
0
0
Click thumb to rate
0
0
Please login to rate
Buckley,
- Share
-
Load more comments View all comments Back to topForgotten Man - Oct 29, 2009 8:00 PM - Report Abuse
By now you've read the Doug Armstrong sales pitch on "Understanding", published 10/23/09. Is it misleading for Armstong and Scrivner to label their organization, "Grass Roots"? Take a look and you'll see its a Who's Who of poitical operatives, community activists and educators. All groups that know how to spend my money better than me. There are even current and former school board members, some of which are responsible for the CDO debacle, on the list.
It's David vs Goliath.
Now get back to work on how you'll take that extra $850k and keep your levy increase to 0%.
tatkins - Oct 29, 2009 4:42 PM - Report Abuse
wfbalumni01 - Oct 29, 2009 4:32 PM - Report Abuse
tatkins - Oct 29, 2009 4:05 PM - Report Abuse
kbuckley - Oct 29, 2009 4:00 PM - Report Abuse
Oh, so that wouldn't pass those hurdles? Shucks.
tatkins - Oct 29, 2009 3:53 PM - Report Abuse
kbuckley - Oct 29, 2009 2:23 PM - Report Abuse
Concerning the immediacy / priority of some items: I admit it. I am not an expert in that debate. I never took the tour and don't have children in the schools. I do know that scores of hours have been spent by school leaders and fellow residents, and they took a cut at the problems. I might prioritize the safety things lower, but by the same token, I'm not voting it down just because I live on the Richards' side and don't want to spend money on those Cumberland people. On the whole, I'm ok. If on the whole, you're not, well, that's legit too. I say that to suggest that one item in the package shouldn't necessarily invalidate its entirity.
Finally, I never said the debate should be ONLY limited to the price per resident, for exactly the reasons you state. What I do believe is that the greater financial picture is entrusted to administration and school leaders: Few residents are reasonably able to judge the financial position of the School District with cursory knowledge. We have auditors (and Moody's) to do that professionally.
I argue the greater question before us (by a long shot) is whether individuals can afford this or not.
kbuckley - Oct 29, 2009 2:22 PM - Report Abuse
Citizens will choose on Tuesday whether they make the effort to vote, or not, but not for a lack of parties trying to inform them of the vote and its issues. In the days leading to the election, every citizen will have received 3-4 bulletins from both parties (more coming?). Over the year(s) they were invited to debate the formation of the plan, the priorities, the plan itself, and the ballot language (as well as debate and elect the leaders who formed this plan, as 4 of them have been elected in the past 18 months.)
The hard truth is, very very few people come to public meetings. As a Trustee I can say we might have 1-2 people in the audience while we decide multi-million dollar issues. Our last two meetings reviewing $13m in budgeting occurred with a grand total of zero citizens in attendance.
gr8schools4bay - Oct 29, 2009 2:06 PM - Report Abuse
wfbalumni01 - Oct 29, 2009 12:18 PM - Report Abuse
“How is this rammed through?” When were these proposals finalized and presented to the public in final form for consideration? September 9th – given the amount of money, and the fact that there is no immediate pressing need to have this passed right not, I believe along with many others that this is being rushed through.
You seemed to agree in part in your Monday Oct 26, 2009 4:06 PM “that the supporters were hoping for low voter turnout.. mostly parents .. turning out to vote" -- is exactly true. There's no secret to the reality that School Districts in Wisconsin do this routinely.” – I don’t want to debate semantics here, but supporters are trying to pass this before any real public debate can happen as they are currently presented on the ballot.
So if we are in agreement that there is no need to do this all at once and that there are some unnecessary or low priority items, why vote yes? Why not insist that only necessary items are included in these proposals?
As for my remark about gross mismanagement, please read it again and note context – I am merely pointing out that if our schools were in fact in need of over $20 million dollars in immediate repairs than they would have had been grossly mismanaged. The fact is they are not, so we can vote no without worrying about the safety of our children.
The argument to vote yes because it is only $248 a year fails to take into consideration other liabilities tax payers may be forced to take on, such as funding the CDO mess or having to pay to replace their sewer laterals. So I do think merely limiting this discussion to on the financial costs per annum per household is disingenuous. That is like saying the ‘national deficit is not that high because it’s only $30,000 per person and what is $30,000 over the course of a 20 years? – especially considering we live in the greatest country on Earth –it’s a bargin!’