By Jennifer Eisenbart
Editor
As the election ticks closer, final thoughts regarding the Burlington Area School District referendum questions are being voiced.
The school district is presenting three questions to district residents. These question, as they appear on the ballot, are:
- Question No. 1: Shall the Burlington Area School District, Racine, Kenosha and Walworth Counties, Wisconsin be authorized to issue pursuant to Chapter 67 of the Wisconsin Statutes, general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $68,300,000 for the public purpose of paying the cost of a school building and improvement program consisting of: the construction and equipping of a new middle school on the Karcher Middle School site; and district-wide building and infrastructure improvements?
- Question No. 2: Shall the Burlington Area School District, Racine, Kenosha and Walworth Counties, Wisconsin be authorized to issue pursuant to Chapter 67 of the Wisconsin Statutes, general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $11,700,000 for the public purpose of paying the cost of the construction and equipping of an additional gymnasium and athletic space at the High School?
- Question No. 3: Shall the Burlington Area School District, Racine, Kenosha and Walworth Counties, Wisconsin be authorized to issue pursuant to Chapter 67 of the Wisconsin Statutes, general obligation bonds in an amount not to exceed $14,400,000 for the public purpose of paying the cost of the construction and equipping of a new performing arts center?
The process
The referendum questions are the result of nearly four years worth of work, which started with Nexus-Scherrer presenting the district with potential options for upgrading its facilities and then the district moving forward with a strategic planning process.
In the past year, the district has held several community forums and engagement sessions, as well as doing a survey of district residents regarding potential referendum efforts.
“We really have worked hard to get information out to voters,” BASD Superintendent Peter Smet said. “What’s entailed in the questions, what process we used to get to the questions.
“And we worked hard to also provide the tax impact of the questions,” he added. “Our role as school district administration is to present answers to questions.”
In response to criticism that the district had taken a pro-referendum stance, Smet denied that it had.
“I’m sorry that they feel that way,” Smet said. “I don’t think that we have.
“I’m sure both sides of the argument will view us as not presenting the information ‘their way,’” he added.
School Board President Jim Bousman agreed that it wasn’t his place to take a side.
“I don’t consider it appropriate for me to promote, one way or the other,” he said. “I do believe there are some misconceptions.”
Arguing the process
School Board Members Barry Schmaling and Jim Bousman sat down Monday to offer some insight into the planning process.
Both said they wanted to provide some context to information provided at the “Flip Side” presentation done by Board Member Phil Ketterhagen last week.
“He didn’t provide any false information,” Schmaling said. “But he didn’t provide any context.”
Bousman said the issues at Karcher Middle School have been evident since before the new high school was planned and a referendum for it passed.
“There were predictions, concerns, of what might have to be fixed in the future,” said Bousman, who was not on the School Board at the time but was involved as a district citizen. “We maintained the buildings as best we can.
“It’s no surprise that all of that’s come up,” he added.
There were also concessions made in the 1997 and 2000 referendums to keep the project within its budget – including removing some athletic space and not providing a full auditorium.
“They made some conscious concessions,” Bousman explained. “Those concessions are what we’re looking at right now.”
But what bothered both are the accusations that have been made that the board did not do its due diligence in this process.
It wasn’t just the community survey that went out in December of last year. There were public planning meetings last summer to outline the various options after the facilities study was finished, as well as the stakeholder driven strategic planning that was done in 2015.
Through it all, the board has had several public meetings in which the referendum options were further discussed, as well as administrative meetings to determine proper grade configurations and strategic goals for the district.
“There is a perception out there that the board went for the most expensive option available,” Schmaling said. “The fact of the matter is … we went for the option that solved the needs as defined by the strategic plan.
“It’s the right option for the needs at this time,” Schmaling added. He pointed out the district isn’t pursuing items such as air conditioning and extensive new furniture.
Bousman said the School Board refined the options further near the end of the four-year process, going from more than a dozen various options to the three questions on next week’s referendum.
The time has come to make a decision. Bousman said he felt the best options were on the table.
Schmaling added that if the community decides that it cannot afford the costs, so be it. But a bad plan is not the problem.
“We did not lay out a plan that would not achieve the goals of the community,” Schmaling said. “The board presented what the community said we needed.
“We didn’t sit behind closed doors and dream up some crazy scheme,” he added. “Ultimately, they said it’s what they wanted.
“If they decide it’s too much, we’ll have to revisit the community, revisit its goals.”
-
-
-
-
-