Thursday, March 05, 2009

West Bend School District Taps Fund for Land Purchase

Gee, I wonder why we couldn’t tap this fund for… ohhhh… I don’t know…. building maintenance and renovations?  

Where did the “cash reserves” come from to purchase the property in Jackson? Where will the district borrow from to repay those reserves?

The money to purchase the 6.3 acres of land for the future Jackson Elementary will come from the District’s fund balance for now and then a short-term borrowing if the Referendum does not pass. Our fund balance is like a savings account and should only be used for things like this or a sudden drop for major unexpected emergency.

We have a fiscally sound fund balance for this purpose. The District would never rely on this for normal ongoing budget needs.

(11) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0722 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Owen, if you are going to shoot off your mouth about school finances, please educate yourself a bit. I remember during the last referendum when you were surprised that the district would borrow money and then pay it off (meaning interest would be involved) despite the fact that this has been the way every referendum in the history of Wisconsin public education has been handled. So, allow me to elucidate. The fund balance is a cash reserve that the district maintains by long standing board policy (and perhaps state mandate) for specific purposes. First, it is a fund that is used to cover the funding gap when the state delays its payments to the district. The alternative would be short term borrowing, which would negatively impact our bond rating. Second, it is a fund for emergency capital projects (e.g. a roof collapses, boiler goes out). By board policy, it must be replenished. I was not involved with this latest use but it makes sense if an opportunity for land in Jackson arises. It has been very difficult to find this at a reasonable price. I would imagine that the offer for the land is contingent on the passage of the referendum (perhaps a board member could verify). Unless policy is changed, it cannot be used for regular operating expenditures.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1154 hrs


  2. The referenum is going to pass eventualy. As we speak the teachers are likely making assing jabs at the parents for “not caring” about the quality of education in WB.


    When I was in high school, the teachers were constantly ripping parents and the school board. Once when an impass was reached during contract negotiations, the teachers were refusing to write letters of recommendation for students. It is very simple, the educational establishment cares little about the education of children. Like most politicians (with whom I closely associate the administrators), and trade union workers (teachers) they care only about “empire building” and “getting theirs”

    The pompous and strident attitude posted above proves it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1400 hrs


  3. Is the real estate market in Jackson so quickly moving that the district can’t wait until after the vote?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1431 hrs


  4. Dimamyek - really?? I am just a private citizen. I’d say that making the broad generalization that ALL involved with education care nothing about children is a nasty and arrogant statement. Wendy - good point. I’m not sure. Things have changed rapidly in the real estate market. I do know it has been very difficult getting a suitable site in Jackson since walking distance for elementary students is a big factor.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1503 hrs


  5. As we speak the teachers are likely making passing jabs at the parents for “not caring” about the quality of education in WB.


    If this is true, you have examples, and it is not just “likely”, I will share your indignation. That is inappropriate.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1512 hrs


  6. Mr. Hillman is absolutely correct/accurate regarding the fund balance.

    If the property has an accepted offer with a referendum passing contingency they are probably getting it at a better price than making an offer on the land when it passes. If the referendum does not pass, they should have their earnest money returned. What is the downside of that?

    As far as the comments regarding “teacher job action” you have jerks in every profession. If someone in the Marines is out of control do we condemn all Marines? In fact don’t we condemn jerks who make those assumptions?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1544 hrs


  7. I remember during the last referendum when you were surprised that the district would borrow money and then pay it off

    I was not surprised.  I was merely making sure that the residents of the district were aware of it too.  Considering the administration failed to mention this fact (something they have corrected this time around), it seems that I provided a service. 

    Unless policy is changed, it cannot be used for regular operating expenditures.

    And that is precisely my point.  They could easily change the rule to access the money to pay for previous boards’ neglect.  They have chosen not to.

    Posted by Owen on March 05, 2009 at 1546 hrs


  8. Galt,

    The sale is not contingent on the referendum.  We’re buying the propert either way.  The only thing that is contingent is how we will pay for it.  From the District’s statement:

    short-term borrowing if the Referendum does not pass

    Posted by Owen on March 05, 2009 at 1552 hrs


  9. Owen, Thank you. Well then, the district is acquiring a white elephant if it does not pass.

    Regarding the fund balance, I believe the State sets the policy for how the fund balance is used. Some districts have borrowed against is to fund 4K, but had to pay it back, plus interest.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1608 hrs


  10. Doesn"t any land purchase have to be approved by the electorate at an annual meeting? Our school district bought land 6 years ago and we had to have approval at the annual meeting usually held in July. I suggest if you are against this purchase call the school district business manager and get the correct information on the timetable of buying this property.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1629 hrs


  11. Good question. A school district must put the sale of a property to a vote-that is for sure. It may not be necessary if it adjoins another SD property.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 05, 2009 at 1643 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.