THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD:AKA THE THIRD HIGHSCHOOL

[doctorwho]

Apr 3, 2011 16:37:32 GMT -6 treehugger said:

Election day is Tuesday. With any luck, Mark Rising will be elected, someone who has a clear vision of the downward spiral of district finances. Rumor has it that immediately after the election the wheels for another referendum will be spinning.

far more than a rumor- this has been in the works for 3 years...they just weren't going to risk their precious 3rd HS...

somewhere between $11M and $20M -- get ready.

and yet the Sun has the balls to say in their endorsement that Alka is all about working within our means--

so another $20M over and above the $20 overrun already on the 3rd HS -- nice job...

[doctorwho]

Apr 3, 2011 16:30:16 GMT -6 macrockett said:

Apr 3, 2011 8:07:24 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

From a financial aspect this captures in a very net format the poor decisions of our SB and the costs to 204 taxpayers--great job.

Tack on to this the complete lack of concern for safety with the the placement of the 3rd high school on what can be at best described as land with risk....significant risk in many people's eyes to the point where in many states the school could NOT have been built on that proprerty. Much like the financial issues, the transparency when it comes to these concerns never made it to the general public

These two items make the back room boundary deals, scheming with PR firms hired to pass a referendum at any/all costs, and the maligning of some of our districts neighborhoods seem like minor issues, even though they are not.

I hear ya Doc. The risk is certainly there. And it's certainly more important than the financial issues. But I can't quantify it like I can finances. In addition, Arch is much more capable than I am to deal with that issue.

On another note, we made the front page of the Naperville Tea Party
site: www.napervilleteapatriots.com/District_204_disclosures.html

the road to educating people is a slow one-- especially when people are lying to them daily.

[Arch]

Apr 3, 2011 16:30:16 GMT -6 macrockett said:

I hear ya Doc. The risk is certainly there. And it's certainly more important than the financial issues. But I can't quantify it like I can finances. In addition, Arch is much more capable than I am to deal with that issue.

The sad part is no one is interested (At the district level or the gas company level) to do anything until something actually fails. I made the public comment statements that I did and sent the emails that I did to establish who exactly knew what and when they knew it. When the day of reckoning eventually comes (These things don't last forever), enough law offices have the information they need to pin the tail on the donkey. In the meantime, I am getting my kids out of the system at an accelerated rate. Everyone else can deal with the mess, figuratively and literally.

[brant]

Apr 3, 2011 16:54:09 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

Apr 3, 2011 16:37:32 GMT -6 treehugger said:

Election day is Tuesday. With any luck, Mark Rising will be elected, someone who has a clear vision of the downward spiral of district finances. Rumor has it that immediately after the election the wheels for another referendum will be spinning.

far more than a rumor- this has been in the works for 3 years...they just weren't going to risk their precious 3rd HS...

somewhere between $11M and $20M -- get ready.

and yet the Sun has the balls to say in their endorsement that Alka is all about working within our means--

so another $20M over and above the $20 overrun already on the 3rd HS -- nice job...

I feel sick. To think I actually supported these people once. Well I may be fooled once but not a second time. Several years ago a real estate person I knew warned me about WV being shut down or turned into a technical school within the next ten years. So this was a major topic in their closed door sessions as far back as the boundary wars. Fine, let them propose a new referendum. I believe it will not be a question of passing but of how much it will be defeated by.

[doctorwho]

Apr 3, 2011 19:37:49 GMT -6 Arch said:

Apr 3, 2011 16:30:16 GMT -6 macrockett said:

I hear ya Doc. The risk is certainly there. And it's certainly more important than the financial issues. But I can't quantify it like I can finances. In addition, Arch is much more capable than I am to deal with that issue.

The sad part is no one is interested (At the district level or the gas company level) to do anything until something actually fails. I made the public comment statements that I did and sent the emails that I did to establish who exactly knew what and when they knew it. When the day of reckoning eventually comes (These things don't last forever), enough law offices have the information they need to pin the tail on the donkey. In the meantime, I am getting my kids out of the system at an accelerated rate. Everyone else can deal with the mess, figuratively and literally.

"they need to pin the tail on the donkey"

of course we all pray nothing ever happens - but the odds mount every year it remains unaddressed

[doctorwho]

Apr 3, 2011 19:42:34 GMT -6 brant said:

Apr 3, 2011 16:54:09 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

far more than a rumor- this has been in the works for 3 years...they just weren't going to risk their precious 3rd HS...

somewhere between $11M and $20M -- get ready.

and yet the Sun has the balls to say in their endorsement that Alka is all about working within our means--

so another $20M over and above the $20 overrun already on the 3rd HS -- nice job...

I feel sick. To think I actually supported these people once. Well I may be fooled once but not a second time. Several years ago a real estate person I knew warned me about WV being shut down or turned into a technical school within the next ten years. So this was a major topic in their closed door sessions as far back as the boundary wars. Fine, let them propose a new referendum. I believe it will not be a question of passing but of how much it will be defeated by.

get ready - the appeals will start and they will use their chosen ambassadors in some of the PTSA's to plead for the children. The strategy is known, the reality is known, only the $$ figure remains to be settled. The state will be blamed, the economy will be blamed...and they will do their best to bury how we got to where we are financially- or lack of need for capacity we now have.

[macrockett]

Apr 3, 2011 16:37:32 GMT -6 treehugger said:

Election day is Tuesday. With any luck, Mark Rising will be elected, someone who has a clear vision of the downward spiral of district finances. Rumor has it that immediately after the election the wheels for another referendum will be spinning.

We can only hope treehugger, we can only hope... In the meantime please hug a tree for me.

[macrockett]

This is a copy of my recent post elsewhere. I posted it here due to direct relevance to this thread.

Speaking of that "funding gap" Doc. The difference between that $124.6 million referendum and the "actual" amount spent on that school....

As most know, I have been trying to determine "just who knew what when," i.e., just when did the inner circle of the D204 Board know that the $124 million wasn't going to be enough to build the school.

My own opinion is that there is a good possibility that they knew prior to the referendum vote. After all, in just a few short months they issued bonds with a principal amount near $60 million. Why so soon?
We had just filed a condemnation suit and that suit wouldn't be heard for some time....

We all know the answer to the question was they needed more money to build the school because construction costs were rising rapidly and they were already a year behind due to the 2005 referendum failing.

But where is the proof of who knew what when? Well that 2007 memo between Ehlers and Holm says they knew at least in mid 2007.

Now we have another document that takes the date back to September of 2006. Here it is:

winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/91106quicktaketranscript.pdf

This document is the transcripts of the Quick Take Discussion on September 11, 2006.

On page 27, line 13 of the document Bruce Glawe, responding to Bradshaw:

"There is no arm in going.... I appreciate your...the cost of delaying another year, you know, if we somehow can't get this property and start building we saw the cost of construction go up from one year to another because we lost the referendum and got passed a second time. You're talking it could be ten million dollars again, you know, for the District and I don't want to chance that. I want to proceed and look at every possible avenue to try to get this and make the choice then ...

So Glawe and Bradshaw and others are saying go for the quick take because the failure of the referendum has already set them back a year and $10 million in construction costs due to rapidly rising costs...

When would they have known about the rise in construction costs for 2005, the year they lost? Before the 2006 referendum as far as I am concerned. But at the very least, their knowledge is clear in this document.

Does anyone remember an open discussion by the Board, once the 2006 referendum passed, that the cost would be higher...much higher? Not until January 2008 can I find a single public document that shows the "budget" for the new school...$143+ million. This was at the land selection meeting.

So while they clearly knew by Sept 2006 that construction costs would take the cost of the new HS much higher, I can find no communication until Jan 2008 where they finally "educate" the public to this fact.

So much for transparency ....
« Last Edit: Today at 9:39pm by macrockett »

Read more: ipsd204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=schools&action=display&thread=3661#ixzz1VukQgfUA

[doctorwho]

Aug 23, 2011 21:43:04 GMT -6 macrockett said:

This is a copy of my recent post elsewhere. I posted it here due to direct relevance to this thread.

Speaking of that "funding gap" Doc. The difference between that $124.6 million referendum and the "actual" amount spent on that school....

As most know, I have been trying to determine "just who knew what when," i.e., just when did the inner circle of the D204 Board know that the $124 million wasn't going to be enough to build the school.

My own opinion is that there is a good possibility that they knew prior to the referendum vote. After all, in just a few short months they issued bonds with a principal amount near $60 million. Why so soon?
We had just filed a condemnation suit and that suit wouldn't be heard for some time....

We all know the answer to the question was they needed more money to build the school because construction costs were rising rapidly and they were already a year behind due to the 2005 referendum failing.

But where is the proof of who knew what when? Well that 2007 memo between Ehlers and Holm says they knew at least in mid 2007.

Now we have another document that takes the date back to September of 2006. Here it is:

winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/91106quicktaketranscript.pdf

This document is the transcripts of the Quick Take Discussion on September 11, 2006.

On page 27, line 13 of the document Bruce Glawe, responding to Bradshaw:

"There is no arm in going.... I appreciate your...the cost of delaying another year, you know, if we somehow can't get this property and start building we saw the cost of construction go up from one year to another because we lost the referendum and got passed a second time. You're talking it could be ten million dollars again, you know, for the District and I don't want to chance that. I want to proceed and look at every possible avenue to try to get this and make the choice then ...

So Glawe and Bradshaw and others are saying go for the quick take because the failure of the referendum has already set them back a year and $10 million in construction costs due to rapidly rising costs...

When would they have known about the rise in construction costs for 2005, the year they lost? Before the 2006 referendum as far as I am concerned. But at the very least, their knowledge is clear in this document.

Does anyone remember an open discussion by the Board, once the 2006 referendum passed, that the cost would be higher...much higher? Not until January 2008 can I find a single public document that shows the "budget" for the new school...$143+ million. This was at the land selection meeting.

So while they clearly knew by Sept 2006 that construction costs would take the cost of the new HS much higher, I can find no communication until Jan 2008 where they finally "educate" the public to this fact.

So much for transparency ....
« Last Edit: Today at 9:39pm by macrockett »

Read more: ipsd204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=schools&action=display&thread=3661#ixzz1VukQgfUA

of course- I remember clearly asking - time and time again in PTSA meetings attended by Bruce Glawe and M2 - " what are we going to do if the cost is higher"? - to make them answer in front of groups of 50-100 people at each meeting.. the answer was- " We have it covered - don't worry"

This was when I started to get very suspicious about what was going on....so I kept asking and asking. This was when they were stumping for votes in the 2006 referendum

[macrockett]

In reviewing the enrollment figures year after year, I feel like the Verizon guy... "are we there yet."

[doctorwho]

Oct 23, 2011 20:39:42 GMT -6 macrockett said:

In reviewing the enrollment figures year after year, I feel like the Verizon guy... "are we there yet."

we both know the answer to that-- the question now becomes how soon before we have to start cutting back real estate ?

[macrockett]

(repeat of what I posted in Enrollment section in other area of the Board)

Just so there is no illusion about "growth" in District 204 enrollment:

winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/DISTRICT204ENROLLMENT_WordDoc-1.pdf

HS enrollment will peak either this year or in FY 2013 according to information that was available in 2008 prior to breaking ground on the third HS. Right now HS enrollment will not even reach the projected peak of approximately 9200 students.

In 2008 we had capacity of 3000 + 3000 + 1200 + 1200 + 600 = 9000. In their infinite wisdom, 6 of 7 current Board members decided a third HS was necessary.

Cost: approximately $47.83 thousand per seat, or roughly $143.5 million

Referendum passed by voters: $124.66 million

Difference: approximately $19 million, most paid for by the taxpayer in the form of extra interest costs as a result of issuing the Bonds much earlier than necessary and at rates higher than those currently prevailing in the market place.

Priceless!






All numbers taken directly from 204 reports.