Landowners move to force D204s hand

[wvhsparent]

bob said:

Becasue the state has a debt limit ratio for SDs, I believe.

And I think Oswego went over it and needed legislative approval to do so.

[blankcheck]

WVparent- Could you explain this to me please. Why did they go to the legistlature? I'm confused. Thanks.

[casey]

Why do I feel like we're now sitting in a position where our trusty SB will be paying the $31M for BB land? Given the fact that we don't even have that money we'll be building a 3rd HS minus some very important amenities (stadium, swimming pool, 2nd gym, etc.).

IMO, while the SB is supposedly examining other sites they are doing it in a half-hearted way. They'll come back and say that no other site was workable (too many obstacles, too many cost factors involved with walking away from BB, etc.). At this point, I feel like the SB is going to jam BB down our throats at a cost we can't afford and it will be a less complete school than WVHS and NVHS. Please don't tell me that the community can work together to get a future referendum passed to cover those amenities. At this point of the game, I don't think there's too many people jumping to support the SB/SD on anything. Get ready for the big hose job - it's coming.

[doctorwho]

casey said:

Why do I feel like we're now sitting in a position where our trusty SB will be paying the $31M for BB land? Given the fact that we don't even have that money we'll be building a 3rd HS minus some very important amenities (stadium, swimming pool, 2nd gym, etc.).

IMO, while the SB is supposedly examining other sites they are doing it in a half-hearted way. They'll come back and say that no other site was workable (too many obstacles, too many cost factors involved with walking away from BB, etc.). At this point, I feel like the SB is going to jam BB down our throats at a cost we can't afford and it will be a less complete school than WVHS and NVHS. Please don't tell me that the community can work together to get a future referendum passed to cover those amenities. At this point of the game, I don't think there's too many people jumping to support the SB/SD on anything. Get ready for the big hose job - it's coming.

And if the other sites really have issues - what do you suggest ? Do we send our kids to places knowing there are significant issues , potentially health issues-- at potentially the same end game cost as BB ?

[momto4]

casey said:

Why do I feel like we're now sitting in a position where our trusty SB will be paying the $31M for BB land? Given the fact that we don't even have that money we'll be building a 3rd HS minus some very important amenities (stadium, swimming pool, 2nd gym, etc.).

IMO, while the SB is supposedly examining other sites they are doing it in a half-hearted way. They'll come back and say that no other site was workable (too many obstacles, too many cost factors involved with walking away from BB, etc.). At this point, I feel like the SB is going to jam BB down our throats at a cost we can't afford and it will be a less complete school than WVHS and NVHS. Please don't tell me that the community can work together to get a future referendum passed to cover those amenities. At this point of the game, I don't think there's too many people jumping to support the SB/SD on anything. Get ready for the big hose job - it's coming.

What makes you think the other sites are being examined only half-heartedly? I think the SB would very much like to find a site that would work as well as BB and come in at a lower cost.

I think it's unlikely they'll find something like that and certainly something that works within the timeframe that we need it...

If we wind up at BB I don't at all believe it's for lack of trying to find something else.

My worry is that the SB has promised something that may not be possible - delivering the school without asking for more money. What will happen if more money is the ONLY way to deliver an equitable third high school? At the same time, we will need an education fund referendum and possibly money for a/c (this also seems unlikely to happen, to the detriment of thousands for several weeks of every school year).

I am not laying blame on the SB for this. There is plenty of blame to go around. It is obvious that failing the first ref and voters taking another year to examine the situation more closely has cost us both millions and years. It is astounding that the jury came back with a price that seems so out of line for what similar properties sold for in the given timeframe.

I think all the other properties have issues that make them less than optimal for a site for the third HS. I don't think the SB could or should have done something differently along the way except perhaps push harder in 2005 for that ref. If QT had gone through, we would be building now and probably have the land at a cheaper price than the jury decided upon.

I think we should have just paid the $$ a month or two ago and started building.

[bob]

blankcheck said:

WVparent- Could you explain this to me please. Why did they go to the legistlature? I'm confused. Thanks.

I believe each SD has a debt ratio that they could not go above without permission from the state legislature. Oswego wanted a referendum if passed would have exceeded their ratio. They needed approval to beyond it.

[bob]

while the SB is supposedly examining other sites they are doing it in a half-hearted way.

I believe the admin is doing the examining of the sites not the SB. And, then reporting back to the SB.

[macy]

I sure think an incomplete building is "less than optimal".

They really better be seriously looking at other sites. If it comes to light that they didn't roll up their sleeves and work diligently at pursuing another site, many in the district will be furious enough not to support a future request for funds.

Didn't the SB pass a resolution not to go out for more money? Are they bound to that?

If so, doesn't that leave us with a half-baked building if we purchase BB for $31 million?

Not acceptable to me!

[bob]

The Illinois School Code governs the Board’s authority to issue debt and sets forth
legally required procedures to be followed when issuing debt. Under these provisions,
the Board is authorized to issue short-term, long-term, fixed-rate or variable-rate debt.
The School Code also imposes a statutory limit on the total outstanding debt that the
Board may borrow. Currently, the rate is set at 13.8% of the total school district’s
equalized assessed value.

[blankcheck]

So Bob, Let me get this straight. If we go over the current 13.8% rate, we need approval from the legislature? Did we go over that rate? If so, do you know by how much?

[momto4]

macy said:

I sure think an incomplete building is "less than optimal".

They really better be seriously looking at other sites. If it comes to light that they didn't roll up their sleeves and work diligently at pursuing another site, many in the district will be furious enough not to support a future request for funds.

Didn't the SB pass a resolution not to go out for more money? Are they bound to that?

If so, doesn't that leave us with a half-baked building if we purchase BB for $31 million?

Not acceptable to me!

From everything I hear the admin is dealing with the other sites on a daily basis as much as they can. The landowners are not necessarily in the same kind of hurry that we are and this is part of the reason it takes so long.

What is it you think the SB can do at this time?

I don't necessarily believe that changing to another site is going to cost us less money in the short or long run.

Yes, they passed that resolution and that's what concerns me because I don't see how it's possible, yet thankfully it's not up to me to figure out whether or how it is or isn't.

I'm certain that any of the remaining options are going to be "not acceptable" to some huge number of people. There is NOTHING that can be done that will make everybody happy.

If you have some great ideas about how we can best proceed, please share them with the admin and the SB.

[bob]

blankcheck said:

So Bob, Let me get this straight. If we go over the current 13.8% rate, we need approval from the legislature? Did we go over that rate? If so, do you know by how much?

As far as I know, the SD did not go over it otherwise they need approval like Oswego.

[rew]

I want to ask someone much brainier than I, what are the trusts doing here??

The SD offered to buy what I assume is the interior (continguous with the 25) acreage, zoned residential, for $500K/acre and THEY TURNED THEM DOWN??

What kind of stupid buyer do they have in the wings that could possibly want to pay them more than that? And then have to rezone it commercial and face the potential battle from the resdiential neighbors and all the 204 folks that are a bit miffed at BB?

[rew]

And lets not froget the restrictions on development contractually with Costco.

[wvhsparent]

blankcheck said:

WVparent- Could you explain this to me please. Why did they go to the legistlature? I'm confused. Thanks.

They had to go and get approval to go over their Debt ratio.


www.oswego308.org/news/html/january/010907_springfield.htm