|
|
Post by Arch on Apr 4, 2010 23:06:32 GMT -6
Macrockett...
Read PMs and Emails, please...
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 5, 2010 7:52:54 GMT -6
show me where I said laughing at other school districts in my statement anywhere ? Please do not try and discredit by made up mockery - try and actually use facts... this has nothing to do with feelings, it has to do with needless waste of finite funds. We were in much better shape than most districts BEFORE this fiasco, yes - and that was highly touted by our leaders here UNLESS they fibbed about that too. answer these simple questions - SD 1/ are we still in the red even if the state cut us a check today ? Yes or No ? 2/ Did people not clearly point this out in the last SB election process Yes of No ? 3/ Did the data not come directly from the SD documents ? Yes or No ? 4/ Would we not be in much better shape if we did not have $3-$3.5M per year in additional operating expenses for the new school Yes or No ? 5/ Would we not be in better financial shape if we did not add close to $1M additional transportation costs per year ? Yes or No ? 6/ Would be not be better off had we not spent $5M ( minimum) - $10M maximum in expediting a HS they knew there was no longer a crushing need for regardless of whether one believes we eventually needed it or not ? Yes or No ? 7/ Would we not be better off had we not spent $150m instead of the $124M allowed by the referendum- again regardless of stance on school need ? Yes or No ? 8/ Would we not be better off had we had 'retired" Millions of dollars in debt ' refinanced' out another 20 years ( at the time it was done) - in order to build said HS ? Yes or No ? 9/ Would we not be better off financially is we did not owe BB Millions of dollars on a lawsuit that would not exist if not for the 3rd HS ? Yes or No ? Is any part of this at all confusing ? Please feel free to address any 'No' responses you reached above with actual factual rebuttal. & please leave the snarky attempts at sidetracking factual basis to personal feelings to those who do it better than you..we have some elected experts So no, the world would not be rosy IF the State renegged on the monies they owe us, but we will get the money , albeit unacceptably late and potentially short some %. HOWEVER that % was likely covered this year at least if not for the issues above. Answer me this - why is 203 not in the position we are ? because they only built what was needed and instead of spending $26M more than they were voted- they are going to spend $5M-$8M less. I want to see the 'caravan' answer questions like this from state officials who give a rat's backside about where the 3rd school went but will ask why for the reasons above. please refer to my post directly above yours. thought I summed it up pretty well..... question number one is huge...there are a lot of ways to cut costs or be financially responsible. not taking on ADK could be an answer to being in the black. I am sure there are others. questions 2 through 9 above were encompassed with your yes vote and SB election.....that is a stone cold fact. I do not know much about 203 but sounds like you found a new district to live in. sorry, not accepting deflection this time.. Yes 2-9 were 'hidden' in a loosely woded referendum- but riddle me this : what is the role of the SB in 204. ? Let me refresh you of this one " •Manage resources efficiently and effectively "( that is also a cold stone fact as you like to call it) Since they KNEW that their numbers were bogus BEFORE they started one bit of construction is it not their role to come back to the community and explain what had changed ? Would that NOT be fulfilling their role ? If there are so 'proud' of their accomplshment why has no one seen a complete accounting for costs for a school that's been open since August ? Why have they not explained how they financed the school and the exact amount spent instead of sticking to the $124M falacy. Sorry - this is their role and they failed miserably. Was it a 'binding' referendum ? Of course you answered none of the question 2 thru 9 -- because you know the answers. Continuing to stick your head in the sand and pretend they aren't true doesn't make it go away. As for 203 - but for about 200 feet that would be true -- and no it is not perfect either, but do they have the same issues we have now ? Nope. But I don't need a school district either way any more except for resale value when I leave here, and I now have the absolute short end of that stick- as do you. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge the fact they managed their resources infinitely superior to the way we did...you must be proud of the way this board pisses away your money. |
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Apr 5, 2010 8:12:20 GMT -6
or the fact that they spent well over $145M -- ONLY $124 M came from the referendum... let them stand up in front of everyone in this district and explain the bond financing and where those delta funds came from.. where's the article on that ? MV cost a whole lot of people in this district, it forever divided the 204 community, wasted tax dollars- increased operating expenses by a minimum of $3M for the 3rd school, increased transportation costs due to where it was put--- and we don't need the damn thing. Even our super now admits it will be underutilized - AT BEST 2200-2300 and only for the next 4-5 years then decreases, then kiss Waubonsie goodbye, regardless of her snarkiness to the contrary. Yes, kids are going to suffer for this and that is the ONLY part I feel for, but people need to look in the mirror for the cause. For all those who wanted their northern Taj Mahal no matter what - starting with former Board President Jeannette Clark ( to the point where she marched in protest against people in the district she was elected to represent)- you got it - now live with the crappy circumstances. The sad thing is you pulled the rest of the district in the hole with you - nice job. Many of this saw this coming - regardless of the state funding issues but and said so repeatedly. SB candidates who showed charts on the topics of the deficit looming here ( not just late payments) were mocked by M2 and his PTSA minions. Who had the right numbers now ? It's now my turn to tell someone to ' sit down, and shut up' , just like I and others were told with our concerns -- enjoy your trip to Springfield. Maybe I can find a google map to get you these in 20 minutes or so. let me get this straight....If we didn't build a third HS and hurt some folks feelings in the process then we would be laughing at the hundreds of school districts in the red because 204 would be high and dry and in the black? Hurt some people's feelings? No, I would categorize what happened as losing the respect and support of many people in the community - very different. Why in your opinion is District 203 in better financial shape? And why do they also out-perform District 204? |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 5, 2010 9:44:05 GMT -6
let me get this straight....If we didn't build a third HS and hurt some folks feelings in the process then we would be laughing at the hundreds of school districts in the red because 204 would be high and dry and in the black? Hurt some people's feelings? No, I would categorize what happened as losing the respect and support of many people in the community - very different. Why in your opinion is District 203 in better financial shape? And why do they also out-perform District 204? read my post from before. I do not know much about 203. To be honest I don't care....Our kids are more important to me. I have feelings why they out perform 204 but they are not based on fact so I do not want to re-hash here |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 5, 2010 9:52:55 GMT -6
please refer to my post directly above yours. thought I summed it up pretty well..... question number one is huge...there are a lot of ways to cut costs or be financially responsible. not taking on ADK could be an answer to being in the black. I am sure there are others. questions 2 through 9 above were encompassed with your yes vote and SB election.....that is a stone cold fact. I do not know much about 203 but sounds like you found a new district to live in. sorry, not accepting deflection this time.. Yes 2-9 were 'hidden' in a loosely woded referendum- but riddle me this : what is the role of the SB in 204. ? Let me refresh you of this one " •Manage resources efficiently and effectively "( that is also a cold stone fact as you like to call it) Since they KNEW that their numbers were bogus BEFORE they started one bit of construction is it not their role to come back to the community and explain what had changed ? Would that NOT be fulfilling their role ? If there are so 'proud' of their accomplshment why has no one seen a complete accounting for costs for a school that's been open since August ? Why have they not explained how they financed the school and the exact amount spent instead of sticking to the $124M falacy. Sorry - this is their role and they failed miserably. Was it a 'binding' referendum ? Of course you answered none of the question 2 thru 9 -- because you know the answers. Continuing to stick your head in the sand and pretend they aren't true doesn't make it go away. As for 203 - but for about 200 feet that would be true -- and no it is not perfect either, but do they have the same issues we have now ? Nope. But I don't need a school district either way any more except for resale value when I leave here, and I now have the absolute short end of that stick- as do you. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge the fact they managed their resources infinitely superior to the way we did...you must be proud of the way this board pisses away your money. well a lot of stuff here but someone here posted an email fromm MM where he acknowledged that the NIU numbers may not be correct and went on to give reasons why he felt we still needed it. Then there were comments about how many kids there were here and now and the need for more capacity. This may turn out to be near sighted in the future. I hope not. Has anyone requested the accounting of costs for MV? is their something illegal I don't know about? I never said questions two through nine were not factual. My point all along and I will say it again is you gave the OK for these things to happen and you cannot control the SD. Did the SB piss away money? we did get a HS and a kinda new middle school for your vote of yes for more taxes. Hopefully we don't have to close a school per your prediction.... |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 5, 2010 9:57:20 GMT -6
please refer to my post directly above yours. thought I summed it up pretty well..... question number one is huge...there are a lot of ways to cut costs or be financially responsible. not taking on ADK could be an answer to being in the black. I am sure there are others. questions 2 through 9 above were encompassed with your yes vote and SB election.....that is a stone cold fact. I do not know much about 203 but sounds like you found a new district to live in. "questions 2 through 9 above were encompassed with your yes vote and SB election.....that is a stone cold fact." Not if the Board failed to apprise the voters of all the facts. Very simple fact you seem to constantly ignore. If the voters are under one set of assumptions when they vote, and the Board fails to disclose the situation as it truly is, for whatever reason, how can a voter truly be held accountable for their vote? Mac...I am not ignoring the "long and winding road" in which you speak of. my question is if all is 100% true then what? You are 100% accountable for your vote because you are a grown man and have to take all the info in and make a decision for yourself. to me the two factors would have been a) do I want to take on more taxes? and b) will the kids benefit from smaller schools? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 5, 2010 11:37:54 GMT -6
sorry, not accepting deflection this time.. Yes 2-9 were 'hidden' in a loosely woded referendum- but riddle me this : what is the role of the SB in 204. ? Let me refresh you of this one " •Manage resources efficiently and effectively "( that is also a cold stone fact as you like to call it) Since they KNEW that their numbers were bogus BEFORE they started one bit of construction is it not their role to come back to the community and explain what had changed ? Would that NOT be fulfilling their role ? If there are so 'proud' of their accomplshment why has no one seen a complete accounting for costs for a school that's been open since August ? Why have they not explained how they financed the school and the exact amount spent instead of sticking to the $124M falacy. Sorry - this is their role and they failed miserably. Was it a 'binding' referendum ? Of course you answered none of the question 2 thru 9 -- because you know the answers. Continuing to stick your head in the sand and pretend they aren't true doesn't make it go away. As for 203 - but for about 200 feet that would be true -- and no it is not perfect either, but do they have the same issues we have now ? Nope. But I don't need a school district either way any more except for resale value when I leave here, and I now have the absolute short end of that stick- as do you. I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge the fact they managed their resources infinitely superior to the way we did...you must be proud of the way this board pisses away your money. well a lot of stuff here but someone here posted an email fromm MM where he acknowledged that the NIU numbers may not be correct and went on to give reasons why he felt we still needed it. Then there were comments about how many kids there were here and now and the need for more capacity. This may turn out to be near sighted in the future. I hope not. Has anyone requested the accounting of costs for MV? is their something illegal I don't know about? I never said questions two through nine were not factual. My point all along and I will say it again is you gave the OK for these things to happen and you cannot control the SD. Did the SB piss away money? we did get a HS and a kinda new middle school for your vote of yes for more taxes. Hopefully we don't have to close a school per your prediction.... nothing illegal due to the latitude school boards/SD's get in their disposition of funds - i.e. the bond issues. However without ever seeig the accounting for the school I can't answer that part. To answer your question yes it has been requested before and was just requested again. Accounting rules are not as lenient in what they allow. We can discuss then. as far as what we got for our money - please take into account the fact that we have 2.5 ES's worth of excess capacity now that the bubble has gone thru... that is working it's way to middle school in short order.. then tell me what good that additional MS will be ? Some for HS. Near sighted in an understatement since the facts leading to the reversal of the population trend - are "in the pipeline today' - a statement they love to use. It is not speculation or hearsay, but cold hard facts which should have been used if being fiscally responsible. a 9%-10% drop in ES population over the last 4 years and no end in sight. and yes you got the MS and a 3rd HS and added $3M+ in operating costs to a budget that can't take any hits - plus transportation additions. Somewhat akin to someone filing for bankruptcy showing off the shiny new Cadillac as a means of getting around...yes they got something for their money - but it was unnecessayr and only added to the debt issues. as far as benefits of smaller schools-- when we catch Stevenson and New Trier in anything with the exception of music-- let me know. A ranting SB member who wanted a HS in her back yard does not a business case make. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 5, 2010 11:37:55 GMT -6
"questions 2 through 9 above were encompassed with your yes vote and SB election.....that is a stone cold fact." Not if the Board failed to apprise the voters of all the facts. Very simple fact you seem to constantly ignore. If the voters are under one set of assumptions when they vote, and the Board fails to disclose the situation as it truly is, for whatever reason, how can a voter truly be held accountable for their vote? Mac...I am not ignoring the "long and winding road" in which you speak of. my question is if all is 100% true then what? You are 100% accountable for your vote because you are a grown man and have to take all the info in and make a decision for yourself. to me the two factors would have been a) do I want to take on more taxes? and b) will the kids benefit from smaller schools? Please spare me the lecture on accountability. It is very simple, if all is 100% true, there is a duty to inform the public. Only one board member did that. Unfortunately public office holders aren't held accountable to a normal standard of negligence. Short of stealing or flying to South America to visit your girl friend, there is little accountability. In addition, you might not care about what information is provided to the voters, but you are only one person, as am I. I feel it important to provide that information so at least people are aware. Then they are free to do with it as they wish. You also seem to think that everything is static and the facts upon which you make decisions will forever hold true. Such as "kids benefiting from a smaller school." I don't know how you define "benefit", but personally I don't think kids "benefit" from larger class sizes, fewer curriculum opportunities and spending money on bricks and mortar that is, at best, hard to justify. None of us has begun to experience the true impact of building a school we didn't need. This current "crisis" is the beginning imo. The effects of taking close to $100 million of our resources for excess and another $3m or so annually to operate it will be felt in the years to come. Resources are finite. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 5, 2010 12:00:45 GMT -6
Did the SB piss away money? we did get a HS and a kinda new middle school for your vote of yes for more taxes. Hopefully we don't have to close a school per your prediction.... Something's gonna close on the HS level (aside from Fisher) in 10 years or less when HS enrollment returns to FY 09 levels. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Apr 5, 2010 12:24:54 GMT -6
as far as what we got for our money - please take into account the fact that we have 2.5 ES's worth of excess capacity now that the bubble has gone thru... that is working it's way to middle school in short order.. then tell me what good that additional MS will be ? Some for HS. Near sighted in an understatement since the facts leading to the reversal of the population trend - are "in the pipeline today' - a statement they love to use. It is not speculation or hearsay, but cold hard facts which should have been used if being fiscally responsible. a 9%-10% drop in ES population over the last 4 years and no end in sight. and yes you got the MS and a 3rd HS and added $3M+ in operating costs to a budget that can't take any hits - plus transportation additions. Somewhat akin to someone filing for bankruptcy showing off the shiny new Cadillac as a means of getting around...yes they got something for their money - but it was unnecessayr and only added to the debt issues. as far as benefits of smaller schools-- when we catch Stevenson and New Trier in anything with the exception of music-- let me know. A ranting SB member who wanted a HS in her back yard does not a business case make. As far as MS goes, we peaked there at the end of FY09 Whatever additional space we needed, and it was no where near 1200, could have been added to existing buildings, saving even more operating costs. As for HS, prior to converting WV Gold, we needed less than 1000 additional seats to take us through peak in 2013. When 2019 hits, we can get rid of that "less than 1000" as well. Agree with everything you say Doc. |
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Apr 5, 2010 22:38:03 GMT -6
this is my frustration here guys........My post reads "b) will the kids benefit from smaller schools?" that is not an endorsement or otherwise. It is a question I would ask myself when confronted with a yes or no vote to raise my taxes
|
|
|
|
Post by insider on Apr 5, 2010 22:46:36 GMT -6
Verdict poses problem for Indian Prairie board
Friday, September 28, 2007
By James Kimberly
Source: Chicago Tribune
Indian Prairie School District 204 officials will meet next week now that a jury has decided they must pay more than $30 million for land for a third high school.
School Board President Mark Metzger said Thursday that the board will meet with administrators in closed session to discuss their options such as whether it is prudent to appeal the jury's verdict. Metzger said problems posed by the size of the award in the condemnation lawsuit might keep the district from opening a new high school in fall 2009 as planned.
"I think it is safe to say that is in jeopardy," Metzger said.
A DuPage County jury late Wednesday decided that the school district should pay $28,503,750 for 55 acres on the southwest corner of 75th Street and Illinois Highway 59 that it took under the power of eminent domain. The jury also found that the school district ought to pay the Brach-Brodie trusts, which own the property, an additional $2.5 million compensation for loss of value that the remaining 70.9 acres will suffer.
During a weeklong trial before Judge Robert Kilander, the school district presented appraisals and other evidence that showed the land was worth $13.75 million. Attorneys representing the Brach-Brodie trusts argued the land was worth more than $33 million.
The school board will discuss its options at 7 p.m. Monday at the Crouse Education Center, 780 Shoreline Drive, Aurora.
"Obviously, this is a big blow to us," said school board member Alka Tyle. "The price that the jury has awarded is a lot more than we had expected."
Tyle said the school board must consider all options.
"It is our responsibility to not use more money than we have and to not dip into other funds," she said.
Voters approved a referendum measure in March 2006 authorizing the district to borrow $124.7 million for a new high school. Students in the district, which serves parts of Aurora and Naperville, attend Waubonsie Valley and Neuqua Valley High Schools.
Board member Christine Vickers said the district ought to take a step back and evaluate whether a third high school is still necessary. Vickers said the board ought to compare actual enrollment to the projections made in 2005.
"I think it is only prudent that we visit this situation as a whole again," Vickers said.
District administrators spent much of Thursday meeting about the land acquisition, Vickers said.
In a statement, Supt. Stephen Daeschner said the administrators were "gathering information so we can discuss options with our board."
"We remain committed to being good stewards of the funds we've been given, so our options must not only be driven by what's best for kids, but they must be fiscally responsible," Daeschner said.
----------
jkimberly@tribune.com
|
|
|
|
Post by insider on Apr 5, 2010 23:00:25 GMT -6
New Aurora site revives plan for 3rd high school
Church parcel will cost $19 million, officials say
By Rhianna Wisniewski
April 16, 2008
Indian Prairie School District 204 has found a site in Aurora for its third high school that is within budget and without the environmental concerns surrounding the last site, officials said Tuesday. Metea Valley High School still will be built on Eola Road, district officials said, but on a parcel that the school board agreed Monday to buy for$19 million from St. John African Methodist Episcopal Church.
The 84 acres no longer includes the site of a former peaker power plant that many in the community opposed, said Board President Mark Metzger. Opponents still express safety concerns because the property adjoins the old site.
Originally, the district planned to buy 49 acres from the church and an adjoining 37 acres from the Midwest Generation power company. But last week, Midwest Generation officials decided against selling, citing the community’s division over whether the site was safe from contaminants.
After the deal fell apart, it appeared the district would have to search yet again for a new spot for Metea Valley, which officials want completed by fall 2009. But St. John officials decided to sell the church’s entire parcel to the district, providing enough land for the large high school.
In a 6-1 vote Monday, the school board approved paying $224,000 an acre. St. John officials, who had planned to build a new church on the site, will look elsewhere. A group that formed in opposition to the Midwest Generation site –Neighborhood Schools for Our Children – filed suit in March in DuPage County. The group asked that the court stop the district from building on Eola and instead require school officials to buy the Brach-Brodie site of 55 acres on the southwest corner of 75th Street and Illinois Highway 59.
District 204 had wrangled for years with the Brach-Brodie trust on the price of the land and walked away last fall when a DuPage jury determined the land was worth $31 million, more than twice what the district estimated.
The selling price for the church property is $3 million more than what the district would have paid the church and Midwest Generation, but board members said it was still $2 million under budget and far less than the Brach-Brodie site. No further environmental testing is needed because initial tests showed no contamination on the St. John site, which was once farmland, district Supt. Stephen Daeschner said Tuesday. The opposition group wants additional testing, arguing that any contamination may not have been contained to the
Midwest Generation land.
Board member Christine Vickers, who cast the lone “no” vote, argued that future enrollment
numbers will not justify a third high school.
Other board members argued that there are enough students already for a third school and that further delays mean students will remain in crowded conditions, and costs of construction will go up.“I think the one thing that got lost on all of the discussion is that right now as we sit here, we have hundreds of children learning in an inappropriate environment because we don’t have room,” Metzger said.
At Monday’s meeting, residents overflowed into another room, where they watched the proceedings on a live feed. When the board voted, some audience members applauded, while others walked out in disgust.
Some urged the school board to slow down, arguing the district shouldn’t rush to meet a fall 2009 opening deadline.“This community has become more divided, not less,” said Jasmine Sohaey Grassi, a member of the opposition group. “The school board needs to stop and address the issues that arose tonight. Any other action would be disrespectful to all taxpayers, and in essence, unethical.”
In addition to the suit by the opposition group, District 204 also faces a suit from the Brach-Brodie sellers, who want the court to require the district to buy the land and to pay legal fees and damages.
Church's offer is accepted
Metea Valley to go on Eola after all
By Melissa Jenco
Indian Prairie Unit District 204 will build Metea Valley High School along Eola Road on land it will purchase solely from St. John AME Church. The board approved spending just over $18.9 million for 84 acres just south of the combined church and Midwest Generation site that fell through late last week.
"What we're faced with today is the opportunity to build at a site we felt most workable under all of the current conditions but is actually improved because now we're further away from the gas line and we're further away from the railroad tracks and we're further away from power lines and we're further away from the portion of site that previously hosted the peaker plant," school board President Mark Metzger said before a capacity crowd. Following a strict timeline, Superintendent Stephen Daeschner said Metea can still open in August 2009.
The district, which includes portions of Naperville, Aurora, Bolingbrook and Plainfield, has said Metea is needed to alleviate crowding at Neuqua and Waubonsie Valley high schools.
Midwest Generation had planned to sell 37 acres to the district to be combined with 49 acres from St. John. But it announced Thursday it was backing out because of community opposition.
St. John, which had planned to build a 6,500-square-foot church on its remaining land, agreed to sell its entire parcel.
"This would not have happened without these great people," Daeschner said. "He (Senior Pastor Jesse Hawkins Jr.) is doing this on faith that they will find appropriate land to build their great church." Daeschner said an environmental study has already been performed on the entire 84 acres and found no problems. The district is expected to release that report today.
Several hundred residents turned out for the meeting, flowing over into a separate room to watch via live feed. Roughly 27 of them made passionate pleas to the district either for or against building on Eola. Supporters said they approved the 2006 referendum request based on the need for a third high school, not the site that was selected, and said they believe building on the Eola site would be both safe and fiscally responsible. Critics of the Eola site included members of Neighborhood Schools for Our Children, a group of residents
that has filed a lawsuit against the district in an attempt to force it to return to the Brach-Brodie property it originally had selected for the school near 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora.
That deal fell through in September when a jury set the price for 55 acres at $31 million -- roughly $17 million more than school officials thought it was worth. The Neighborhood Schools for Our Children members said Monday that building on the Eola site is unsafe and asked the district to slow down.
But the board voted 6-1 to approve the land purchase, causing some residents to storm angrily out of the meeting. "Every step of the way we have met people on both sides of the fence who have had opinions one way or the other, and we have respected those opinions and taken what we believe is the best interest of kids because that is what we were all elected to do," board member Jeannette Clark said. "In the end ... you can never meet the needs of every single person."
Board member Christine Vickers, a longtime opponent of building a third high school, was the
lone "no" vote, citing enrollment lagging behind projections and the change in site from the
original referendum. "If we all knew the numbers were faulty and we knew we couldn't procure Brach-Brodie, the question in my mind is would the board and the voters have supported this measure in 2006," she said.
Vickers also criticized the district for not having done an appraisal of the St. John site before
negotiating a price, but board member Alka Tyle said neighboring Midwest Generation land had been appraised and the district had studied the value of other area sites.
Immediately after the vote, Jasmine Sohaey Grassi released a statement on behalf of the Neighborhood Schools for Our Children group, saying it is disappointed with the board's decision.
"The thing that becomes most clear to us tonight is that this situation has become more complicated, not less," she said in the statement. "This school board has become more secretive, not less. This community has become more divided, not less. The school board needs to stop and address the issues that arose tonight. Any other action would be disrespectful to all taxpayers and in essence, unethical."
New High School in District 204: Question is
Where to Draw the Boundaries
Taxes not at issue in Dist. 204
By Sara Hooker
Daily Herald Staff Writer
Amid the din of parents contesting proposed boundary options, Indian Prairie board members quietly and formally approved adding a $124.7 million referendum question to the March 21 ballot.
The board met Monday in a packed meeting to discuss boundary options and the impact of asking for the power to borrow $124.7 million to pay for a third high school.
Only board member Christine Vickers objected to the resolution.
“I am convinced we do not need a third high school. I believe we have the capacity to manage the children coming into the system,” she said. “This referendum represents a huge tax expense that I believe is unnecessary for the public to incur. So I cannot and do not support this referendum resolution.”
Vickers has been a vocal opponent of the referendum push to build a third high school that officials say is needed to solve the district’s overcrowding issues.
The measure passed 6-1.
The district includes portions of Naperville, Aurora, Plainfield and Bolingbrook.
Officials estimate a new high school would cost $124.7 million, which includes $82.5 million for the building, $24 million for land and site work, $10 million for furnishings, $4.5 million in professional fees and $3.7 million for miscellaneous expenses and contingency money.
They presented a plan to the board to extend its debt payments over a longer period of time. Doing so would lower the immediate payment, but increase the overall amount paid back. That means voters could approve a $124.7 million request and lower the district’s bond and interest fund payment by $100 and keep it at that amount, officials said. The bond and interest fund is only a portion of Indian Prairie’s overall tax bill.
Currently, the owner of a $300,000 home pays about $738. In 2007, residents could pay $577, and a similar amount for the next 20 years, assistant superintendent for business Dave Holm said.
Board members must approve extending the debt. They’ll consider it at their next regularly scheduled board meeting Jan. 23. but residents’ minds weren’t on their pocketbooks Monday night. More than 200 people were focused on where their child would attend. Last week, board members considered six options and eliminated two. Monday they decided to consider several more. Late Monday they were still weighing options. Board members expect to make a decision by the end of the month. Nearly three-quarters of the people at the meeting stood to identify themselves as Spring Brook Elementary parents. In three of the four options considered last week, Spring Brook students, who now attend Neuqua Valley, would go to the new high school.
Ten or so speakers outlined their objections, which largely centered on distance.
Board President Jeannette Clark encouraged residents to attend the two boundaries meetings next week.
“You guys need to come and you guys need to look at that. But I ask you when you do, leave your backyards at home where it belongs,” Clark said. “Come up to the balcony with us. Look at the district as a whole and what’s best for the district.”
“I don’t care what the pressure is or who the pressure is. Tonight it’s Spring Brook. We may change a plan and next week it’s going to be White Eagle or it’s going to be Brookdale or it’s going to be somebody. We can’t think about the pressure. Don’t you understand that?”
Those meetings start at 7 p.m. Jan. 17 at the Waubonsie Valley Gold campus, 1305 Long Grove Drive, Aurora, and at 7 p.m. Jan. 19 at the Neuqua Valley Gold campus, 3220 Cedar Glade Drive, Naperville.
|
|
|
|
Post by insider on Apr 5, 2010 23:05:32 GMT -6
Indian Prairie bond vote causes a rift
By Grace Aduroja
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 9, 2006
If voters approve a $124 million bond referendum measure to build a third high school in Indian Prairie District 204, they will be lowering their annual tax bill in the short run.
Refinancing an older debt while incurring the new one allows for the yearly decrease, but stretches out payments for a longer period.
The money issues are only part of the controversy. One school board member continues to say she doesn't believe the new school is needed and plans to vote no on March 21.
Christine Vickers repeatedly has questioned the district's projected growth numbers and asks why administrators haven't considered other solutions, such as boundary changes that would more evenly distribute students between the existing high schools.
If approved, the bond issue and refinancing plan would reduce the district's annual tax rate to 57 cents from about 78 cents. That means the owner of a $300,000 home would pay a district tax of around $600 a year, compared with $735 now, according to projections.
The debt restructuring means the payments would have to be made for 20 years instead of the 11 in which the district now would retire its debt. Administrators say they need to build the school to accommodate the growing student population in south Naperville and Aurora.
Vickers disagrees. "I believe we have the capacity to handle the current enrollment and any additional blips that may come through the system," she said.
Administrators stand by their calculations. They say the state's adjusted availability formula, which schools use to procure construction grants, provides a reliable basis for how many students a school can hold. By that calculation, the main campus of Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville is operating above its 2,578-student capacity. "However, the district operates more efficiently than the state expects," said Supt. Howard Crouse in an e-mail message to residents. The school currently houses about 2,950 students.
Vickers said the district is using the wrong numbers to make its case. She said the adjusted available capacity formula is used by state officials only to compare the accessible space in schools that apply for construction aid. State offices agree.
"We only use this to determine the capacity for school construction," said Susan Weitekamp, principal operations consultant for the Illinois State Board of Education. "It's a way of measuring all districts as equally as possible."
State officials do not encourage districts to use those figures to determine capacity because the formula does not account for things like hallway space or smaller class sizes in science laboratories, she said. Instead, they say schools should hire design architects to figure out exactly how many students a school can comfortably fit.
District 204 administrators say they did that. "We talked with our own architects while building the building," and they said the main campuses of Neuqua and Waubonsie can each house about 3,000 students, Crouse said. There are nearly 3,000 students at Waubonsie's main campus but neither of the freshman buildings has reached their capacity of about 1,200 students.
Those who oppose a third high school also argue that a College of DuPage partnership that can house up to 600 students at an off-campus site will alleviate future overcrowding. That program will begin this fall with about 150 students. "All I know is that you can go over to any of our schools right now, like Neuqua, and you can't get through the hallways," said board Vice President Bruce Glawe. "There's no way we're going to fit a bunch more kids in either of these high schools without hurting our children."
This is the latest in a string of arguments about the school proposal. Community discussions became heated when residents expressed their views on boundary changes that would result from building a third high school.
Vickers didn't vote for any of the boundary change plans, citing her opposition to the construction of the school. District 204 officials say they have 9,200 pupils in 2nd through 5th grades, more than it can handle at the two high schools and the College of DuPage center. The high schools' enrollment is now 7,100. Building another high school would allow the district to convert the freshman campus at Waubonsie Valley High School in Aurora to a seventh middle school, alleviating projected overcrowding in the midgrade levels.
Vickers argues that it would be cost-effective to convert a newly constructed and unused elementary school into a middle school. School officials have rejected the idea, saying they expect having enough kids to fill the vacant building soon, although it will not be this fall.
"The numbers speak for themselves. They know my position, and they haven't had any real good arguments against it," Vickers said.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Apr 5, 2010 23:18:11 GMT -6
this is my frustration here guys........My post reads "b) will the kids benefit from smaller schools?" that is not an endorsement or otherwise. It is a question I would ask myself when confronted with a yes or no vote to raise my taxes sorry impossible to read your take on it when you repeat a 'SB justification now that the cat's out of the bag on the bogus projections' this response is an answer to that "as far as benefits of smaller schools-- when we catch Stevenson and New Trier in anything with the exception of music-- let me know. A ranting SB member who wanted a HS in her back yard does not a business case make. "and please understand that the response is coming to you from the same person who wrote 2 different pieces of propoganda at the time and contributed to the powerpoint presentation. The talking point had nothing to do with the fact kids might benefit from slightly smaller schools- it had to do with the inability to cram any more kids into our existing schools with the advent of the supposed huge bubble that would easily put us at 10,400 students and likely closer to 11000. The coming of split shifts by 2008 and severe limitations that would result from that. They knew that trying to sell the fact that 2500 student high schools outperform 4000 student high schools would unearth New trier and Stevenson comparisons. The 'can't fit' model came right after the capacity numbers were all tweaked down from what the same SB used to sell freshman centers. So the vote was NOT on would smaller high schools be better- it was based on the fact people were told armageddon was coming in a very short time and the schools we had COULD NOT handle it in any way, shape or form. I know exactly what the propoganda said at the time- sadly, I wrote a lot of it. The smaller schools nonsense came about after the 'real population ' facts became known -- and people like me and others here ( and those who have dropped out completely being disgusted) realized they had been used to fulfill others agendas. This group included some of the most ardent supporters of 204 kids - from PTSA presidents ( before they became PAC's) , booster club presidents and tireless volunteers at the schools. |
|
