Dist. 204 back at square one

I think it is truly embarrassing that we have a SB president that will stop at nothing to pursue his agenda of building Metea on the BB parcel.

I love how he blames the voters for the increased costs because they rejected the original referendums due to lack of boundary information. If he had it his way, he would have forced the taxpayers to pay the increased land cost if the quick take action had been approved.

He clearly has an agenda, as seen with the new motion filed to try to force this BB parcel to work despite the fact that continuing this fight will cost more legal fees. He does not have the best interest of 204 taxpayers in mind at all.

Who voted for this guy anyway?? Is there such a thing as impeaching a school board member?

This would bo commical if it was not real life. What's another few miilion to prove once again private landowner rights mean something. And I assume we can say 2009 is off the table.

If the School board has all this money to continue to fight for the BB land why can't they finally hire a professional demographer to determine if the 3rd high school is really needed. With the enrollment numbers way below the projections provided to the public to pass the referendum, don't we think it is about time they start doing their job and get accurate projections from professionals. They certainly don't hesitate to spend money on lawyers or surveys. Maybe they should go back to looking at an addition at NV. It certainly would be much cheaper and then they could spend some of that money from the referendum on education programs to help educate the children rather than more bricks and mortar.

I have a legal question. Is the School Board obligated to build the high school? I mean, could it legally say, on second thought we've decided it can't be done for this much, we just won't spend the referendum money? I know they can't use the funds for any purpose other than building a third high school. But is the district in a situation where it MUST spend the referendum money? And what if the referendum money isn't enough to get the land and building, then what? Could a judge order the district to build a high school without athletic facilities or other features tht the district says it can't afford if it ends up spending so much for the Brach Brodie property?

Did I miss something? I thought the article clearly said that the BB site was not under consideration.

Forget the 3rd high school. We now have 2 years of declining elementary school enrollment and the district is more than 1000 students behind their ridiculous projections; it is time to cancel it and move on.

Mike,
The article said that 4 sites are in the running. BB is still one if the price ever comes down or 3 others sites. I assume that the other sites include the church land north on Eola and the Ashwood land west of 248th but I am not sure were the 3 location is.

I want to know what sites they are looking at and 5 or 6 schemes for boundary layouts for each site.

Is it the role of the Naperville Sun Editors to frame the issue or slant the issue? It's very clear what the position of the Naperville Sun is from their statement of this issue.

The referendum only authorizes the district to issue bonds to purchase land and build a high school. The district has sold those bonds so they have all the cash. You are on the hook to pay those back over 20 years. It would seem logical that the district could use the money to retire the bonds and cancel the 3rd high school since it apparently is not needed.

I would vote for a referendum for A/C if they canceled the 3rd high school.

If they continue down the path to build an empty 3rd high school, I will most likely never vote for a 204 referendum again because it will be clear the district can not be trusted.

The school board has screwed up but the administration is also to blame. Folks in administration should be coming out and publically stating the school isn't needed.

Napervillian,

I agree I would like to see some cost data. My guees is we won't see it for some time. And while I am not in support of continued bb land strategy I am happy the SB is taking a step back and taking more time.

However the second part of your request is the type of request that has gotten us to where we are at. How about we focus on building a school and then have some professionals come in and set boudaries. Make it a mutually exclusive event.

Right! Why would the teachers (who belong to the union) come out and say that the school is not needed, when if they just keep their mouths shut, they get more teachers hired, more union members, another new facility for some (if transfered). It's a win win situation for them. They will never say that it is not needed. I went to the open house for NVHS at the beginning of the year and almost every teacher expressed a hope that the new school would be built so overcrowding would be eliminated.

Am I the only parent here who agrees with the school board on this decision? I feel the board is absolutely right in saying no to that ridiculously high price set on the Brach-Brodie land. Their inflated price is almost double what it should be. I don't think any developer would consider paying over half a million per acre to even build commercial sites on that property. The Brach Brodie people are trying to take advantage and gouge the community. If they decide to sell it for a fair price then we should pursue it. But if not, the BB people can let the land sit there forever and rot for all I care at that price.

I would be in favor of the 3rd HS if it really did reduce overcrowding. But it will not. NVHS still would have arounf 4200 kids even with the new HS. That is why I voted against the new HS and will vote against the funding referendum. My niece goes to a HS in a suburb of Chicago where their total enrollment (1170 kids)is less than the amount of kids in the NV Gold building, and they are in a HS bigger than the main NVHS.

Hey brad 204: It was a joke. Take care and see you at the next meeting. mm

I do not think anyone argues with you on that point Concerned Mom. I think there is a growing number of people who are a bit tired of a land process that requires lawyers, lobbyist, and state senators. The 5th amendment clearly states, “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. We have a choice to pay the just compensation or move on.

Here is an excerpt from a note from Mark Metzger sent over the summer:

“Tuesday morning, Senators Holmes, Hultgren and Halvorson called another
meeting on the subject of Metea Valley High School. Their disappointment at
the tactics of the landowners' trial lawyers was exceeded only by their
collective dedication to finding a way to open Metea Valley in the Fall of
2009. They recognize the urgency of our situation and their commitment to a
rapid solution was apparent.

Senators Holmes, Hultgren and Halvorson have now had a taste of the trial
lawyers' tactics with which we have done battle for several years. We
believe that with their help, the rest of the Senate will promptly provide
us with a legislative solution to our problem.

While it is still too soon to declare victory and begin moving earth, we
are encouraged by the progress being made in the Senate. For that, we owe a
debt of gratitude to Senators Holmes, Hultgren and Halvorson.” [END QUOTE]

It just amazes me given what is going on with the state government our senators had so much time to get involved. Also, such a comment as, “Senators Holmes, Hultgren and Halvorson have now had a taste of the trial lawyers' tactics with which we have done battle for several years.” I believe those trial lawyers were trying to protect Brach Brodie’s 5th amendment right.

I assume doing another legal filing is a tactic to stall the process. But a good tactic unlike the Brach Brodie’s bad tactics, right? Are we still doing battle or are we going to negotiate with someone?

hehe, my bad Napervillian. I'll put my fangs away :)

Once again the school board is needlessly spending our hard earned tax dollars! This time on a frivolous lawsuit over the cost of the bb land. I am sick of this and feel that a 3rd high school is not needed. When will the madness end? Where is the Dough Boy when you need him?

How in the heck does the SB think the new HS will be open in August of 2009. What are they smoking???

Napervillian,

I agree I would like to see some cost data. My guess is we won't see it for some time. And while I am not in support of continued bb land strategy I am happy the SB is taking a step back and taking more time.

However the second part of your request is the type of request that has gotten us to where we are at. How about we focus on building a school and then have some professionals come in and set boudaries. Make it a mutually exclusive event.

Give up the third high school and the BB property. This is the worst site in the world for the third high school that we don't need. Howie Crouse and the school board has their own agenda. They messed around with the boundaries to scare everyone when this all started. Isn't it a shame that the very same school board in control of Wabonsie used it to scare people that their children might go there. Or, are the children from Naperville Too Good to go to school with Aurora children.

Taxes are too high anyway, and I am tired of paying, and paying, and paying for the school boards own personal agendas and screw ups. If I ran my business like the school board does, I would be out of business.

For the kids, @ $ 518,250 an acre…What a bargain!

http://naperville-tv.com/2007/10/26/for-the-kids-518250-an-acrewhat-a-bargain/

I say junk the whole idea of the third HS, cut your losses and pay the Brach-Brodie lawyers the $4-6M and be done with it. If NVHS is so overcrowded, bring in some trailers to handle the overflow.

Several school board members have kids in Waubonsie. Some bigots may be scared to go there, and some ignorant people may have even used that tactic to get what they wanted on boundaries, but I don't see why you would say that the "school board" tried to scare people about it, Mr. Lueck.

I continually hear about "agendas" of school board members, like there are some dark, secret plans they all have which they are all trying to trick everyone into allowing. Whenever I see someone write that kind of thing, it strikes me that the person has no idea what they are talking about, but saying it makes them feel better about themselves in some way ... you know, at least they don't have a bad thing like an "agenda" underlying their opinions, right? Exactly what that agenda may be, who knows. Mr. Lueck, you say they have them ... well, what are they? Surely it cannot be that they have come to the studied opinion that a third high school is needed for future growth and they are trying to get the school district in a position to meet that growth. If you have a different opinion based on less information and study than them, it must be because they have a hidden "agenda", right? Transplant says that Metzger "clearly has an agenda" wanting to put the high school on the BB property. What does that mean? Trying to do what they said all along they would try to do is some dark "agenda"? Ironically, Transplant says this when Metzger has given the strongest indication yet that they may put the school elsewhere. Just what are these "agendas", what proof do you have of them, and what is it that make having that "agenda" bad?

As is frequently the case in such blogs, the facts don't matter. The people who first voted down the referendum because they would not approve it unless they were sure their kid went to the desired school, causing the option for the BB property at the original reasonable price to be lost - the problems now with the price of the land isn't their fault, right? And then the people who approved the second referendum after the squeakiest wheels got their way, approving the taxes which the school board could not levy on its own - nothing is those voters' fault either, right? Surely they were all mindless zombies acting at the school board's will. The people who did not vote at all - again, not their fault, right? Everything is the school board's fault, right?

Right?

Kevin has it exactly right. The wording of this original post by the Naperville Sun editors is outrageously worded. When all is said and done, look back on it and I bet half the presumptions of the entire post will prove to have been false. There's a reason local editors like Tim West are thought so poorly of. This is just one example among thousands.

A short while ago, I posted my thoughts as Napervillian but see now that another person has been using that name here. Sorry for any confusion.

Whatever happened to the Macom property at 248th and 95th that was offered to the school district in October of 2006?

Too bad they didn't take it seriously at the time. If they had, the third high school just might have been ready by 2009 and according to the school board president, we'd have saved 8-13 Million dollars (the cost of delayed construction).

I sure hope that property is still under consideration. What on earth could be the roadblock now?

Egos? Let's hope not. What else? It's still available and should be considered.

The public schools are a government sanctioned monopoly with limited competition in Illinois. The county townships are reassessing us HIGHER EVERY YEAR including the Wheatland Township quad year to support the money vacuum. With the housing bubble and decreased property values unfolding in our neighborhoods, is ISPD 204 going to push for reassessment DOWN EVERY YEAR to save the taxpayers money or keep us HIGHEST till the next mandatory quad assessment in 4 years? Can schools live with less money in a deflating housing market? It's all about academics, right? How many of us taxpayers benefit today from posh pools and sports fields in our adult lives? My high school was 3 floors, rectangular, no A/C, no pool, no homecoming fireworks, no SUV's in the parking lot, but we got a solid EDUCATION. Heck, the IPSD 204 computers are newer than the ones in my house and at work, no fiber optic internet connections, the bathrooms at work are much uglier than any IPSD 204 schools. Somehow without IPSD 204's vision, my generation put man on the moon and designed/built the skyscrapers of America. Get back to the basics, stop the dooms day scenarios, boundary wars, get the ACADEMIC trailers out and deal with them bolted to NVHS right now if overcrowded. Now that quick take is done, does anybody think IPSD 204 actively supports vouchers as a viable alternative in the Illinois legislature? Back to square one, we can do better for every child (poor or rich), the future of America, abandon BB and the 3rd HS idea once and for all. Checkout http://theeducationrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/09/end-public-school-monopoly.html

Why do people insist on saying that a third HS isn't necessary. A third HS is needed...we are overcrowded today. Current enrollment in District 204 is approximately 50% greater than in 203, yet our HS infrastructure and capacity is relatively the same.

Yes, Enrollment has not kept pace with the SB's projections. However, Those projection were completed before we were hit with a slumping real estate market. This shouldn't be a surprise to most people. There are are still 1,000's of acres of undeveloped land within 204's boundaries that will be developed with residential housing as soon as the real estate market turns around. What then...more trailers? South Naperville will look like a trailer park. I think our kids and property owners deserve a lot more for the taxes we're paying.

That being said, it is embarassing, no wait...shameful, that we have the funds, but no where to build. The SB should have been working on a contingency for this a year ago. Most professionals would be fired for such an obvious oversight!

While District 204 is slowly squandering the last $125,000,000 they borrowed on quick-take, lobbyists and attorneys, they are already planning to fleece you again.

District 204 officials wants to spend $17,000 of your hard earned money and blow it on a survey to determine if they should push yet another referendum. This time they want to borrow $45,000,000 to install air conditioners at 19 elementary schools that don't have them.

According to Frigidaire.com, for this same $17,000 the district could purchase 53 12,000-BTU air conditioners at a price of $319 each.

The features include electronic controls with remote control, ionizer/electrostatic clean air filtration and temperature-sensing remote controls.

A real business person could probably get a discount on that price or get additional units for free due to such a large bulk purchase, but not district 204.

And the district wonders why voters don't trust them.

Meanwhile, district 204 elementary school enrollment has declinded the last 2 years in a row 2 year decline of 284 students. By the time the 3rd high school is ready in 2010, it won't even be needed.

Remember what Howie Crouse told us in 2001?

‘[District 204 administrators] also predict that student enrollment in the district eventually will level off and then start to decline. They estimate the high school population would fit back into [the main campuses of] Neuqua and Waubonsie around 2020…[by] 2010, [we] predict high school enrollment will peak at 8,800 students. If this happens, officials say they don’t want the district to be stuck with a high school that isn’t being used… We’ve seen what’s occurred with other districts having empty high schools with very little utility. A high school, which would be much larger [than a freshman campus], likely would be difficult to sell…[I]f the schools would be over capacity for several years, school leaders would explore various options to deal with that...building additions then or having some students take a few classes through nearby colleges.’

Daily Herald, 2/17/01 (quoting Howard Crouse, then Associate Superintendent)

G4 dude,

The reason we say the 3rd high school isn't necessary is because quite simply, it isn't and never will be. Elementaty school enrollment is declining, see for yourself at

http://www.ipsd.org/Documents/0708/EnrollmentStats07.pdf

See all those red figures? Elementary school enrollment has declinded 2 years in a row. The 2 year decline is 284 students.

Now, see the district's projections where they tell us the district is going to be overrun by new students.

http://www.ipsd.org/newsevents/news_item_detail.asp?id=5768

They said that "For the next 10 years, kindergarten enrollment will stay relatively stable".

Wrong again, K enrollment dropped again this year to the lowest level in years.

Model 1 was to generate "4,000 new students over 10 years".

Huh? Enrollment is declining. Are they going to bus these students in from someplace? They aren't here.

The district models were NEVER correct, they were based on bad assumptions and inaccurate growth projections.

Enrollment has peaked and the bubble of students will have passed by the time any school is built and possibly opens in 2010. Hopefully, the district will come to its senses and cancel the 3rd high school as it will never be needed.

Peterson elementary school can hold 850 students but is only 50% utilized and in order to find those 400+ students the district had to close Wheatland elementary school and move them to Peterson, otherwise Peterson would still be sitting their empty.

The district can not even learn from its past mistakes.

Even Joni Hirsh Blackman told us that if we built a 3rd high school it would end up empty and a waste of taxpayer money.

‘It is easy to say that Indian Prairie should build a third high school. But that decision was made years ago. At this point, time is too short for the urgent need and land is too expensive. Besides that, even if all those obstacles could be overcome, the ‘third high school’ eventually could end up the white elephant my high school was…[my own high school] opened in 1970, large enough to hold more than 2,500 students, but the enrollment never reached much more than 1,600. Districtwide, enrollment peaked at 12,500 and then began to decline [closing in 1981].The school district tried to sell the building. But for years, it sat there…[b]ut as I’ve listened to the debate around me in the past several months, I’ve thought a lot about what a waste in taxpayer money it all was.

Joni Hirsh Blackman, Naperville Sun, 2/11/01

Yes Paul, and back many years ago Microsoft's Bill Gates was quoted as saying no one would ever need more than 640K of memory in their computer. Do you need more than 640K today?

Relying on an old out dated quote now that newer and better information is known is naive at best.

As for your Frigidaire epiphany, how long do you suppose they will last, how much would install and reworking of the windows be and how much power do you think they will draw? According to the people who studied the power draw, they eliminated the room AC's as a potential option because no school has the power capacity leading into the building to support that electrical load. Increasing the electrical capacity would cost too much as would the ongoing power consumption above and beyond a whole-building solution. You would have known this if you paid attention at the School Board meeting on 10/22/07.

As, for Napervillian | October 26, 2007 06:49 PM comments.

Blame the public?? I know this whole voting this is annoying. Maybe we should try a totalitarian model :)

We are where we are. I think the majority of people sat through the quick take and the trial in a civil manner. But the quick take failed and trial was lost. And I can only talk for myself but I was a tad bit horrified we just started looking into other options after we lost. That seems a bit like only applying for one college. It has been clearly stated time and time again that 2009 is the must have year for opening of the school. In fact, the whole quick take was pushed because 2009 was it.

Is the board an evil empire? Naw, they are just citizens doing a job that does not pay. And I would agree having M2 as a board member and also as a member of the state school board is a good thing. However, at a certain point we do look to our leadership to provide direction, right? err, right? :)

Since there has been no real data of any kind of course the blogs are going to run feral. For instance, did you notice that the land updates on the District 204 website were only current till 10/2 until this Friday and all of a sudden there is a 10/16, 10/23, and 10/26 update. And probably the real reason they did not get out there was because some web programmer forgot to publish them. I do not know maybe getting those earlier would have been helpful. Or for instance, I find it odd that the superintendent has not said a single thing publicly about what is going on. Does that mean he is secretly against it or just wants to stay away from it or more likely it just means nothing :) But there ya go in a vacuum of knowledge the ideas will spin.

People are blaming the press for a slanted view point but the press seems to be the only people the board is talking to. Maybe we should have a public forum. See, the public still thinks there are three other viable options on the table. Maybe they are not viable. For instance, maybe Macom is profiteering and not really offering a good deal. I imagine they are a motivator seller but they do not exactly have a Boy Scout history in Naperville.

Government never feels good when it’s moving quietly. Or again we can go for that totalitarian model.

One last time for the Metea mess:

Known - In 2006, voters approved a $124.7 million tax hike to pay for the new school. The school board has already promised NOT to ask for additional money for the project……….

SB President Mark Metzger:
- "Given the growth in material costs and anticipated labor cost increases, the only options for building on Brach-Brodie within the available proceeds involves substantial reductions in the building, such as eliminating the pool or the athletic facilities,"

- "We believe the community expects Metea to be a full-featured facility, making those options unacceptable."

Taxpayer:
Excuse me President Metzger, but perhaps what this SB believes and what is now possible can no longer co-exist. Is the cost of materials going down or are they going up? Is the labor cost declining or is it escalating as this decision lingers? When was it mandated that every high school be required to have a swimming pool? Will the student read better, learn more math skills or better understand the Constitution because they can swim a few hours a year in the pool? Please, explain to us again what this debate is about, education or building another ostentatious display. I know it will be difficult but perhaps a pool or a football field can be shared don’t you think? If it isn’t about education any more, I don’t want to pay any more. If parents demand these accoutrements, assess them an additional $500.00 per year or whatever it costs to pay for it and let the majority of us just pay for what is needed to EDUCATE the SD student.

SB President Mark Metzger:
- Even though there are other possible sites for the school, President Metzger believes pursuing the Brach-Brodie site is still worthwhile.

- Other sites , "Each has negative aspects that cause them to be ranked below Brach-Brodie," President Metzger said. "Except for the price, Brach-Brodie was and continues to be the least-wrong site.

- If this SB continues to pursue Brach-Brodie is a 2009 opening as originally planned really not entirely off the table President Metzger?

Taxpayer:
Unless the crack SD retained legal team is offering their services pro bono, I would suggest this Board really consider just facing the music and move on from the “least wrong site”. What the SB had originally decided to be the cost of land was proven wrong, so now how deep do you want to dig this money pit? How rich does this SB want to make these lawyers? Anyway, it could be several months before a judge decides whether to EVEN GRANT a new trial.

Perhaps this time we can all act like adults: restructure the boundaries amicably and end this issue both prudently and economically.

Time to dedicate more effort into exploring the other three potential sites don’t you think? Hey, does the offer made by the Macom Corporation appear more enticing now?

I moved to this area because of the schools. I have been here an entire year and they haven't broken ground on the third high school. The current ones are sooo overcrowded! The kids can't even make it on the teams because too many kids are trying out. This is just pathetic. Pick some affordable land and build a damn third high school already!

Have any of you folks that have posted your comments been to either WVHS or NVHS during passing periods? It's WORSE than Union Station. Did you know that students are only allowed to walk certain directions in the hallways even if their class in literally a few steps away from their locker so that the "traffic flow" doesn't get messed up? And some of you are saying there is NO NEED for a new HS? Have you gone mad?!! I think some of you need to take a trip to one of the schools & see for yourself. I think we need to suck it up & pay the $500,00+/acre & be done with it. Naperville keeps getting more & more populated & doesn't look like it's going to slow down any time soon. People are going to continue to have children too. For the senior citizens that might be worried about the tax hike, you can have your taxes frozen, so no worry. As for those of you who are "tired" of paying the Naperville taxes...all I have to say is you don't have to live here. No one is putting a gun to your head telling you to stay in Naperville. Move out West. There are cheaper homes & taxes out there. We want what's best for our children, & what's best is another HS so there is no overcrowding. Remember, these children are our future. If it was s strip mall, hey, I'd be on board..but it's a school for goodness sakes. Think about it, visit a HS & then tell me what you think!!!

Do you think it's possible the people who are against the new HS are the ones who aren't included in the new borders? Meaning their children won't be going there? I know the people in Brookdale are MAD b/c they aren't included in the borders & are worried that their property value will go down. Think about it......hmmmm.

Does anybody realize great inventors such as Thomas Edison, Alexander Bell, Orville/Wilbur Wright, and Albert Einstein dropped out of formal school to become home-spun genius's? The key was that the public schools, their buildings, their professionals were not the only option.

People are made to believe public schools are the only option since we are forced to pay the mandatory high taxes. Think out of the box people, just imagine if that Frontier Center (very nice building) was NVHS's real competition for your child.

Yes, there is an agenda, it's called build and protect the monopoly, unions (NEA/AFT), pensions, and golden parachutes at any cost. Dear Illinois Legislature, direct my hard earned mandatory taxpayer $$'s toward real education competition for our wonderful children and remove the school districts lions share of my property tax bill.

In the meantime, back to researching colleges. So glad C.O.D. is so great, reasonably priced, lots of choices, low taxpayer cost. That's right, C.O.D. is doing the Frontier Center!

I thought many people in Naperville were fiscally conservative Republicans. Instead I see San Francisco Liberals who wish to waste our money for their political and social agendas. Hey when the new high school sits half vacant, we can turn part of it into a Woodstock museum. Hillary would love it.

Residents in 204 got what they deserved. The referendum to build a school never should have been proposed until the district owned the land.

26 million reasons not to trust the school district

http://www.thechampion.org/article.asp?id=6728

I recently had the opportunity to visit New Trier. New Trier High School is consistently rated one of the top high schools in the entire state.

New Trier has 500 students more than WVHS.

http://www.newtrier.k12.il.us/records/enrollment.htm

New Trier high school was identified as "quite possibly the best public school in America" by Town & Country. Life also recognized New Trier as one of the best high schools in America with cover stories in 1950 and 1998.
In Newsweek's Top High Schools In America, Stevenson High School(Lincolnshire, IL) is ranked #166 in the nation, and #3 in the state. Stevenson has 4,507 students; more proof that the size of a school has nothing to do with acedemic excellence. If anything, the larger schools have better results.

Let's not forget that HS enrollment in District 204 hardly budged this year. When you consider the number of seniors attending COD Frontier on a fulltime basis, the number of students at district 204's 2 main HS campuses remainder flat. That doesn't even take into account the number of students attending Frontier part time.

Remember, Frontier can handle an additional 450 students and has room to grow. If some extra space is needed, Frontier is already waiting to take those students until the bubble of students passes.

You may also be interested to learn that New Trier and Stevenson have students in their hallways between classes. Can you imagine that?

With the real estate market going the way it is, if District 204 waits a couple more years they ought to be able to get the Brach Brodie property for a lot less than $518,000 an acre. Play the waiting game. The price will go down.

People's wrong impressions of what the Frontier campus offers and doesn't offer is irrelevant. The referendum passed, so please do yourself a favor and quit spending the energy putting out useless irrelevant information about whether a 3rd HS is needed or not. That vote was in 2006 and the voters said YES it is. The FC is not a 'smaller HS' able to just take any and all overflow and offer a full curriculum.

If the CRAFT-like/CFO folks like low taxes, please do yourselves a favor and just move out west. You'll be much much happier as the taxes are down way low where you want them to be. They are not coming down here. If you think they are, you are just kidding yourself. In the meantime, the rest of us will enjoy the planted claps at public comment pertaining to irrelevant information and bogus straw-man arguments.

I have a question. Are there any established public advocacy groups or organizations within the District that lobby or have a regular dialogue with the board of education? There seems to be a fair amount of public discontent and it would be nice to get it organized and focused.

Actually, Howie Crouse and Mark Metzger told us to pass a referendum and build the freshman campuses instead of a 3rd high school back in 2001. That was done and cost $59 million.

‘School officials favor freshman campuses over a third high school for several reasons. A new high school would be more costly than freshman centers, school officials say. Administrators project a high school would cost about $80 million, not including buying land. I don’t see how we could, practically, build a high school we need with the facilities we need and run under an $80 (million) to $90 million project.’

Daily Herald, 2/17/01 (quoting then and now IPSD 204 Board Member, Mark Metzger)

So, with enrollment declining, why is Mark Metzger still pushing for a 3rd high school? Who does Mark Metzger really represent?

With regard to the Frontier campus, it is a budgeted item for district 204 and the facts are that it is part of the equation. If it were simply utilized further, we could actually reduce the number of students at the 2 main HS campuses.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=59940

If the 3rd high school is ever built and ever opens, district 204 plans to close the WVHS freshman campus in order to try and find students to fill part of the 3rd high school. Does that make any sense? Why build a HS building just to close another Hs building? Why wouldn't we just use the building we already have?

Dear Joe,

It took me awhile but I found the website for the group called CRAFT which you mentioned.
Citizens for Reasonable and Fair Taxes. I think that is something we can all support.
Anyway, very interesting information here, thanks for the tip.

http://user.mc.net/~igloo/craft.htm

I also found in my searching The Champion. Fascinating as well. Thank you again Joe.

http://www.thechampion.org/

Stay focused on ACADEMICS. Why all the waste on the unnecessary extras such as pools, stadiums, auditoriums, etc. Is there any reason why each HS must be a standalone city? And for those who move here just for the schools then moving out, those of us who love this area are stuck with a bad legacy expensive tax bill. As for those who move here just for the schools, move out west and build your dream palace with your own cash up front. Don't ask me to move out due to the unrealistic and wasteful monopolistic money machine. Go on thechampion.org and look at those HUGE salaries! Bet Howie is really hurting on pension given his $215K 2006 salary. Where did the current superintendent come from, think he's getting big bucks and pension money.

The 2006 referendum passed with a very low voter turnout (as usual). Somehow, someway, needed to get more eligible voters to the polls to just say NO. After 30 years in this area as a taxpayer, I have paid my debt to the machine.

Why should children be locked into a one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best model of education? This BB and Metea stuff is a joke. Somehow under $100M for a school without all the ammenities is not good enough for IPSD 204 and makes me sick.

Dear Brad 204,

Absolutely their are advocacy groups. Every 204 vendor, law firm, bank, local construction company and others (many of whom thought they could personally benefit from the building of the school) helped market the $125 million 3rd high school to the naive and uninformed with threats of split shits, overcrowding and the tried and true "it's for the kids". But, the real money comes with the next referendum. Because the district has no money to operate the 3rd high school, they will be back with another referendum before you can say lickity split and that will require another $15 million per year, year after year after year.

Let's note just a few of those that gave to the YES vote campaign:

Whitt Law - 204's law firm which is making millions and millions off 204 taxpayers fighting Brach/Brodie

Oxford Bank & Trust - District 204 School Board memeber Bruce Glawe is the Chief Executive Officer, President of this bank.

Aramark Management Services - ARAMARK provides food service management to over 420 K-12 public and private school districts throughout the United States.

Sodexho - Serves the needs of more than 400 school districts, similar to Aramark.

Wiseman-Hughes Enterprises - a homebuilder in the Chicgoland area

Ryland Homes - a homebuilder in the Chicgoland area

Laidlaw Education Servces - Bus Company

Source: The Illinois State Board of Elections

Aramark Management Services 2300 Warrenville Road
Downers Grove, IL 60515 $5,000.00
3/17/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Bogart, Sandra 3803 Royal Portrush Drive
Naperville, IL 60564 $1,000.00
2/22/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Buck, Stuart 1520 Winberie Court
Naperville, IL 60564 $300.00
2/27/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Clow PTA 1301 Springdale Circle
Naperville, IL 60564 $300.00
2/16/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Crouse, Howard 30W250 Allister Lane
Naperville, IL 60563 $250.00
3/8/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
D'Addario, Elizabeth 2324 Wellsley Court
Naperville, IL 60564 $100.00
1/17/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Datz, Jack 3131 Treesdale Court
Naperville, IL 60564 $200.00
2/27/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Doody, James 2351 Fawn Lake Circle
Naperville, IL 60564 $500.00
3/8/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Edwin Anderson Construction Co. 9526 W. Ainslie Street
Schiller Park, IL 60176 $1,000.00
2/18/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Fort, Jaynai
Occupation: Housewife
Employer: N/A 2875 Parkwood Lane
Aurora, IL 60502 $1,000.00
2/12/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Gregory Middle School PTA 2731 Salix Circle
Naperville, IL 60564 $200.00
2/24/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Gurtz Electric Co. 77 West Seegers Road
Arlington Heights, IL 60005 $14,000.00
2/12/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Havala, Toni 3107 Treesdale Court
Naperville, IL 60564 $200.00
2/17/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Hughes, Michael 4020 Winberie Drive
Naperville, IL 60564 $25.00
2/16/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Hughes, Michael 4020 Winberie Drive
Naperville, IL 60564 $200.00
2/27/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Hurlbert, Sandra 2733 Seiler Drive
Naperville, IL 60565 $200.00
2/16/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Ivy Ridge Homeowners Association 2508 Blakely Lane
Naperville, IL 60540 $250.00
2/6/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Kimball Hill Homes 5999 New Wilke Road
#504
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 $1,000.00
3/15/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Kings Court Builders Inc. P.O. Box 5070
Naperville, IL 60567 $500.00
3/13/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Koulos, James 4220 Kings Hill Circle
Naperville, IL 60564 $100.00
3/8/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Koulos, James 4220 Kings Hill Circle
Naperville, IL 60564 $100.00
1/12/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Laidlaw Education Servces 9714 South Route 59
Naperville, IL 60564 $5,000.00
3/9/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Mason Contractors 306 W. Campus Drive
Arlington Heights, IL 60004 $500.00
2/18/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Moser Enterproses 300 East 5th Ave.
Suite 430
Naperville, IL 60563 $500.00
2/17/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Neuqua Valley PTA 2560 95th Street
Naperville, IL 60564 $250.00
2/21/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Nicholas, Arthur 930 Emerald Drive
Naperville, IL 60540 $1,000.00
2/27/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Nicholas, Arthur 930 Emerald Drive
Naperville, IL 60540 $500.00
3/13/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Oxford Bank & Trust 1111 W 22nd Street
Suite 800
Oak Brook, IL 60523 $1,000.00
2/8/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Patterson PTA 3731 Lawrence Drive
Naperville, IL 60564 $250.00
2/13/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Ryland Homes 1141 E. Main Street
Suite 108
East Dundee, IL 60118 $2,500.00
2/10/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Schumann, Carl 3799 Baybrook Drive
Aurora, IL 60504 $250.00
2/9/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Schur, David 1401 Monarch Circle
Naperville, IL 60564 $250.00
2/8/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Scullen Middle School PTSA 2815 Mistflower Lane
Naperville, IL 60564 $200.00
3/1/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Smith, Andrew 821 Thornapple Drive
Naperville, IL 60540 $100.00
3/1/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Smith, Andrew 821 Thornapple Drive
Naperville, IL 60540 $100.00
1/28/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Sodexho School Services 3020 Woodcreek Drive
Suite B
Downers Grove, IL 60515 $1,000.00
3/14/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Spring Brook Elementary PTA 2700 Seiler Dr.
Naperville, IL 60565 $200.00
3/10/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Taylor, James 4040 Winberie Ave.
Naperville, IL 60564 $200.00
2/27/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Welch PTA 2620 Leverenz Road
Naperville, IL 60564 $500.00
2/10/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
White Eagle School PTA 1585 White Eagle Drive
Naperville, IL 60564 $500.00
2/8/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Whitt Law 105 E. Galena
8th Floor
Aurora, IL 60505 $1,000.00
2/17/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Wiseman-Hughes Enterprises Inc 975 East 22nd Street
Wheaton, IL 60187 $2,000.00
2/17/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids
Zoet, Gary 2356 Fawn Lake Circle
Naperville, IL 60564 $300.00
2/1/2006 Individual Contribution
204 the Kids

Wow, so glad I'm in Oswego :-)

Stop with this nonsense. The arrogance of this school board is unbelievable. The money in hand won't run a new school, as they don't have funding available to hire teachers and equip the buildilng. With declining enrollments and the outlook for a protracted pull-back in the housing market, lets abandon ship on this ill-conceived concept. Naperville Central has been using "portable" classrooms effectively for many years, and, if that's what we need to do to ease overcrowding, then, so be it.

Yes, these groups (Craft-Like groups) are also supported by some people who believe the earth is no more than 6,000 years old, that everyone should be home schooled and that girls should be married by age 14 and having babies year after year with no need for an education beyond the 8th grade because she needs to know she can never be equal to a man and has to know her "proper place in life".

If that's what you prefer for your kid, go right ahead and support those groups to your heart's content. I believe the majority of D204 residents want something that is a little more "this century" for their children's future.

Dear Anonymous,

Approximately two weeks ago the Oswego newspaper stated that District 308 was about to begin a re-districting, or new school boundary process, to re-align the school boundaries in preparation for your third high school.

Please do not repeat the mistakes of your neighbor to the east.

It is A FACT that Plainfield is finishing their 4th, that is right 4th!, high school for their students. It is named Plainfield East High School. Drive down Plainfield/Naperville Road near 119th street. None of this greed and being cheap on taxes to forfeit their kids education. In fact, all of their elementary schools have air-conditioning even. Yet because we try in Naperville to accomodate those residents who are concerned on where their kids will go, or how much taxes are needed, these fence sitters have forfeited all of our kids opportunities in both academics and athletics as well as have risked their health.

204 is now a joke next to Plainfield, IL with 4 high schools! Why can't we just do this for the kids and community everyone??? The Plainfield 4th high school opens in 2008-2009 and we in 204 still can't agree to pay the price. The school board should just do it! I CHALLENGE everyone to drive by the Plainfield 4th high school, then spend a day in both WVHS and NVHS when kids are trying to walk through the overcrowded hallways during passing periods. I think this should be a requirement of anyone who wants to vote no for our kids.

FYI See their 4th one here http://learningcommunity202.org/PEHS/

Hey Naper Mom - move to Plainfield: problem solved!

So if we put the no high school and future boundary debates to the side for a second. Because unless someone finds some legal way to undo the referendum then the no high school debate is a nice theoretical discussion but the train left the station. If there is a legal way, then let’s do it :) As for boundaries, well those will be fluid regardless where the high school goes. I’ll be more than willing to toss my gang (I mean sub-division) colors and fight it out at another time.

Take those two issues off the table and are the people like myself that are disturbed by the costs and a lack of direction really on a different side from the people who are clamoring for the new high school to get built, “for the kids”. Yet it seems like the “for the kids” group is 100% behind the current process and therefore the board. Even for those who we are saying just do it. The board will need more money if they stay the course. Right or have I read all the articles wrong? Even if we get a new trial and win can not BB come back and perform a similar exercise. Can this not ping pong back and forth for years?

I think we all know the situation. We can not afford to build WHAT was planned or WHERE it was planned. Also, unless some serious additional costs are incurred is does not really sound like the third high school can be built WHEN it was planned.

So, it seems like it would be really nice if maybe we could stop tossing silly barbs around the table and turn that energy towards the Board of Education. We should be untied in asking the board for the detail across all four options that includes: (They can even add a fifth for the continued legal battle with BB.)

WHAT will be built

WHERE will it be built

WHEN will it be built
(I am branding it the “3Ws for the 3Rs” campaign :) )

And if an option surpasses the 125M mark then we should get a realistic estimate for the cost. Then as always, the board can come back to the people and we can decide to do it or not, “For the Kids” via a vote.

Can we all agree on that? And can we all agree we want some progress rather than more lawsuits?

Hey Naper Mom: I think that it should be a requirement of anyone who wants to vote yes that they need to kick in $5.00 each towards my new tax bill.

Hey Joe: Your last comments were really low and uncalled for.

mm,

Call them what you want, but I was relaying topics of conversations I have had with many of the members over the past 7 years.

According to your post above, you just found out about them less than 24 hours ago. I would consider you to have 0 knowledge of the actual people who make up those organizations.

Hey Brad: I've got some answers for you: 1)A new HS will be built. 2)It will be built on the BB land 3)It will open in 2010, but we'll keep telling people 2009. Weren't you paying attention at our secret meetings??. Come on get with the program. See you at the next meeting. Don't forget the secret password and handshake needed to get in. Take Care. MM. P.S. Don't forget the cookies and milk, because its always "For the kids".

If I, and more people like me, did decide to move to Plainfield, whose property values do you think would begin to suffer most?????

Yes, you and everyone else in 204. Because anyone in real estate knows that what has kept our property values high in the area has been the outstanding school district and education. HOWEVER, if the word continues about overcrowded schools, lack of athletic opportunities, sweltering, humid and unhealthy elementary classrooms with no a/c, and still high taxes, our property values will sink whether we have kids in high school or not. So for those greedy people who want high property values but to not invest in the schools which feed into those values, you are dreaming. I am considering seriously that if something does not happen soon regarding this third high school I will consider moving. It is not worth it to see my children suffer as well as risk a overall flight from the area that results in decreased property values for myself and everyone in 204.

Dear Naper Mom,

Yeah!

See ya!

Hey Naper Mom: If you leave our taxes will go down and the little kids will suffer! That's not really kid friendly is it? Remember lets do it for the kids!!!!

It is interesting how Joe always tries to steer the conversation away from the facts; 2 years of declining elementary school enrollment, land 2x what the district told us, plenty of space at COD available for any bubble of students, etc...

I guess this is what you do when you have no facts and can not look objectively at your own failures and confront them in a factual, practical manner.

Joe seems to think that money grows on trees and taxpayers are suckers to be violated again and again.

Hey Joe:

Don't assume what you think I know.

Hey Naper Mom:

Don't let the door hit you in the back side on your way out.

Sam Adams,

No one has come up with what happens to the children in the private K-8 schools that have been sucking away children from the elementary school level either. Their enrollment will not all fit at the private high schools around. Some will come back into D204 high schools, though many residents are in denial thinking that they won't.

It also seems rather pointless to be talking over and over about a jury awarded price of over 518K/acre when there's really nothing to talk about. That was the number that came back. The district should find land at a better price (elsewhere or negotiate back w/ BB if they do not drop their price we go with land B).

Please show the rest of the District exactly what COD offers in the way of a full high school curriculum in order to handle this 'bubble' you speak of. If you are going to place students there, they need to have an equitable high school education. My understanding is that COD is a college, not a high school.

mm-m2,

I know you were trying to play dumb about being clueless of the groups I mentioned by acting like their web sites were some new-found revelation. I also notice you do not deny that some in those groups hold the beliefs I outlined either. It's been really funny and sad at the same time to listen to them ranting and raving when they mistakenly believe they are in the company of other like-minded people.

I also know you are not the mm-m2 you pretend to sign your posts as. One really has to wonder about why someone wants to sign their posts to a public blog using a school-board member's initials when it is more than obvious you are not them.

So please, drop the child-like games.

I am jsut gonna post this section of my last comment one more time

"So, it seems like it would be really nice if maybe we could stop tossing silly barbs around the table and turn that energy towards the Board of Education. We should be untied in asking the board for the detail across all four options that includes: (They can even add a fifth for the continued legal battle with BB.)

WHAT will be built

WHERE will it be built

WHEN will it be built
(I am branding it the “3Ws for the 3Rs” campaign :) )

And if an option surpasses the 125M mark then we should get a realistic estimate for the cost. Then as always, the board can come back to the people and we can decide to do it or not, “For the Kids” via a vote.

Can we all agree on that? And can we all agree we want some progress rather than more lawsuits? "

Nothing is ever approved 100%. At least 40% of the people vote against even the most popular presidential candidates.

In this case, a vote was taken on the third high school. Not surprisingly, for any number of reasons, a lot of people voted no. But they lost. A lot more people voted yes.

This blog seems to have developed into a place where those who voted on the losing side can vent the same arguments they had when the vote was taken. Other than some name calling and some self-righteous recitation of half truths, nothing is being accomplished here. The fringe of the losing side of the debate (as determined by the election) can continue to cry and moan in this echo chamber of therapy, but I do not see anything else being accomplished.

Then again, based on the Sun's "prompt", that seems to be the intended purpose anyway.

Thanks to Tim West once again for his childish attitude toward District 204.

Hey Joe:

Want to play checkers??

Brad, your idea is conceptually nice, but I think it is not practical.

Before the first (failed) referendum, a price had been negotiated for the BB land. When the "no" votes prevailed, the option with the negotiated price was lost, which put us in the position where we had to try to get the land without any pre-agreed price.

If you want the options all laid out now as I think you are suggesting, the only purpose would be to have some sort of referendum to pick the option. Aside from the delay that would cause (remember the nightmare of the boundary arguments?), it would just place us in a position where we say "Option X", and then send the District to that property owner with no negotiation leverage at all (which was no small part of why the BB price went up to $500K+/acre).

Some people will never trust the School Board, but they were elected to do this job and they have to be allowed to do it. Not everything can be debated by everyone and then decided by a plebiscite, any more than GM must wait for a shareholders meeting to approve the location of a new assembly plant.

Information is certainly good. But just because some venemous people do not like a decision does not mean that what needs to be done cannot or should not be done by the representatives we elected to do that. If you do not like what they do, vote for someone else next time. This issue was prominent in the last election, and the school board members who were elected were pretty clear on their opinion. If you've changed your mind, or you think they have, you will have another opportunity to vote for new board members hereafter.

And to the venemous people, I would just say - let it go. People are not trying to screw you - they just disagree with you.

A couple of points to consider. If you look at current enrollment, and assume no influx of new students from new housing construction, by the 2008 school year, our high school enrollment will be about 500 higher than today. By 2009, the target opening of the third high school, enrollment will be up another 300 students and will peak in 2011, about 1100 students higher than today. At the same time, middle school enrollment will decline slightly.

My point is that we are going to have real problems at the high school level, but we are building a third high school to handle 1,000 extra students. As a by-product, we are going to increase middle school capacity by 1,200 through the conversion of the WVHS gold campus back to a middle school.

The numbers show the middle school isn't needed -- enrollment is declining. And, before the new high school opens, we will have to absorb 500 more students.

This school board had badly misjudged the situation. It's worthwhile to look at their projections vs actual from 1996, 2001 and 2004 -- We are FAR below the projected number of students.

Clearly, those who wanted the third high school instead of the freshman centers were correct. The problem began there and it's going to be really expensive and painful to fix it.

We don't have enough high school space for the next 5 years, but we are only short 1,000 seats at most. Building and operating a third high school is, sadly, the only solution, but it is damned expensive. Our board has not served us well.

Brad 204,

What progress do you mean? Stopping the funding for this POS as you called it in the "204 considers options" blog "Future instersting numbers will be the referendum numbers when the school board tries to fund this new POS oh I mean Metea Vally High School." -- Posted by: Brad 204 | October 20, 2007 09:46 AM

or this as progress:

"How do we stop this thing? The only next chance I see is the 2009 elections and of course voting down the operational referendum. What are our options?" -- Posted by: Brad 204 | October 10, 2007 12:58 PM

Forgive me for asking for a clarification of what you mean with the term Progress.

On some posts it sounds like you are in favor of a 3rd HS as long at it's in the south of the district, but then in others you sound like you are against a HS completely. Please clear up the confusion because I am not certain which way you really fall on this issue.

"I firmly believe there is cheaper land to be had the in the district. The property off of 248 and 111th. " -- Posted by: Brad 204 | October 9, 2007 01:10 PM

I can agree that I would like to see progress and no more lawsuits. It is time for both parties to try to seriously sit down and negotiate so we can close the books on this issue and begin to break ground.

Bottomline; we need a better price for the district and BB can get their land sold to make it a win/win situation for everyone. If this can't be done, I don't want to see another penny spent on a lawsuit. It is time to mediate and negotiate.

I am very flattered you spent that much time pulling together my thoughts. It's a nice summary thanks. I assume I must have hit a nerve.

I am replying to your post to point out that angry personal attacks are the tools being employed to cloud the issue. (on both sides really) The fact is the date is 10/29/2007 and we do not know WHERE we are going to build, WHAT we are going to build, or WHEN we are going to build it. (See, that is catchy ain’t it :) ) I am thinking of printing some T-Shirts. Want one?

If you followed the POS comment in context, you would know I was talking about the fact Metea would need to be downsized (feature wise) to meet the current BB price. And wow surprise, surprise MM did confirm the fact that to build Metea at the current price it would need to be downsized in terms of features.

I am not stepping into a debate about what a high school needs. For the record, my high school district had two high schools and we shared a district stadium and athletic facilities.

I also was stating for a long time that we were way over on costs. I think it was 19M for land, 8M for construction overruns. And wow look MM was nice to confirm that they are looking at a 25M overage. And well there is that unknown number for legal costs. I pegged it at 4M as a wild guess. Yours is as good as mine.

As for stopping this thing. Yes, Joe I would be 100% for stopping this current attempt. From the beginning, I have said the combination of tight timelines, closed door meetings, and large sums of money do not make for healthy governmental decision making. And look, the process has slowed down and people are taking a breath. But as I have stated recently the train is on the tracks so maybe we should try and get somewhere.

I know it is comforting to put each person in a small little category and mark them off as agenda driven. Didn’t I see recently you posted that if people are for tax reform they must also treat woman badly. (Calm yourself no response needed, I am just taking your comments out of context)

So, you have branded my comments as someone who has an agenda for the south side. You must have missed these two:

In regards to boundary wars…
“But this all transpired before I bought my home in Naperville. I picked my location based on all this old past drama.”
Posted by: Brad 204 | October 16, 2007 12:31 PM

In regards to locations..
“For instance, maybe Macom is profiteering and not really offering a good deal. I imagine they are a motivator seller but they do not exactly have a Boy Scout history in Naperville.” (yeah, it should be motivated. I am surprised you did not point out my grammar and spelling problems.)
Posted by: Brad 204 | October 27, 2007 05:40 PM

Gee , Joey can’t we all (sniff, sniff) just get along?
Brad 204 | Now

The 3rd HS could be very easily canceled. The District can retire the bonds and sell the 25 acres back to Brach/Brodie.
This is what they should do but "Joe" won't allow it because he won't admit he was wrong. Or, maybe he is too busy collecting a kickback from a 204 vendor? With regard to Plainfield, this is what happens when District 204 has the highest taxes in all of DUPAGE, WILL and KANE COUNTIES; people move elsewhere. Our taxes are so ridiculously high they have become dilutive to property values. Why buy a house in 204, pay a mortgage and then pay a 2nd mortgage in 204 property taxes when you can move to Plainfield, get more house for your money and lower taxes. It is no wonder over 300 homes in Naperville are in foreclosure and another 200 are bank ownded or up for auction.

Joe,

Maybe, just maybe, progess means getting a shovel into some dirt. We are no closer to that happening than we were when we handed over $124 million dollars in the spring of 2006 to the SB to build Metea.

I'm angry and very disappointed that we are in the situation we are in today. Strangely, blame is being pointed in every direction lately. How on earth can anyone but the SB be to blame for the current situation?

The referendum was passed in April of 2006. At that time, the SB members that I heard speak were confident we would obtain the 55 acres for a reasonable price within a short time period. In fact, one SB member went as far to say he was so confident he thought a 2008 opening was possible. Huh???

Didn't happen. Delay, after delay and then the blame game began. First, it was blame the BB estate and attorneys, then Senator Holmes for not pushing quick take, then the voters in 2005, etc.

Accountability. It lies somewhere. I'm thinking at some point those that chose to pursue BB without considering consequences should be held accountable for that decision. But strangely, the fingers are being pointed everywhere but the SB for some.

Last October Macom offered up the 248 parcel. It wasn't taken serious. In fact, never presented to the SB as a whole. Why? If it had been seriously considered, construction would be in progress right now. The district would have also saved $8-13 million (according to Metzger who said that's the cost for not obtaining quick take in the Spring). Who is to blame for not taking that offer seriously? Me, you, Senator Holmes, the no voters in the 2005 referendum? Who?

Time to jump off the BB trainwreck. Pursue an alternative option. NOW! Before we lose another 8-13 million.

My understanding is that the motion for a new trial relating to the BB price was filed at the deadline for the original judgment. If it had not been filed, the opportunity to buy the BB property at the price determined in the lawsuit would have been lost by now. That is not to say that such a purchase is a good option, but it would have been a lost option by now had that motion not been filed. The point is that filing a motion for a new trial does not mean that there will be a new trial, or that a new trial is particularly desirable or wanted, but it did procedurally allow the School District a little more time to consider all the options, including that one. Also, something conceivably could come from the judge in ruling on that motion which would make BB more amenable to negotiate a lower price or something different. No one knows for sure, but I would not be assuming that there is some unstoppable course headed toward a new trial based on that motion.

Bill Weber has it right. Foreclosures are at an all time high in Naperville. Adding a 3rd high school is going to increase foreclosures!

Cheermom1411,

As much as I would like to believe construction could have started by now at 248th, I don't believe it. Yesterday I drove on a road that is where the high school would supposedly be placed.

Would they build a walkway over the road like a tollway Oasis and have the cafeteria up there?

I personally do not care where it's located, only that the project moves forward and gets done. It seems as though every time a new supposed solution gets thrown out on the table and after it's sorted through to separate fact from fiction, we are no better off and no closer to anything.

If they purchase the land down south, the district is still sitting here with its head in an anatomically impossible position because that pesky little thing called a road is not going to move until at least Spring of 2008. I'm not a civil engineer by trade, but I have to admit I have never seen a high school be built on top of a road. Have you? All the glossing over of every obstacle is the same regardless of the location: We'll just ask for a lower price, we'll just move the road and power lines, we'll just get the church to want to sell, etc. etc. All over simplified and at the end of the day, nothing further is accomplished on any of them.

Brad, you apparently missed the word 'some'; it was purposely chosen instead of 'all' because it was 'some' and not 'all'. If you still draw an incorrect conclusion when it was properly written out then that is something you should probably go back and take up with whatever former English and/or Reading teachers you had. Unless you were around the campfires listening in on the conversations, you're really not in a position to say what 'some' opinions actually were that had been expressed.

AR,

People overextending themselves by buying a house more expensive (in part due to accepting a bad mortgage deal) than they can afford without a built-in buffer or financial parachute is what causes foreclosures; not building a high school.

There is a difference between cause/effect and coincidence.

I would venture a guess that people pay more extra money at the gasoline pump per year than they do for their D204 portion of their tax bill. Does that mean BP, Mobil/Exxon and Shell are the cause of foreclosures in the area?

I am a FORMER 16 year resident of Naperville. We moved 3 years ago and now reside in another "Naperville-like" town. Statitically we are very similar towns, including our population size. However, we have 10 high schools in our town, each with about 1500-2000 kids enrolled. They DO NOT have swimming pools, a huge stadium, or a state-of-the-art theater. Some do not even have bleachers or scoreboards on their football fields. A couple of the schools have portable classrooms to contain the temporary overflow. Our computers are not the latest, but they suffice. Every school is painted yearly and maintained. Are they "fancy"? No...but they serve their purpose. And..they are rated near the TOP IN THE STATE as far as academics.

Somewhere along the way, District 204 lost the vision of education and began worrying about building mini-malls with all their amenities to coincide with the mini-mansions being built.

We have the opportunity to move back to IL in the near future and I can tell you, we will not be moving back to District 204. I did not think then nor do I think now that a 3rd high school needs to be built. Are the high schools crowded? Yes. But the solution is to buy portables until the enrollment evens out--which it inevitably will.

But then portable trailers won't look as nice as a shiny new brick building or give Naperville more to brag about, will they?

Joe: Not everyone in D204 drives big SUV's or live in huge, 3 car garage, 5 bedroom, finished basement, Plasma tv houses.

My yearly gasoline purchases is less than the portion of my D204 tax payment.

I would stop making goofy presumptions.

Mike, You are correct. I should have put in some qualifying language to denote the reference to those that are on the expressways, parked on Ogden or Route 59 multiple times a day. Not everyone sucks down the gas like it's poweraid... but judging by the amount of traffic each work day; a very large number do. It's still not responsible for the foreclosures and neither is the tax bill. Not paying your monthly mortgage is what causes a foreclosure. Not paying your tax bill (usually because your money is spent on other things like your mortgage or other daily expenses) results in a lien and subsequent auction.

Sherry,

You make a good points. I am curious if the judge will just come back quickly and slam the door shut or not.

This does not seem like a very unnecessary point to argue since the 2.5M is not the larger part of the problem: (from Britt's article today)

"School district attorney Rick Petesch filed a motion last week seeking a new trial in the condemnation lawsuit and is prepared to argue the district should not have to pay $2.5 million in damages."

I guess we should know in three months or so....

"It is hard to say, but less than three months is probably my best guess," Petesch said.

Some good work for Whitt Law, I guess.

I agree with you in theory but the referendum has passed and I just don't think that the school board will ever back away from building a 3rd HS.

I really believe the dropping enrollment in 204 is a temporary condition. Once the economy and the housing market turn around, builders will begin building thousands of new homes across S-Naperville, E-Aurora, N-Plainfield, and NW-Bolingbrook. I don't think anyone can say safely say..."let's assume for a minute that 204 enrollment doesn't go up". It will go up. Developers love this area, and there are way too many corn fields in our district waiting to be converted into high priced residential housing. Current enrollment is straining the existing capacity of our facilities. Any new kids won't fit into the existing infrastructure. Fighting this is very short sighted...(besides, it passed...move on with your lives.)

Let the SB build a the best possible HS, at the best possible price. With the temporary drop in enrollment, they now have a little time to shop around for the best possible deal on real estate. Screw BB, find cheaper land and build a HS comparable to NV and WV. Believe or not, we (as property owners) will all be better off in the long run. (A little secret for ya'll...Great schools, Its why people pay a premium to live here.)

PS. Does anyone know what it cost to build Oswego East HS? She's a beaut. (Just curious.)

Today's letter to the editor seems to sum it up pretty well.

The enrollment in the Indian Prairie Unit School District 204 is already 1,137 students below the district's projection used to promote the 2006 referendum to build a third high school. High school enrollment alone is 476 students below what they projected for this year. Considering that elementary school enrollment has declined for two years, our total enrollment will peak thousands less than the school district told us.

A jury set the price for the Brach-Brodie land at more than double what the school district budgeted and assured us it would cost. Thankfully, that quick-take never passed.

Then the unsuitable parcels became possibilities, as did some new options. Now the school district wants a new trial for the Brach-Brodie land because it says the first one wasn't fair.

Who knows where a third high school might be built? If we don't get the Brach-Brodie land, it's possible, maybe even likely, that the high school boundaries will change. I can't imagine our community going through that nightmare again, especially when it was the lowest of seven choices on the community survey regarding why the 2005 referendum failed. Ironically, providing more information, the result of better planning, was the highest.

So where does that leave us? Well, the enrollment is not what was projected, the proposed land is twice the price so the location might be different, and then the boundaries may change. It's also probable that the school won't be completed by the date it was promised, it might not be built to meet our expectations, and who knows for sure about the cost. Not exactly a well-planned project.

Maybe after this experience our school district will be more open to input from all of our community, even when - especially when - it is contrary to what they are thinking.

George Vickers

Aurora

Regarding high taxes and foreclosures.
My house and both my cars are paid for in full. I live in a modest house which I can afford to maintain, I drive a late model car, I save for the future and a rainy day (next year's recession). I pay my credit card bill in full every month. My annual property tax payments are so large, I have to save up for them. District 204 accounts for about 73% of my property tax bill because they spend my money like drunken sailors.

Some people want to buy a McMansion, which is over their head, and drive a car on payments, forever. Then, when some extra expense comes along or they just must have the latest "thing", they will take a 2nd mortgage. Then, when they get laid off, have an illness or some other setback in life comes along (as it always will), they are suddenly in trouble and facing foreclosure. The rose colored glasses come flying off and suddenly they are facing a long life of envy. They are surrounded by "things" they just "had to have". Their garages and basements are full of things their kids "just had to have". They may park one or both of their cars in the driveway as a result. You know whom I am talking about.

Sadly, they often don't vote (they are too busy), don't read the paper (too busy watching their TIVO), and have no real idea of the forces that shape their future or that of their children.

If they do vote, the will vote YES, not because they are informed or think their children will actually receive a better education in a shiny new building but because someone tells them it will be "good for their property value". They have no idea that savy buyers are already moving elsewhere because District 204 has the highest property tax rate in the county and most of the state for that matter. They will compound the problem with their ignorant vote and then wonder why the neighbor's house has been on the market for 12 months and the price has been cut 5 times?

Sadly, they will blame "the man" when it is their own ignorance and greed that does them in.

I agree with you Naper Mom. I posted a very similar comment a few days before. Now everyone, we need to get over this, they voted TO bulid another HS in Naperville, so let's get over that. Where & when are unanswered questions. Let's all take a deep breath & get used to the fast that there is going to be another much needed HS in Naperville. Let move on folks........it's going to happen. UGH!

If residents in Naperville cannot afford the taxes, why are they living here?

Oswego East cost $65 million to build. Oswego High School is also in great shape, with remodeling done 6 years ago? My youngest son was a freshman there, 6 years ago, and the remodel was just completed. My oldest son and daughter graduated from Wheaton North, also remodeled at the time they attended, and still had classroom trailers within a few years. The building was in great shape--small inconvenience with the trailers. Now both Wheaton North and WWS have great new additions, built to the streets as they are quite landlocked, as all of Wheaton is. I'm surprised that NCHS is in such poor shape, as 60 years for a building doesn't mean it needs to be falling down. When did it become not important to keep the building up? Hubble Middle School in Wheaton is the old Wheaton High School, and it's not falling apart, how old is that building? We do live in a disposable society--things just need to be maintained with care to keep a lasting value.

Could there be a more expensive piece of open land in Naperville than at 59 and 75th Street? Find a different cornfield!

However, if and when the SB goes looking for another piece of appropriate property, perhaps south of the BB property, that other landowner will say, "Whuzzup? Let me introduce you to my legal representation, as I understand you will pay my legal fees while I optimize the value of my land".

Land long-held in families is an emotional issue, and it's human nature to get the highest value for that land. All of this bickering is a red flag to any future negotiations elsewhere, and may be driving land prices up on any appropriate property as we blog here.

I note happily the many contributors to the discourse of the IPSD Boards created “Metea mess”. I had thought I was done (previous post -October 27, 2007 05:54 PM ) but there is one issue that I don’t believe has really been thoroughly examined.

The mess briefly reviewed:

1. At this point we still have no verifiable location where this “thing” will be built although SB President Metzger has said. "Except for the price, Brach-Brodie was and continues to be the least-wrong site. Yah, back to court where this SB has beeen so successful.

2. Apparently we have no concrete idea if enrollment in IPSD 204 is increasing, decreasing, or just staying the same. I find it astounding that this referendum passed without providing definitive documentation to the voter of its need. If the case for a third school need has not been unequivocally proven by the IPSD, why this exercise?

3. Huge sums have been paid to numerous lawyers who are now putting their kids through college on just this one mess and we are still not done!

The issue that I haven’t seen addressed sufficiently, in my mind anyway, is just exactly what this SB has decided to build. I for one see no causal relationship between educational excellence, teaching readin’, writin’ and rithmetic, and a swimming pool or a first class athletic stadium. I understand President Metzger’s full-featured belief but given this mess, I really don’t think we can afford nor would I want to be compelled at this point to pay for this now extraneous stuff.

We are all aware of the SD 204 peacock, aka Neuqua Valley High School, but what do we know of the Metea plan? Well, I recently talked with someone that has seen the plans and asked their thoughts. I know you will find this difficult to believe but apparently Metea could more aptly be named “Neuqua 2” or “Neuqua Grown-up”. We all know that the delay caused by this mess has already mandated an increase in material and building costs, but that will be the least of the anticipated monetary problems. Given this architectural plan the potential cost overruns created may indeed progress geometrically vice arithmetically. If the comments made to me about this adventure are in fact true, what more does the voter need know to put a stop to both this SB run amuck and this project. This SB will have now eliminated all doubt that they are more political than practical and more interested in building monuments at the expense of their constituents rather than educating children.

The good news: A full-featured Metea evidently doesn’t require a planetarium.

Wondering: In response to your question about :if people can't afford the taxes, why are they living there?", I think that many people made Naperville their home long before the "big boom" of development and huge tax increases. I know I did. But sadly, as the taxes skyrocketed, our income could not keep pace and we were forced to move from our home of 16 years. Many people who complain are people who are here for the long haul, not the "move-in, move-out in less than 5 years" group.

Well, Mayor as I am sure you know there are only three levers that can be pulled when executing a project. (Time, Cost, Quality) Unless another referendum gets past the Cost is fixed at 124M + whatever interest has built up (17 – 20M).

Whatever push there was for a less featured school probably should have happened during the last referendum. Because just like trying to stop the building of the high school, I think trying to make it something other than a full featured school is off the table. Again, open to suggestions to anyone who can really make those things happen.

As for time, I think it’s fairly hard to believe at the moment that this page (http://www.ipsd.org/3hs_index.asp) proclaiming Metea open in the fall 2009 is realistic. So, I imagine the time frame lever can be adjusted so that we are not paying an expediting fee to the builders. Although, what are the ramifications of 2010 or 2011 opening?

That leaves us with quality. I am sure there is some wiggle room with construction materials and the level of embedded technology. But at the end of the day, my guess is the district will try and build a school with as much parity to the other schools as it can. If the school is going to be built, I think that is the way to do it. But let me be clear, my idea of quality does not include building a less featured school on outrageously priced land.

For those lamenting about the taxes, yes I am concerned. However, my concern is more about the operational aspect of the district not this cap-ex project that is spread out over many years. If we were to save real money then the answer would be not to build the school. The answer is not to build a lesser school. If those who proclaim the district is shrinking are right, we will have a full featured new school and we can shutter one of the older ones.

I have lamented a lot about the handling of this project. And yes I am still amazed it’s 11/3/2007 and we do not know WHERE we are building, WHAT we are building, and WHEN it will be built. And of course there is small matter of the money continuing to flow to Whitt law firm.

Put all that aside for the moment and I think the SB has been slowing putting out comments like:

1. Right after the trial verdict: We can drain our interest reserves to afford BB land.

2. Right after the motion for a new trial: We need to remove features in order to afford the BB land or win a new trial.

In doing so, I think the SB is testing the waters with the public to see what the reaction is to the following question:

Do you want a less featured school in the promised location or the promised school in a less-right area?

That is an interesting question that we could ponder while we wait till the spring for the answer from the SB :)

What we need is a new high school, not a McMonument to 204.

Build an adequate high school on the location at negotiated price on the BB land.

Dear "The Mayor",
You identify yourself as a district 203 taxpayer in the thread about rebuilding NCHS. Why are you so concerned about the third HS in district 204?

The fact that there has been absolutely no information issued by the school board makes me think that they will just figure out a different site, buy it, then tell everyone where the site is and who will be going there.

All of the speculation / fighting / panic is caused by a complete lack of information.

Are we just going to get an email one day that says - New School is at Molitor and Eola (or Macom or who-knows-where-else). Here's the new boundaries. Deal with it.

204 Resident:

In addition to being a homeowner I own a small business with a healthy portion of my rent going specifically to pay real estate tax. Ain't I lucky? I trust that clears the issue for you.

Have a good day.

Wait, Mayor, that's exactly the same thing you said in the 203 blog. You own two homes and two businesses in Naperville??? One of each in each district??? No wonder you're worried about the tax increase!

In the summer of 2007, in reference to the cost per acre, Metzger said, "I don't believe there's much risk of it being an out-of-control number in the first place," he said. "Our data is better than their data. Even if it's the worst case scenario, we can afford it so it doesn't matter."

http://www.studentsfirst.us/news/contentview.asp?c=197819

The school district and their lawyers have mismanaged this whole project, regardless of what you believe about enrollment & the necessity of another HS. By the above quote, Metzger was either deceitful or ignorant about the cost of the land. They have put themselves in a lose-lose situation, and they should be held accountable. They were so confident about their estimates, yet they were so wrong. They did not argue their case well in court. Doesn't that tell you something about the competency of those running your school district?

Hey, another 204 resident: First, I responded to two different people on two different issues. But one more time - one house, which is taxed, and one business, whose rent includes a proportionally assessed real estate tax that my wonderful landlord passes on to me. Both are taxed but not necessarily by the same SD. Again, ain’t I lucky? Please advise if you need more explanation

But anyway, what’s your point? Do you find my comments untruthful or insulting? Would you find the comments of people that pay no taxes in either SD offensive or unwelcome even if they were contributing to OUR education on this issue? As far as I’m concerned the more contributors involved the more we can all potentially learn.

By the way neutral observer: you have reinforced the comments previously made by many. One thing of note though, on 17 April 2007 a total of 9.9% of the IPSD 204 electorate bothered to vote with President Metzger receiving 20% (2370) of those votes cast. A voter turnout of 9.9 %! For a School Board election! Ah this would be the election that empowers those that control in excess of 50% of your real estate tax dollar. Perhaps now people will finally get the message that there is a price for just sitting on the side and watching and that sometimes the price paid is not a comfortable one. Perhaps next time we’ll get the hell up and volunteer or run for election, and if nothing else at least learn about the damn candidates and vote for Pete’s sake!

One to think about: the average cost per square foot of educational building construction approximates $175 to $200. Granted this is rough, and only one possible measurement of many, but at $124 million this building could conceivably end up being 700,000 square feet. Just for reference, a super market is about 70,000 square feet. Maybe this is the right size, I don’t know. Just a thought.

Neutral Observer,

I think it does show their ignorance in the real estate market. They should not have assumed that a previous option price would have still held on the land after the option expired. Someone who does this for a living said the price typically 'doubles'. That's what happened. At the end of the day, they did not understand the real-estate market. That does not mean they do not understand the rest of the school system.

I know this discussion has fallen off the main page therefore its pretty much DOA, but I figured I would toss this link out for those who missed the Daily Herald article where Metzger and Daeschner were interviewed about the current state of the land negotiations.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=73473

Metea Valley High School's boundaries and opening date are both up in the air as Indian Prairie Unit District 204 looks at alternate sites on which to build the school.
The district originally planned to begin construction on Metea this past spring on 80 acres known as the Brach-Brodie property off Route 59 near 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora.
The school was supposed to be completed in time for the start of the 2009 school year.
Indian Prairie already owns 25 acres at the site, but when the two sides were unable to agree on a price for the remaining 55 acres, the district took the landowner to court to allow a jury to decide on the value of the property. The jury's $31 million verdict was $17 million more than officials say they can afford to pay.
The district hasn't totally closed the door on the Brach-Brodie site, but now leaders say they're also looking at several other sites that are large enough to house a high school campus.
The project's delays and rising costs have left some residents wondering why there wasn't a backup plan from the start.
The Daily Herald recently sat down with Superintendent Stephen Daeschner and school board President Mark Metzger to talk about some of the issues surrounding the Metea project.
Here is an edited version of that conversation:
Q. Do all of the alternate sites you're looking at require boundary changes?
Metzger: The non-Brach-Brodie sites would necessitate boundary changes.
Q. The district set the current boundaries in advance of its referendum to fund the school project in part so everyone would know where their children would attend classes before they voted. How will you bring everybody together with new boundaries if you change sites?
Metzger: Part of that is revisiting why we change the boundaries. I don't think our community, on balance, is prepared to accept a building that is substantially different in terms of feature and capabilities from what the other buildings have.
Most believe they would rather see boundaries change and have a full-featured opportunity for their children than to leave the boundaries in place and have less than a fully capable structure available to them.
Q. Are you still on target for a 2009 opening?
Metzger: It depends on which site we pick.
Daeschner: That's becoming a stretch. It depends on how soon we can fulfill negotiations. We could make it, but every day we lose a little bit. It takes a minimum of 16 or 17 months to build once you start.
Metzger: If we have a 2009 opening, it's going to be what I call the Plainfield or Oswego delivery model, where we deliver the space we need for freshmen and sophomores and finish the building while the kids are there the first year. In those scenarios it may mean what we call the big boxes -- auditorium, cafeteria, field house, gym -- that one or two of those may be delayed until January, the beginning of second semester.
Q. If you can't open until 2010, what effect will that have on the rest of the schools and their capacity?
Daeschner: It'll impact them. In my estimation we may have to put up some modulars.
Q. Enrollment is not growing as quickly as predicted. Is Metea still needed?
Metzger: Indian Prairie is now the third-largest district in the state. The only district larger than us other than Chicago is Elgin. They have six high schools. Rockford, which we just passed, has five or six high schools for fewer kids than we have. We have two high schools.
Daeschner: Right now we've got 8,100 kids for two high schools. We've got one high school operating at 4,100 kids -- Neuqua and its Gold campus. That's too many kids. All the data will say an efficient high school should not have more than 1,500.
You're not looking at good situations for kids in sports, extracurriculars, in all that stuff.
We have basically two years that we potentially see some numbers down. That's kindergarten and maybe first grade. The rest are up and down and up and down. Even at a conservative estimate, we're going to have 8,900 to 9,300 kids (in high school by 2019) with the kids we already have here and assuming loss. Compared to what we have now, that's 800 more kids.
Metzger: And we have 10 percent of the district that still isn't built from a housing perspective.
Daeschner: It spills down to the middle school. I've got a middle school that is over 1,400 kids approaching 1,500 kids using every available space. So when you look at the kids we have in elementary and middle versus high school, it continues to show, no matter what the numbers from anybody will say, we already have the kids for 8,900 to 9,300 kids. They're already here.
Q. When you were originally looking at the Brach-Brodie property, weren't there other sites that wouldn't have required legal maneuvering?
Metzger: None of the land we have available to us had a willing seller. None of them. Nobody was clamoring to sell us their land so we were looking at a court battle no matter what.
About 12 months after we filed for condemnation on the 25 (Brach-Brodie) acres in 2003, we worked out a settlement agreement with them and we felt we were probably going to end up working on a modified settlement agreement and we'd reach an agreement and move forward and that would be that.
We certainly did not recognize in 2005 that what we would be facing is a seller that would never, even to this day, state a price at which they'd be willing to sell us the land, unlike what they did with the 25 acres. It wasn't anticipated on many levels.
I think we believed that we would see a negotiated result well in advance. When it became apparent that wasn't going to happen well in advance, we pursued a quick-take option to try to head off the issue and see if we could get some negotiations going. And when that failed we said, "Well the trial still looks good. Our advisers are telling us that we should expect a result in acceptable range" and that didn't happen either.
Q. Why wasn't there some kind of backup plan from the start?
Metzger: I hate to play lawyer, but it depends how you define backup plan. If backup plan means a hot-swappable, immediately drop-in and proceed tomorrow plan, I never understood that to be a backup plan. It would have been irresponsible to do it, it would have consumed lots of time, lots of money and kept lots of balls in the air and that costs money.
We had no reason to believe, based on the advice we were given, that we were going to get the sort of result that we did.
From my perspective, there were multiple backup plans in place. In fact, the morning after the verdict we called three landowners. We knew who we would call right away and we did.
Q. Would it have cost more than it's winding up costing right now? You're still going through the same process just a year later.
Metzger: Part of this is stuff that wouldn't have been in play a year ago. You'll understand that better later. But I perceive the cost to be equal to or less than it would have been to keep those balls in the air.
I mean, you're talking about buying options and having multiple engineering plans set and multiple architecture plans set. In fact the more I think about it, I'm convinced the price would have been higher to do that.
Q. Do you have any idea what you've spent so far on the legal process?
Metzger: I haven't asked (Dave Holm, assistant superintendent for business) but I'd be surprised if our costs are over $1 million.
Q. What is the likelihood of the court granting your request for a new trial for the Brach-Brodie property?
Metzger: I can't answer that. You'd have to ask the lawyers.
Q. You are a lawyer.
Metzger: Those motions are rarely granted.
Q. So why bother going through the time and money?
Metzger: Because if everything blows up on every other site, you've got to have the opportunity to have the best chance to make that site affordable and a new trial is the only tool we've got to do that.
I need to make perfectly clear as someone who has a license to practice law, we absolutely, positively did not file this motion solely for the purpose of holding that property up. That would be wrong.
Q. What kind of pressure are you getting from the public about the Metea issue?
Metzger: Not a lot. There's been a fair amount of message traffic in the beginning with people making a case for different approaches to this.
You had some people then who went into a mode where (they asked) "When are you going to hold a big town hall meeting on this?" By the time they started asking that question, I was able to write back to a lot of those people and say here are the 12 to 15 things people have suggested and made a case for. Do you have something to add to that list? Because if you don't, I'm not sure what the purpose of a town hall meeting would be.
What I didn't write and what was in my head was at least part of these people simply want an opportunity to get torches and pitchforks and see if they can scare or bludgeon people into making a decision that they would approve of.
The whole gamut has been laid out there. In terms of overall message volume, I'll tell you that we've seen much higher message volumes on other topics than we've seen on this and I think attendance at meetings bears that out.
Q. Are there any misconceptions you'd like to clear up?
Metzger: From my perspective, I think people have misunderstood that the filing of the motion (for a new trial on the Brach-Brodie property) somehow means it's all guns firing in that direction and that's the direction we're headed. I don't think that's a correct interpretation of the situation in any way, shape or form.
Daeschner: I think this (building Metea) is going to happen. I think this is going to happen with the givens I outlined earlier.
Q. What is the current status of talks with other property owners?
Daeschner: We're still negotiating. We'd probably be wise to say we're certainly leaning away from Brach-Brodie, looking at at least a couple more sites that we're negotiating with.
Q. How many legitimate sites are there?
Metzger: I'd say there are three.
Q. Are you sharing what they are yet?
Daeschner: Not yet. As you might guess, we don't want them to play off each other.
Q. Is there a disadvantage now that the other property owners know you can't afford the Brach-Brodie site?
Metzger: Well, they joked with us at the beginning and said they'd like $518,000 (an acre, the price the jury set for the Brach-Brodie land).
Daeschner: I think yes, because all of a sudden you see the people we're working with (know) the amount … so you begin to see that as opening salvos and I'm going "what?"

I just found this article excerpt on a Business article website called Goliath. This goes all the way back to 2004 and says the referendum committee members were considering aquiring land outside the ditrict to reduce the cost. They specifically mention $60,000 an acre vs $250,000 (which was the going price then) What ever happened to that idea?!?!?

Publication: Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL)
Publication Date: 03-NOV-04
Format: Online - approximately 435 words
Delivery: Immediate Online Access
Author: Sneller, Beth

Article Excerpt
Byline: Beth Sneller Daily Herald Staff Writer

If Indian Prairie Unit District 204 has to build a third high school, referendum committee members say, it may be better to locate it outside the school district's boundaries.

That way, they say, they could buy land for $60,000 an acre, rather than $250,000 an acre - the price some parcels of land are going for in the district that covers portions...

Landowners move to force Dist. 204's hand
By Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald Staff
Published: 11/20/2007 12:05 AM
Owners of land where Indian Prairie Unit District 204 planned to build Metea Valley High School are asking the courts to force the district to either buy their property or pay additional fees.

The Brodie trust filed a motion Monday asking that the district pay the $31 million price tag set by a jury for the 55 acres off Route 59 near 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora.

It also asked the court to dismiss the district's request for a new trial.

If the court allows the district to abandon the property, the trust is asking it be obligated to pay the $2.5 million in damages to the remaining property that a jury set and additional money for "delay damages" the trust is incurring by not being able to sell or develop the property while it is tied up in court.

Those fees would be in addition to at least $4 million in Brach-Brodie legal fees the district would have to pay if it does not buy the land.

The district already owns 25 acres at the site and had hoped to purchase an additional 55 to create an 80-acre campus for Metea Valley High School. However, in late September, a jury ruled the property is worth $31 million, which is $17 million more than the district anticipated.

The district has said it cannot afford that price and has requested a new trial. It also is negotiating with other land owners in the area for an alternate site.

Steve Helm, attorney for the Brodie trust, said the district previously committed to paying up to $33 million for the land and since the total came in under that amount, it should purchase the property.

In addition, he said the district's motion for a new trial may be followed by an appeal, a process that could take a year or more. During that time the owners cannot develop the land or negotiate with other interested buyers.

"Given the market condition … the concern is the property may decrease in value during an appeal process and we feel the appeal is really not being taken in good faith but rather to delay things so they can find another piece of property," Helm said.

He said the amount of "delay damages" the trust seeks would depend on how long it takes the district to make a decision.

Attorneys for the school district could not be reached for comment late Monday.

School Board President Mark Metzger has previously denied that asking for a new trial is a delay tactic, though he has acknowledged the chances of it being granted are slim.

Helm said if the district abandons the condemnation suit, the Brach-Brodie trust would be willing to negotiate a price just like it would with any other interested buyer. The district already has offered to buy only 40 of the acres for $20 million, but the trust rejected that offer.

The trust's motions will go before a judge Monday.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=80932