...A site for its third high school. The Indian Prairie School District 204 board meets Dec. 20 to discuss the status of negotiations with various owners of alternate sites for Metea Valley High School. What are the chances Santa will bring board members a land deal?
As much as we'd like to see this issue reach a conclusion that's all tied up neatly with a bow, we'll count it as a Christmas miracle if it happens.
When we last visited this issue, a few truths were reached: 1.) The third high school will be built, since voters/taxpayers approved the funds to do it; 2.) The third high school will be just as nice as the district's two other high schools; and 3.) The district would really rather not spend $31 million to buy the rest of Brach-Brodie, but it is prepared to do that if that is the only viable option to achieve truths Nos. 1 and 2.
So here we wait, anticipating word about a land deal like schoolchildren hoping for a snow day. What do you think district officials should do at this point? Any predictions about how this issue will be resolved? Will D204 pick a different location, or decide to go with Brach-Brodie after all?
Another school board out of touch with reality.
I agree with the "out of touch" label for the 204 school board. The rumors are flying that very soon the SB will vote and select a location in the far Northern portion of the district to build Metea Valley.
That's pretty wild stuff to believe but I guess we will see what they are thinking on the 20th of December.
I am very confused by why the Board is still searching for properties? If the Macom property works, which is what the buzz has been for a long time, why are they looking elsewhere? Considering other properties only delays the building process. If the school can be built, for the price allocated, with the school envisioned - then waiting for other sites seems fruitless. Now, on the other hand, if there's a true problem with the Macom site, then I hope these problems were sorted out early enough so that other sites near the original site (Brach Brodie) could be considered. They made the wrong decision on the referendum the first time; as they said if boundaries were revealed the school would pass. So they came out with boundaries which then, in turn, were the reason it passed. Now, they made a mistake with marketing a school site which they did not have 100% secured, and they never marketed that the site could change; just the opposite. The site marketed was directly related to the boundaries, which in turn was why the voters said OK. Now, they are comparing sites? Doesn't that bring us back to where we were when the voters said "no" to a new school. Maybe someone can fill me in on what the shuffle or reasoning is behind this. It's our children's education at stake, not what a school board thinks. After continual errors in decision making process, maybe they should form an independent committee made up of professional consultants and have a representative from each zone of the school district, collectively make a decision. They have a history of making decisions that cost us millions and bring the community into turmoil; new school need, then boundary debate - then BB land - millions in fines. With these kinds of errors from a teacher teaching our kids they would have been fired long ago.
The Board should buy the Brach property where the school was originally intended and use the original neighborhood boundaries when people voted for the school. The school can be made a little smaller (less expensive) than planned as I am reading of projected student population less than the Board has indicated. If thie Brach property isn't bought, then add on to Necqua and Waubonsie and don't build a third high school. I'm tired of this Board. They sell something to the voters they can't deliver. And someone explain to me why the school district administrators make more than those in Chicago, which is a giant district with a multitude of problems.
The three questions posed by the moderator with their corresponding answers are:
Q: What do you think district officials should do at this point?
A: Find a bunch of rich uninformed voters that will support anything this SB decides.
Q: Any predictions about how this issue will be resolved?
A: They WILL find a bunch of rich uninformed voters that will support anything this SB decides.
Q: Will D204 pick a different location, or decide to go with Brach-Brodie after all?
A: They will do anything they want because they will have found a bunch of rich uninformed voters that WILL SUPPORT ANYTHING this SB decides.
Jeff, you make some excellent observations. I can tell you that school officials had very good reasons to believe they could get the Brach-Brodie land for much less than $518,000 per acre. But they lost in court, they were out-lawered, and that horse has left the barn. As for the land aquisition process, there honestly isn't much room for public input on that. A committee would do no good. All taxpayers can do at this point is put their faith in the people they have elected to represent them, and trust they will make the best possible decision. It will come down to, what land can they get for the best price? What landowner is the most reasonable to negotiate with? Will it be Macom? I'm guessing no. But we'll see, soon enough.
Hi Ted,
It's nice to be able to respond to the editor of the Sun. Very nice feature. For a suggestion, if you were to publish these exchanges in the Sun's print edition, I betcha we'd have more involvement. This is a wonderful opportunity for readers to communicate on issues.
On your comment, wouldn't you agree that putting our faith in the Board has gotten us to the current problem facing us? They might have believed they could get the land, just as if you believe you can up your circulation - but you wouldn't increase your ad rates until you had secured that larger number.
Lastly, yes, a smaller school, if it is just as nice, would be fine on Brach Brodie land. Most people just want to see the school in an area where it's needed. And that's why I suggest that if they cannot buy BB land, then just go buy Macom instead of making the community be in an uproar about a school site up north. And also, why would they consider such a thing? Could it be a wonderful posture move so that we are grateful for a BB site with a smaller school that fits with the boundaries?
I can't wait to see all those YES voters come unglued when the boundaries change again. They claimed it was "for the kids" when in truth they only voted to build the unnecessary school because they ignorantly thought it would benefit them financially. What they got instead was another tax increase and a home they can't sell.
Fact: District 204 elementary school enrollment has declined for the last 2 years in a row for 2 year decline of 284 students. The 3rd high school will never be needed; it is simply a waste of taxpayer money and only serves to dilute property values due to the ever increasing tax burden on homeowners.
Jeff,
I agree entirely with what you say. Yes, the board made a huge presumption about getting the BB land. Yes, the voters made a huge presumption when they approved the referendum thinking the district would get the BB land and the boundaries would be as promised. It would be easiest for all involved if D204 could just get the BB property, at a reasonable price, then the boundaries wouldn't have to change. Who knows, that may still happen. I don't think it's likely. All I'm saying is, at this point, don't you think the board and administrators are trying to find the best possible solution to get out of this messy situation they created for themselves? If they could find a way to build a school with all the bells and whistles on the BB land so boundaries wouldn't have to be redrawn, don't you think they'd do that? It hasn't happened so far, and I don't expect it to happen. But it's possible it still could.
Mr. Slowik, please do tell us what good reasons the district had for thinking they could buy the land for substantially less than the jury price. As a taxpayer, I'd like to know what changed. Your comments suggest that a price had been discussed and that something went wrong. Or, was it an appraisal from a firm partial to the district as Mr. Metzger stated previously? In July, The Daily Herald quoted Brach-Brodie spokesmen as stating they had a number of compelling witnesses to support their valuation -- apparently, the jury also found them compelling.
I'm sorry, but this entire process had been very, very poorly handled. Remember the puch for quick take? The District should be glad that wasn't successful -- if it had been, we'd be stuck paying the jury's price that we now say we can't afford.
In the end, everyone is going to lose on this fiasco. We'll eventually get a school, somewhere at some price, but it won't be what the voters voted for.
Ted's response:
Sam,
Gladly. No parcel of land in the commercial area west of Route 59 ever sold for more than $300,000 per acre. The district's appraisal put the value of the land in that range, nowhere near $518,000.
I'm not an apologist for the district, but after meeting with Metzger on Nov. 13 and asking tough questions about how D204 got to this point, I gained a better understanding. Here's part of a story that appeared in The Sun the day after that meeting:
The battle over the Brach-Brodie land goes back to 2003, when the district filed a condemnation lawsuit for 25 acres, originally slated for a middle school. When the 2005 referendum for a third high school was on the ballot, the district negotiated a deal for an additional 55 acres for a total price of $18 million.
However, when the referendum failed, the district could only afford to buy 25 acres.
"We assumed in another eight to 10 months we could negotiate another deal," Metzger said. "We never anticipated ...and they have yet to state a price at which they will sell the land.
"We negotiated in the past and thought we would do so again, but they did not."
One thing is for certain, District 204 is doing a great job teaching our children the ins and out of false advertising, bait and switch and the use of scare tactics to get your way.
Cost of the land was a lie so as to keep the referendum price at 124 million instead of the realistic 141 million.
Better chance to pass a 124 million referendum than 141 million.
Enrollment projections also a lie and wildly inflated to again try and get the referendum passed. Since the vote, elementary school enrollment had dropped 2 years in a row.
Now, the location and boundaries are going to change.
Never has a case been clearer for term limits and giving voters the option of recalling elected officials.
When District 204 runs a survey it is not to solicit your opinion, it is used to:
A - waste more of your tax dollars
B - for them to gather information to be used to figure out the best way to manipulate you to get what it is they have already made up their minds to do.
You can't believe anything District 204 tells you.
This is in reply to Ted's comment "don't you think the board and administrators are trying to find the best possible solution to get out of this messy situation they created for themselves?"
No, I don't. Our school board, especially our president, has a long history with the Brach-Brodie people. If we pay them the jury award, the Brach Brodie estate will have "won" and our board can't handle that.
Same with the Macom property. It seems logical that the school should not be built north of 75th street when the center of our student population is nearly at NVHS. The site selection report that Mark Metzger authored before the 2006 referendum stated that the St. John's AME site and the Ferry Road site were both undesirable for this very reason (distant from student center of population). This presents short term boundary problems and long term bussing cost increases. Unfortunately, the school board has a history with Paul Lehman and dueling egos are at work again to prevent a deal for the Macom site.
Ego is what has gotten us into this mess (overconfidence and promises made during referendum that carried over into the most recent school board elections) and egos are preventing us from getting out of this mess. No sign of trouble with the Brach-Brodie property were noted from Mark, Curt, and Alka during the spring election, which they used to their advantage to win their seats. During the spring election, Mark Metzger even went so far as to say that no award would come back too high as we had cushion build into the referendum amount and a better interest rate then expected on the bonds issued. Steve Helm, attorney for the Brodie estate, claimed in a newspaper article that the district had set aside up to 33 million to cover the cost. Mark Metzger has drawn a line in the sand by stating in a newspaper interview that the district will not pay the jury award, period. It is hard for the public to know exactly who to trust anymore.
Egos may very well lead to the new high school being built at the north end of the distinct, conveniently located across the street from our superintendent's new house.
Mike Skarr's harsh comments regarding our school board and administration were very telling - trust is a huge issue in the district right now. I for one do not trust that our district leaders are acting in our best interest right now. Their egos are preventing it.
Sadly, it also seems that our district is not serious about business partnerships and finding a way to make the Brach-Brodie property work through donations from local companies or naming rights, as Mike Skarr lamented in his speech that he has never even met with Superintendent Daeschner.
Again, this is in reponse to Ted's reasoning for the assumption that the jury award would not be close to what it actually was.
There were several red flags that could have alerted the school board that they were in trouble:
-the Brodie estate retained Eminent Domain specialists to litigate this case while we stuck with our 'school district' specialists.
-the PREIT deal was announced before the jury trial started and the price they paid (over 500K/acre) was known at that time, so I don't really buy the "nothing in Aurora has sold for near that price ever" ... they had a heads up when the PREIT deal was announced. Granted, the PREIT land is frontage property zoned retail but it was a good enough comp for the jury apparently. My understanding is that Kimball Homes property north of the Home Depot sold for roughly that price per acre as well.
-as far as when the suit was filed - there are two sides to every story. When the district decided to go for a referendum again in December or so of 2005, they made ONE offer to the estate for the same price they paid for the 25 acres they had already purchased. I can't remember exactly how long they gave the estate to reply - maybe one week? - before slapping them with the condemnation lawsuit. That explains, to me anyway, why the Brach Brodie estate people were cranky and unwilling to negotiate. Maybe they could have gone back and forth a few times before they pulled out the big-gun lawsuit.
Negotiations obviously went south at that point (Dec 05) and it takes two, as the saying goes. So I don't believe that the school board is completley innocent in this whole mess.
One more comment regarding the price of the Brach-Brodie property. Mark Metzger as well as Curt and Alka confidently reassured the voting public during the spring election that we had cushion built into the referendum amount for land as well as a more favorable bond rate then anticipated, so they had the worst case scenario covered.
They already knew that the judge in the condemnation suit had set $600K per acre as the highest price the jury could award. So the entire board knew at that time that $600K was the "worst case scenario." So when Mark, Alka, and Curt stated that they had the worst case scenario covered, it was not true. Even when you consider the 2.5 Million damage to remainder, the jury award is still less than the worst case scenario.
The most recent motion filed by the Brach-Brodie estate is asking for the 2.5 Million damage to remainder in addition to attorney fees if we walk away. This roughly adds up to 6.5 Million dollars in 'walk away costs' for the Brach Brodie land. That needs to be added to how many more million that has already been spent on land testing and architectual fees that will have to be done over for a new site.
The most recent motion by the estate also indicates that the trust does not want the 25 acres that we currently own back. So we will be stuck with 25 acres that we've alread paid over 6 million for. It's anyone's guess if we can recoup that and when we can find a buyer.
The estates are also asking for additional $$ damages from the district for comments made by Mark Metzger in a newpaper article where he basically said that the district filed the motion for a new trial in order to delay the estate's access to their own property. It is anyone's guess how much more that will cost us?
Isn't this pretty simple; a) if the Macom property can be bought and built on, and the sb decides to not do it, can't the voters just turn down any funding for the school in opposition. Then, after a new school board gets in the site gets sold, maybe building gets transformed - and whatever the cost - over time the buy back years from now will at least get us a good portion of the money back. How can the school be built up North if there is 1000% no support for it to be built there? No one will vote for operational funding, and chances are a new school board will be elected by then.
All this assumes, of course, that THEY CAN build the school S. of 75th Street, but for some odd reason come up with reasons why they can't, which nobody will believe when you compare it with the pros and cons of every other area.
Jeff - I agree that this is pretty simple.
66% of the student population lives south of 75th street and 33% lives north of 75th street, so shouldn't 2/3 of our high schools be south of 75th and 1/3 be north?
These far north sites at up at Diehl and Ferry Roads, respectively, make no sense for our district when only about 15% of our student population lives within 3 or so miles of those sites, evidenced by the closest elementary school's population.
If District 204 had any real leadership it would admit its mistakes, retire the bonds they issued and cancel the 3rd high school.
This would bring immediate tax relief for residents as the old bonds were almost paid off and taxes were about to drop. The new bonds for the unneeded 3rd high school kept taxes high and tax bills going up.
District 204 apparently takes its taxing lessons from the Illinois State Tollway. You know, the tollway that was going to be paid off years ago, just like the lottery was going to fund education.
Let's just hope that this ends soon. The worse situation is when leaders (SB) cannot see other people's viewpoints due to s false pride of their own, as they shutter at the thought of being wrong.
At this point, it's not the mistake that people should focus on, but the way to correct it. And let's hope they don't try to correct a wrong with another wrong. Then we know it's personal, and not professional. The greatest political leaders admit they were wrong and then move on. It's when they lie, cover up and try to control the spin is when they get hurt.
This is most likely why none of the school board members have ever moved on to other esteemed offices. They would if they could see beyond themselves and allow others to make decisions for them. This is why they should have an 3 independent firms give summaries of all the properties, and then make a decision based on that input.
It's the intelligent person who takes themselves and their opinions out the matter, since they realize that the people they represent do not trust them, are divided and they (SB) has made consistent mistakes. This is not personal, it's about doing what is best. Glawe, a banker - and Metzger - a lawyer - should realize this.