How will you vote on D203's referendum?

I just posted this on the previous blog, I hope it's not considered a "spam" to paste again here, but I think the discussion continues here. I apologize if I'm wrong about the rules, and the following makes more sense if one has read the days of posts on the recently archived "203 referendum" blog. At this point, I believe I vote no.

From my previous post:

It's interesting how the Beacon News is reporting that the Oswego School Board has approved a 30 million dollar, 47,000 square foot expansion to Oswego High School, There doesn't seem to be such fighting going on about the financing as here in Naperville. Is it just me, or does 30 million sound like a more workable number for renovation? Give or take a mil? Of course this is unscientific, apples to oranges, but perhaps the taxpayers over there feel a bit more respected? A quote from the article:

"To cut costs, architects scrapped plans for additional improvements to athletic facilities, an advanced math curriculum center and a sky light, "

Cutting costs, something we haven't talked about in this huge discussion about your numbers and my numbers going on here for days. The discussion goes on and on about who's number crunching is right, who's is wrong, who lied, who is deceiful now. You expect us to not be frustrated, and not believe anybody?

I fully realize that there are probably issues in Oswego, as well, and other neighboring communities, but do you really think as much manipulation and deception as here in Naperville? If straight answers were available, we wouldn't be all tied up in knots. I know, I know...I could just move there. A lot of people are, and are happy with the schools surrounding us on all sides. I wonder what people, from afar...who have heard about Naperville and it's outstanding ranking in the country would think about both SD 203 and 204 as well as other government issues we are reading about and dealing with here lately. So many secrets behind the gates ;-)

Believe me, for the few added ACT points that we average here (that can also be somewhat manipulated, I'm sure) per dollars spent on buildings, without counting operating...we are not that far ahead. I'm sure the students that apply themselves in these surrounding communities do just as well with their college educations and careers as our young people, living here...behind the gates, or smoke, or whatever we use to get ranked as we do in the country.

The loss of spendable income coming at us from many sides has been brought up by a number of bloggers, this loss lowers our communities lifestyle level and hurts us all in the long run, whether our children attend school in the best of the best buildings, or in appropriate public education buildings funded by this public, that is losing spendable income from all sides.

From Ted Slowik, host:

Ann, no prob on the paste. Your comment about Oswego reminds me of something that troubles me about Naperville Central. I don't doubt there's a need for improvement. But I can't help but wonder how it got to this point. I grew up near LaGrange, went to Lyons Township High School, and parts of that building date back to the 1880s I believe. I know Joliet Central High School is more than 100 years old. What is it about Naperville Central that makes it obsolete? Those other schools I mentioned have had plenty of additions put on over the years, too. Somehow they made it work.

Ted,

Interesting comment about Central. Actually the oldest sections are in the best structural shape. What's wrong there is the systems are shot, electrical, HVAC, plumbing. The bones are really good though. Classrooms are too small here also. I've saw 25-30 kids crammed onto 650 sq. ft. classrooms, not pretty.

Some of the newer sections built in the 70's need more work as they we not built as well. Sometimes saving money by building cheaply costs more in the long run. 100 years ago when schools were a source of pride in a community, schools were built to the highest quality standards, and are still in great shape, think Ellsworth and Naper here. Oswego's latest HS was built very cheaply and is having a fair number of problems already.

They are also adding more class rooms in a new wing, adding a kitchen for hot lunches for the elementary schools, adding specialized instructional spaces for a developmentally disabled community that the district is required to educate till they are 22, and cleaning up a lot of prior sins of previous 16 renovations. The Astroturf on the playing field, why? because Naperville Cemetery is taking back a big chunk of land and Centrals field will now get continuous use.

So there's a lot of different things going on here but the important point is there are no luxury sky boxes here.

Yes Ted, I have seen the same thing with the Wheaton High Schools, much of my family still lives in Wheaton. Both Wheaton North and Wheaton Warrenville South are recently renovated, and Hubble Middle School, the old Wheaton HS from way back, has been maintained well for many years, although I do think they may be replacing it now. Wheaton's reputation for education excellence is right up with ours.

Good points made by Ted. I and others have been asking throughout this whole process how Central got to this point of disrepair. Was the maintenance budget squandered? Was it just too small? Could this problem have been identified earlier and at a lesser cost (as opposed to the ever-increasing cost we've been hearing about)?

It's just one more item that decreases the board's credibility.

Ted,

We have all been asking the same questions you raised. Bob S. notes that the "renovation" costs are greater than the cost to build the new Matea school. Of course they are. Why? Because they are essentially building a new Central within the existing walls. And much of it is simply a waste.

One example. The architects study notes that the departments are scattered through the building (this comment in the report seems to reflect a comment from the school principal). Also, they note that "some" (no specific number noted) of the classrooms were "too small." (again appearing to reflect to principal’s comments and no specific STANDARD). The Lyons Township approach. Reassign classrooms. District 203 approach--Spend at least $25 to $30 million to rebuild the ENTIRE WING!!!!!

What is an adequate size for a classroom? The architects that the District has paid at least $500,000 NEVER MENTION A STANDARD. They appear to have used the Central's principal's impression (and I do not think he is an architect). The current classroom sizes at 600 square feet significantly exceed the ISBE standards using 35 students to a classroom (and average Central class size is less than 25 to 30). However, the "renovation" will increase the classroom size to 1,000 square feet.

Take a look at Benet. They had the same problems as Central (except their main buildings are 100 years old rather than 60 and were built to be an orphanage rather than a school). For $16 million they are building a major new science wing, creating a new cafeteria, and addressing building circulation by improving corridors.

What are Naperville taxpayers getting for the extra $77 million (or whatever the proportional difference is)? A larger tax bill, no improved education.

Essentially, the $43 million referendum is about the Central "renovation”. The District does have an alternative plan (their plan, not mine). This plan does not rebuild the entire school, BUT DOES PROVIDE THE UPDATED SCIENCE CLASSROOMS.. I would also ask them to put in extra money to catch up on all of the deferred maintenance as well. The reason the school is a “dump” is because the District has not maintained it.

A NO vote does not mean the deficiencies at Central cannot be cured. Rather, it sends a message to the Board not to build the Taj Mahal. I would have preferred that the District clearly outline these choices to the voters, but that would be asking too much from people who cannot attempt to live up to their word.

Put me in the camp that believes that the minimal additional cost asked for in referendum is worth it when you consider all the district will accomplish.

I will also repeat what I have indicated earlier.

D203 does not get enough credit for the exceptional academic achievement of its schools at a cost that when you compare what others schools districts spend on its students, is a bargain.

How can I make that statement?

Another local paper recently conducted an extensive study of education on Chicago area schools. One of the issues the looked at was what the first 11years of education cost on a per student basis and then they listed the ACT readiness scores by District. Here is what they found:

Across 36 Chicago land high school districts, only two had more than 50 percent of students meeting college readiness benchmarks in all four subjects: Stevenson District 125 and Naperville Unit District 203. As you will see Stevenson had a composite score of 53% at a cost of $134,000.for 11 years of education. 203 scored a 51% at a cost 30% lower, $101,000. You have to go to 6th place in the study to Indian Prairie District 204, to find a lower cost per student, but you also have a 13 point reduction in test scores. Not much of a bargain there. Frankly I was shocked at some of the low scores of neighboring communities, and 204 especially.

Note; The Study went so far as to break down the individual elementary districts that feed into a specific High School district. So while Stevenson District 125 is listed three times it’s only because of the individual Elementary Districts feeding into it.

Below is a link to the report as sorted by me. While the paper listed them by counties, I sorted the data by rank and was very pleasantly surprised. Take a look.

http://www.mediafire.com/?1cezixdbkyx

I will also dig up the ISB report card information but my memory says that Central and North are ranked 8th and 10th for all Illinois high schools. The top four being, Chgo Pub. Sch. Magnet College Prep schools, then Stevenson again, and New Trier. have to look up the other two. But with the exception of the CPS College Prep schools, I will wager that 203 is the lowest cost per student of the top ten. I'll find the data and report back.

Talk about great company to be in.

I would like to respond to the following comment from Thom on December 18 @ 2:30 AM

“The $511 figure all the critics scream at the top of their lungs over, and over, is such a Red Herring. If we look at the critics man Jim Caulfield’s argument we will see that the tax number grew in his example from $3528 to $4555. for a total of $1027. Take out the $511.00 and what is the $516.00 difference? The effect of the CPI. So claiming that the taxes could only go up $511.00, as if it was some kind of solemn guarantee made by Price, Albus, et al, is ridiculous. It would totally negate the referendum because, on its own, without the referendum, the taxes would have gone up $460.00. See the line called home bill without referendum. (I didn’t take the time to account for the difference between the $516. and $460 number)”

Let’s be very clear about what the $511 represents. It was an additional one time increase in property taxes above and beyond what the District was allowed to collect pursuant to the Tax Cap. I think the following are the relevant numbers (all taken from the OFFICIAL 203 OVERTAXATION SCORECARD):

2000 taxes before referendum $3,528

2001 taxes without referendum $3,655 (tax cap increase of 3.4%)

2001 taxes with referendum $4,159

For everyone's convenience, here is the link to Dave Zager's OFFICIAL 203 OVERTAXATION SCORECARD

http://www.mediafire.com/?1cezixdbkyx

So in short, in a period where salaries were increasing in line with inflation (in contrast to the mid 90’s that QE 203 tries to project forward), taxes were going to increase 17.9% versus 3.4%. Bear in mind, prior to this MASSIVE tax increase, taxes in 203 were competitive with Downers Grove and Hinsdale.

That said, the District was going to “phase-in” the increase. The actual 2001 taxes, $4,157 or $2 less than the maximum (a mere 17.8% increase). If the second year went up to $4,225 instead of the $4,492 (the initial extra $266 over taxation), nobody would complain.

And based on the allowable tax caps, these taxes would have increased to $4,555. But based on “phase-in” techniques (LEGAL AT THE TIME, OUTLAWED NOW), Allen Albus and the Board increased taxes to $5,255 by the 2005 levy (collected in 2006) or $701 more than what the $511 increase would stipulate. And Thom, USING YOUR ANALYSIS, taxes INCREASED by $1,727 rather than $460.

THIS IS THE $511 PROUD TO BE 203 TOLD THE TAXPAYERS LEAD BY SUZYN PRICE AND DEAN RESCHKE. We all bear the financial burden of this over taxation. And with AMT, most 203 residents will not be able to deduct these higher taxes.

In summary, we do not object to the $511 and the on-going CPI increases (although since these are CAPS, it does not mean the District HAS to spend the money). We are not posturing that our taxes should remain at $3,528 or $4,159. WE OBJECT TO THE OVER COLLECTION OF $2,900 TO DATE AND THE $750 THAT GOES ON FOREVER.

Let’s put this in perspective for Kevin. If this over taxation would not have occurred, he would have an extra $8,000 in his children’s college fund when his oldest would go to college in five years from now.

Until the Board addresses this $2,900 and $750 (or an annual extra $500 using the “Referendum Projections” both amounts are unacceptable), they do not deserve an extra penny from the taxpayers.

Response to Thom comment

“Classrooms are too small here also. I've saw 25-30 kids crammed onto 650 sq. ft. classrooms, not pretty.”

You hit an interesting item on this comment. For 60 years, these classrooms have been used with these capacities and there have never been any complaints. When you go through the architects “Gap analysis”, there is a mention that some classrooms are too small for their use, but not that the entire wing was inadequate. What is the standard size for a class room? The architects that we paid $350,000 never outline one (for that matter, they never outlined any standards making their entire analysis worthless).

The architects’ analysis NEVER mentioned the athletic locker rooms. Now they have to be relocated. In talking to a former Varsity football player, they were proud of those locker rooms, they were the best maintained facilities in the entire building. But somewhere somebody came up with an idea to move them.

In short, these are all WANTS, not NEEDS. And we do not know even whose WANTS they are.

Another Thom quote

“What's wrong there is the systems are shot, electrical, HVAC, plumbing.”

Like the drinking fountains, THIS SHOULD BE ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. I skimmed the report on the mechanical systems and was stunned to see that they have not changed the light fixtures in the building since the original wing was built!!!!!!! There have been at least two generations of light fixtures during that time. Private industry have changed light fixtures and recovered the cost in energy savings in one year or less. Another waste of our tax dollars. I think there should be an investigation of the people responsible for the maintenance of the buildings, not a referendum. WHO IS MANAGING THIS PLACE?

HOW CAN ANYBODY VOTE FOR MORE MONEY WHEN THE DISTRICT WASTES MONEY AS NOTED ON THESE TWO EXAMPLES?

No doubt the Dist. 203 schools are good but I never see them listed on a national best high schools in the country list. Why is that?

Jimmy,

This just in: According to U.S. News & World Report, Naperville Central and Naperville North high schools rank in the top 3 percent nationwide. The magazine recently published its "Best High Schools" edition, awarding 100 schools across the country a gold medal (based on specific criteria), 405 schools a silver medal, and 1,086 schools a bronze medal. NNHS and NCHS earned silver medal rankings, among 30 from Illinois. The rankings were created by School Evaluation Services, a K-12 education data research business. They analyzed data from 18,790 high schools in 40 states for the 2005-06 school year, considering three categories: whether students performed better than the statistical average for that state, whether the school's least advantaged students performed better than the average for similar students across the state, and a "college readiness index," based on data from advanced placement classes.

All of the gold medal winners in Illinois were magnet or charter schools, with the exception of Stevenson High in Lincolnsire. Joining NNHS and NCHS in the silver medal category were Oak Park River Forest, Lane Tech and Von Steuben in Chicago, Hinsdale, Lyons Township, New Trier and Wheaton North, among others.

More information can be found at www.usnews.com/sections/education/high-schools.

Ted,
Never had an answer if Fred Lu's comment during the election was correct. "If you eliminate the test scores of Asian students, District 203 would be mediocre at best."

Notwithstanding the answer to that question, the District cannot spend money fast enough. As Dave Zager's numbers show us, they have implemented an extraordinary tax increase. And even with this extra money they cannot maintain the buildings.

My GRADE Incomplete. Get somebody in to straighten out this mess and do not spend $350,000 to make the mess worst than it was.

Conservative,

I'm not a big fan of grouping test scores by race or ethnicity. I prefer to think of people as individuals.

I understand it's no secret D203 "deferred maintenance" on several needs, the thinking being, "why throw good money after bad?" Why spend a lot fixing plumbing that would be ripped out during renovation or replacement of Central? Was that smart, or the right call? That depends on what happens in February.

Ted,

On your point with testing, maybe the reason the scores are high is due to the people in the area. When you total all of the National Merit Finalists not just at Central and North, but Nequa, Waubansee and Benet, they are disproportional to other areas say Lombard or Oak Lawn, in fact, very disproportional.

I feel that the score keeping that Thom cites is irrelevant as well, how do the consurmers (students and parents) feel about their education. Look at all of the innovation in 204 (the Fry campus, all day kindergarten) compared to the one size fits all approach in 203 (except for the top 1% in PI plus). During my election, the most disheartening comment came from a group of parents who said that the student just below average was socially promoted in junior high and left to flounder in high school. To your point, that is not reflected in test scores.

I think CT is right on maintenance. I attended an evening event at Central and NONE of the outside lights on the west entrance were working. I e-mailed Tom Paulson and they were fixed within a couple of days. CHANGING LIGHT BULBS IS NOT A CAPITAL ITEM. Repairing drinking fountains are not capital. I was in a unique "forum" classroom and the desk top surfaces (formica) were peeled off. Instead of replacing, they were simply painted black.

The lighting in the 3 story wing is deplorable. The engineers report indicated that he light fixtures were not changed since 1948. Not only could better light fixtures be installed, the District would save MONEY.

To your point, these matters should have been addressed at least ten years ago. And if the referendum is voted down, these improvements should be made IMMEDIATELY, there is money to do it.

Thanks Ted, I will check out the U.S. News report. Interesting, Charter Schools are GOLD rated. Maybe we should start a Charter school in Naperville and drain off the top students in Dist. 203.

But I can't help but wonder how it got to this point.

Here's how:

Organized anti-tax crusaders whip every decision into a controversy, aided by a local press who loves controversy ( because it sells papers ), which inhibits the ability of the districts to get anything done. This applies both on District 203 and 204. The problem is that these anti-tax crusaders are not "pro" anything. They are just that - anti-tax. The media has given these activists attention and a "bully pulpit" to the point where they were able to block a referendum in 204 - resulting in the loss of a land deal, which will likely result in costing the taxpayers MORE.

The reality is that these guys end up costing everyone more because they make everything harder and more costly to do. They clearly do not have the best interests of the community at heart - which is why they get soundly defeated at the polls - Yet the Sun and Herald continue to print their every word.

And then they post here anonymously while complaining that the teachers union LEGALLY spent some of their money to express their freedom of speech. And do not see their own hypocrisy. The whole situation is just sour grapes because when the public was informed of both sides of the story, the public overwhelmingly rejected the anti-tax ticket. Yet these sore losers try to replay the election over and over, and the media plays right into their hands, repeating their misleading an untrue talking points about "high" taxes, "overcollection" of taxes, etc. The taxes are not high - look at the neighboring towns. The 2002 referendum was for an increase in the tax rate - measured in a percentage times the assessed valuation of a property. The property value went up more than expected and so did the tax revenue. There is no "conspiracy", should be no "controversy", but instead of ignoring these "fringe" activists, the Sun and Herald give them more and more attention (and undeserved credibility).

If you want to know how it got to this point - look in your own archives and see how much unwarranted coverage these fringe groups have gotten.

And a note to the anonymous "convservative taxpayer" - Mike, you were on the board for 4 years and never came up with ONE DOLLAR of waste, and now you claim there is rampant waste. Either you were asleep when you were on the board, or now you are lying. Which is it?

Ted, thank you for providing a means for this forum to continue. This is a truly important issue and should be fully debated. Thank you again.

Thom, I just want you to know I have not forgotten your last response, but that it will be some days before I have time to fully respond. You asked me to list items that I consider to be fluff, but I want you to know that, while I will do that for the sake of our discussion, I do not concur in your shifting the burden of persuasion to me. The Board had other options for fixing NCHS that were less costly. You need to explain to me why we need to spend the full 87.7 million on NCHS. I say you, because fairly or unfairly, you have become the district's champion on this thread. As well, 203 doesn't have to build the ECC, and it could fix the overcrowding at Mill for less money. I know you asked for time to make your points and I will be patient as I ask you to be patient with me.

As for fluff, for starters, 203 doesn't need a district wide hot lunch program. My three children do quite nicely without one, actually better nutrionally. I'm also concerned about all the new square footage being added. An excellent point was made above about high academic performance being achieved with classrooms at their present size; why the super-size classrooms?
I may have more points to raise when I have more time to thoroughly look over the plan. Again, patience...

If it helps, I will state that I agree with spending money to improve safety at the school, the wiring, the HVAC, and the science labs. Again, I may be open to persuasion that more needs to be done upon further review and persuasive argument. I could be persuaded that some hallways really do need to be larger for safety and for the flow of students. The money being spent on the stadium seems high if it is just to install astro-turf. On the other hand, if astro-turf is installed, I would be willing to spend to get good quality turf that will minimize turf-related injuries. I need more information on that point.

The points concerning the overcollection of tax still need to be addressed and I will post a response in a few days.

Once again, my position is undecided at this point on the referendum. Many people in town, if they have been thinking about this at all, feel the same way. Other taxing bodies are asking for more, too. I am open to persuasion either way whether this tax is necessary. I am neither an ally of the board nor of its critics and will not be swayed by partisan attacks on one side or the other.

I would suggest to the board that they hold a well-publicized special session where the only item on the agenda would be for them to make their best case for the referendum. They should also be upfront about the overcollection and where that money is now. That might help to sway enough people to support the referendum.

http://www.mediafire.com/?37odjhxpy30

According to Newsweeks recent ratings Naperville North ranks 1,100 out 1,300 schools nationwide. That is a very poor rating. Click the link above to view the ranking.

Dan D.,

Please refrain from using the terminology, "Dave Zager's OFFICIAL 203 OVERTAXATION SCORECARD," as seen in the above post. While some, like myself, may consider the words a form of satire, others might take it seriously and interpret it as misleading.

Thanks.

I think that Mr Higgins might be the strongest supporter, if not one of the only supporters of the 203 referendum currently blogging here? Please excuse me if I'm wrong, it could be that his presence is so strong that I have missed others. I think Thom has done a good job with his arguments and the time, passion and energy that he has put forth here with his research and writing, I will always respect that. What I can't support is to believe what he is trying to tell us with certainty that it's the truth, only because both sides seem to have difficulty stating true numbers, for whatever historical political influences, good or bad, have driven those numbers. It does seem to me that there were enough devious political tactics used in the past to be red flags for me, along with others expressing their opinions here. I am not willing to roll over and accept that as how we should go forward.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't support and strive for education excellence in Naperville. I think we certainly should, in these changing economic times, not be taken advantage of once again as we taxpayers have been in the past, losing control of our tax revenues in ways that have perhaps been devious and manipulating. If we all took a breath, and removed our egos from the equation, perhaps we could recognize a few mistakes from the past referendum, admit that it wasn't quite right and decide in a rational manner how to spend our money as conservatively as possible to fix problems and keep the EDUCATION of our children the most important factor. What is the cost of infrastucture that maintains and improves our test scores? Is it over-the-top building that may or may not increase property values? What happens to property values when tax levels for a community get so high that people really do start leaving, or avoiding buying here, if neighboring communites offer excellent education and lifestyle at a lower tax base?

I know Thom will have a response, because he has taken on the task of answering all our questions to the best of his ability. Thom, I ask you, really now...what does it take to nurture and educate a child with excellent people and excellent process, in buildings that are maintained and renovated more conservatively in a time when economics for all of us may be tighter for the next few years? The 82.00/per year is not answering my call to excellence with conservatism, we have all read that many times. Let's list that with the past money collected and with what the future 82.00/household may grow to and see how much of it we can save and conserve while striving for excellence? I put this challenge out to the community, please—hear my cry.

"Jimmy Stewart" - learn to read, please.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/39380

All of the schools on the list have an index of at least 1.000; they are in the top 5 percent of public schools measured this way.

Not that I agree with Newsweek's (crude) methodology - it is merely an average of how many AP (advanced placement) and IB (international baccalaureate) tests are taken at each school. Not passed - taken. In 203, North made this list, while Central had slightly higher ACT scores. Both are excellent schools and certainly in the top 6% nationally.

Again, how can anyone be expected to take anything that these anti-tax fringe groups say seriously - when a 5 second google search can show they are lying? They grasp at anything that they think can hurt their opponents and fling it like crazy hoping it will stick. Pathetic.

I'm not an anti-tax fringe group. I'm a Naperville Mom. I work for myself, my own business, for my own clients and have to be creative and conservative with my spending and budget when times are tight. I strive for excellence with my family, my business, my marriage and myself. We have three children at private universities and one to go. We are careful with our spending.

Southeast Side Dad,

Let me jump in here real quick with a disclaimer. You are correct to question statements here. I can't vouch for the validity of all the information presented. My role as host and moderator is to try to keep the discussion civil, but I can't fact-check every post. This is kind of like Wikipedia--if someone makes a wild claim some other commenter is bound to call them on it.

Southeast Side Dad, thus your point is that all governments should be able to tax as much as they want without regard to promises made and the proper question is it what is really needed. Which leads into the whole facilities issue. The district when it set up the so called facilities committee published a flow chart that stated a number of things that needed to be done for a master facilities plan and include

1) Architects Assessments - The Healy Bender reports that were issued to the facilities committee said they were DRAFT.
2) Future Educational Trends - presentation was made to the facilities committee. No definitive needs were given except for more special needs education, numbers will be continually increasing.
3) Current Facilities Impediments to Program Delivery was supposed to be done by the administration and staff, this is touched upon by the Healy Bender Architect reports but the district has not performed this.
4) Standards, Best Practices, Future Direction - Meaning what do you want a school to be. The District has stated that it Has NO standards or goals to what a school should be and relies on its consultants. Why should the community trust an out of state consultant. The district need to know what it wants before it asks a consultant to create a general school layout plan. This is like letting the fox guard the henhouse. You will get whatever he sells you, not what you want.
5) Gap Analysis - this is an analysis of what you have compared with what you have or what you want the buildings to have. It simply doesn't exist.

These were to be completed before drafting a Master Plan involving the community. However District 203 didn't even follow their own process, instead formed a committee that was directed to only look at Central, Mill, and essentially the North Pool.

Until the District determines what it needs for all buildings and a general plan of when they would like to perform the work the answer to this referendum should be a resounding NO.

To all (particularly Southeast Side Dad, Ann E. and JW),

You should all review the file at the following linke carefully.

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/D203SummaryofFindingsDRAFT11052007.pdf

As Bob S. has stated, this is NOT a renovation of Central, it is a TOTAL REBUILD. Very little space is not being reconstructed. You would expect a renovation to be in the $10 to $20 million range excluding new construction.

I do not know if it is in these documents, but the plan also includes Central taking over the Garden Plots to accomodate temporary parking. Has that been agreed to?

If they only rennovate Central and address the science wings, they do not need the $83 (per their calculations). If they managed the District properly, they could provide a quality education and not need all of the OVERCOLLECTION.

If the early childhood (the new name for the Federal Head Start program) was self sufficient, why do they need to borrow funds for the program? It should be able to pay for its space needs as well.

There are more questions. And instead of answering them, we get long winded excuses. This is the Taj Mahal, not a frugal renovation.

SSD, There are a lot of people posting under different names and that can be confusing. I believe Conservative Taxpayer is Dan Denys (aka Dan D) NOT Mike Davitt (who is Jimmy Stewart aka Mike), and with Bob S. = Bob Swininoga aka ??? and Kevin H(ausman) make up the Will-Dupage anti-tax alliance. And, I'm pretty sure that Thom Higgins is just Thom Higgins.

Aright, you know what? I have tried, as an independently thinking home owner, Naperville parent and concerned citizen to ask questions and post my concerns and opinions. I know that no one will really miss what I have posted, although I have put some, what I thought was, intelligent thought and consideration into what I wrote and asked. It all comes back to who is who, who is not who, who may or may not be alligned with who and is who fabricating info, or is who fabricating info? Yes, that was a totally childish statement, but I don't have the ability to wade through the childish wrangling that keeps us from getting anywhere. I, as the average Naperville parent and property owner, become invisible here. Best of luck, I believe my vote is still no on the NCHS rebuild. A more conservative renovation would be more my thinking and perhaps, if the referendum does not pass, that will happen. Mill Street and ECC are other issues, in my opion. Peace.

Kevin,

your point is that all governments should be able to tax as much as they want without regard to promises made

That is not at ALL what I said. The 2002 referendum was an increase in the tax RATE (you can look it up!) - and a projection of what that rate times the projected property values was given. When property values increased far faster that could have been anticipated - additional tax was collected. You are pretending that a projection made in good faith was somehow a promise. Property values went up more than expected. So did medical costs. The world changes. It is not a conspiracy. Your attempting to put words in my mouth is another example of the tactics that your group uses.

So Kevin, you seem to be saying that you are voting against the referendum because it doesn't go far enough? So if the district was asking for a larger amount you would support it? Who do you expect do believe this? When you were the chairman of the "taxpayer's ticket" election committee? Please.

I suspect that you wish it were more than $82 per household because it is pretty clear that the community at large ( if not here on Potluck ) feels that a major renovation for Central is warranted, AND that $82/year is a reasonable amount to pay. Didn't 65 or 70 percent say they would support renovation in the latest poll? I predict the referendum will pass - because it is the right thing to do.

Build the future: - vote for 203.

Dan D. and Kevin should both review the 5 year plan - posted on the district website, instead of relying on old, draft versions. Isn't that what you asked for Kevin, a plan of "what" and "when" ?

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/PlanforUpgradingFacilities2007%2D2012%2Epdf

Why can't you guys do your homework? It makes you look like a bunch of whining gasbags to keep throwing out accusations that are swatted down with 30 seconds of research.

And "Mark Felt" (good handle), thanks for the "roster". Can't tell the players without a program.

Message to Anonymous: On your next to last post - a very brief one - you mentioned two names and nothing else. It's unsuitable for posting. Please expand on your thought process so I can see if it's suitable for posting to this forum. Thanks.

Ann E. - do your homework and make you own INFORMED decision - Take a tour of Central and review the plans for yourself. I did, and I support the referendum. Don't take the word of others. See it for yourself. I think you'll agree with me.

SSD. or whoever you are—I have taken the tour, my children also attend/attended NCHS. I have made my informed decison, didn't mean I didn't have other questions. Thanks so much.

Ann E.

This is what saddens me in these debates. I've just read through the posts and I see your frustration. Let's just you and I talk to each other here and ignore everyone else.

Regarding this,

"What I can't support is to believe what he (Thom) is trying to tell us with certainty that it's the truth, only because both sides seem to have difficulty stating true numbers, for whatever historical political influences, good or bad, have driven those numbers."

If you will take the time to question me on any numbers that you question as being factual, I will do my best to provide whatever links or documentation that will help you understand. For the record, I stand by every comment I have made on this blog and do not in any way feel that I am having any difficulty presenting true numbers.
any other kind of questions are ok too.

Back later.

Mark,

No aka's here (what is ???). As I have said before, if you follow this issue you know who I am. No need for an alias.

Of course, SSD hides behind an alias that can in no way be traced. Given his juvenile rants, his refusal to use data of any kind (mine, Dan's, Conservative's, Thom's, or his own) only highlights this, and his insistnece that he understands the motivation of those he has never met just represents his arrogance and closed mind. To Thom's credit, whether he agress with others or not, he rarely attributes motivation AND he has, at one time or another, probably talked in person to all he posts to here.

His rants and references to an "anti-tax" fringe ring of the viewpoint of a nutcase. There---I said it, and I'm glad I said it! I am pretty much tired of folks with little firsthand knowledge dabasing to name calling whenever they disagree with my viewpoint. I WILL SAY IT AGAIN: WHEN I SUPPLY DATA, IT IS GOOD DATA. I TEND TO SUPPLY DATA WHEN MAKING AN ARGUMENT (versus opinionating --- perhaps SSD needs to understand the difference).

Also, SSD: Making an argument based only in legality is the last refuge of scoundrels and politicians (possibly redundant?).
The money launderin g by the Teachers' Union in the 2007 School Board Election is WELL DOCUMENTED! You mention google, so you must have access to the internet. Go to the State of Illinois sites and review the filings yourself. Again, you issue false statemnts, try to denigrate others, when in fact you highlight your own ignorance. I will add here that you had an incorrect use of "irony".

Finally. given your statements that you disagree we have high taxes in 203 and that there was no overcollection on the 2002 referendum, I would suggest you actually look at the numbers. Even the Board admits to an overcollection --- the only disagreement is whether is stands at about $43 MILLION and growing at about $7.5 MILION a year, or whether it is about $95 MILLION and growing at about $25 MILLION a year. There is no argument on it occurring. As far as taxing, that is clearly measured by one's own threshold to pain. I will say that those who try and say our taxes pale to the general area are chery picking, are wrong, and need to get better data.

Ted,

I had the opportunity to have several conversations with Fred L. both during and after the election cycle.

I think that his point about taking the Asian students out of the equation was simply to show that statistically they represent a very small portion of the population, yet they have a mathematically significant disproportional effect on the results. The end result is that perhaps 203 isn't really "all that" once this is calculated.

For anyone interested, Fred has the precise data. He is also a rational guy with great motivation.

Southeast Side Dad, I have reviewed the 5 year plan, it is not a master plan and that is the crux of the problem. The district first has to have a set of goals and standards as to what an elementary, junior high and high school should be and then evaluate all buildings to that criteria. This has never been done. From that evaluation a plan should be formulated with an approximate time frame of when buildings should be modified, not just the next 5 years. After that is done, a decision can be made what buildings are to renovated. The Healy Bender Architect reports identify issues for all 21 buildings including North which is stated to be approximately 12 classrooms short for its current enrolement. Doesn't that sound like a serious deficiency. However the direction of this 5 year plan is only focused on Central, Mill and the North Pool.

The district has already stated that "That is why the work to date is leading toward a Strategic Facilities Plan rather than a Master Facilities Plan. Lincoln Junior High School and other issues at other buildings may be considered at a later time." Until you know the whole scope and have a set of goals and standards it is not prudent to just charge forward with the current plan.

Bringing the projected $82 cost into the picture is another issue. That is the current incremental cost but not the total cost. The district is sitting on a surplus from the 2002 referendum overcollection - and it is an overcollection see the 7/1/200 letter to the community from Dr. Leis, the only question is how much. The two best judging points for that are the District 203 press release in Jan 2002 stating that the cost would be the famous $511 and the last FAQ from the old and taken down www.proudtobe203.org web site which said that the total district revenues and budget 5 years after the referendum would be approximately 147 million. The actual numbers were a 200 million dollar budget and and property tax levy of approximately 167 million. There are other promises broken by the District that add to the issue but these are the main ones.

The districts actions clearly state that they really WANT a new central and only after the facilities task force, the Sept 2007 tour program and the follow up phone survey did they back down to the current plan which essentially renovates over 75% of the existing space at central.

A fiscal conservative can clearly identify the difference between what they want and what is truly needed. The district has only presented what it wants not what it needs.

Remember it is not the buildings but the students who excel. Dr. John Dossey, Professor Emeritus from Illinois State University helped the district with its elementary math curriculum review around 5 years ago and made a statement to the community at a presentation that one of the biggest factors leading to Districts 203 success was that at least 75% of the households had 2 parents with at least a bachelors degree and a commitment to education.

We can take the time to get the building right. Until then the answer is NO.

Another little factoid for those who believe that even questioning our elected officials makes me an "anti tax nuts":

"Indiana University economist Morton Marcus calculates that for every $1,000 increase in property taxes, the value of a home falls by almost $12,000. Moreover, high and uncertain property taxes make it more difficult to attract workers and capital investment to the state."

You can all do your own research. I contacted Prof. Marcus BEFORE I committed to being as strong an advocate as I am for demanding transparency and accountablity from our taxing bodies. For those out htere who blindly trust them, I would ask "Why?". I have worked the issue with the Board members, the 203 staff, and through research on my own. The simple fact is that spending money is NOT related to results in education. It is you parents that are the competitive advantage for Naperville. This statement takes NOTHING away from our teachers ---- they are very good, and I know it. However, that is NOT a reason to just send money down a hole.

There has been very little to no transparency in 203, and a simplistic look at spending says it all: With NO appreciateive rise in scores, the average spending per student has more than doubled in recent years. Additionally, it has also exceeded any measure of inflation my a magnitude. Even combining the two, the rate has risen at a rate that is statistically significant!

SSD,

If you really believe the link you post proves there is a MAster Facilities Plan ("MFP"), then it is clear that you either have never been involved with one or you are just being disingenuous.

A true MFP will include a complete schedule of buildings, exact needs matched to standards, costs to fulfill each need, a timeline for implementation, and in the cases when needed the funding schedule.

Speaking for myself, I already had personal discussions with the 203 Board stating that if they created a true MFP, and if it actually had standards and the meeting of those standards, I would not only support it but I would do everything in my power to persuade others, including the WDTA, to do the same. I was told they had no interest. Thus, I am forced to engage in civil disobedience.

Unlike you, I actually prefer to get directly involved, work the data, understand the overall flow (money versus results), demand accountability and transparency, BEFORE I give folks ny trust --- especially those that have already burned me as a taxpayer!

To all and particularly SSD,

1. Election outcome. Bob addressed the filing issues, the Illinois Board of Elections will have the final say on the actions of the various parties. But if you are correct that we have been “overwhelmingly” been rejected by the community, just say that and sit back until February 5th. If you are right, the referendum will pass overwhelminbly.

2. On the tax over collect, Bob summarized the over all numbers. For an individual tax payer, the questions is whether the over collection to date was $2,900 and growing by $750 per year or $1,500 and growing by $400 per year. And again, these are not our numbers, they are Dave Zager’s. You can view his worksheet “2002 Referendum Implementation Overview” (renamed at Ted’s suggestion) and make your own analysis and decisions. I’ll supply you the link again:

http://www.mediafire.com/?1cezixdbkyx

3. Ann, these are simple numbers, just like the $511. You can see them yourself. I still do not understand Thom’s comment about the difference being $50, but I trust he will post that explanation.

4. SSD goes on to “explain” what the referendum question was. But the Proud to BE 203 leaders including Suzyn Price explanation at $511, no more than the referendum plan presented in 2002, and no new programs. NONE OF THESE PROMISES WERE KEPT. Are you accusing Proud to be 203 of misleading all of us? I do not get your point.

5. Kevin and I along with others in the Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance have been reviewing the various reports presented to the District. If these reports were inadequate, then the five year summary you tell us to review will also be irrelevant. We have raised numerous questions and have not gotten answers. We are scanning in the volumes of paper and will post them for everyone to review. And we will try one more time to get to the right answers. Ann, we share your frustration in not getting solid answers, it is very troubling. I agree with CT, the District deserves an Incomplete for the work they are doing.

6. Sample of questions.

The same level of problems noted at Central exist at North, a 40 year old building. Will we need another $87 million to bring North up to Central’s standards?

At least three buildings were noted by the architect as needed to be rebuilt? How are we going to pay for these costs?

Why doesn’t the District explore redistricting as enrollment declines? Why not increase the number of students that can walk to school (some children two blocks from a school are bussed miles to another!!)? As Rudy Carl stated, the District redistricted every year from the late 1970’s to the mid 1990’s. What is wrong with that?

Why not put forth a 20 year capital program with a related 30 to 40 year repayment program? Be up front to the taxpayers. I was able to devise such a program for Chicago Schools. They raised $3.5 billion over the last ten years WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES OVER THE TAX CAP.

7. Allen Albus and Dr. Leis said the reason that the teachers were awarded a 5.2% salary increase two year ago was because they agreed to end the end of service salary increases that increased their pensions (and is now putting the State into bankruptcy). The in April of this year, they extended the end of service salary increases AND got another pay increase. So much for the big concession, the District gave it back for NOTHING!!!!

8. SSD, we pay the 2nd highest school taxes in DuPage County (204 has a lead and will pay even more!). Source: District 203 Financial handbook. You can also get this from the state report cards. The amount of our taxes helped Elmhurst pass a tax referendum, even after the increase their literature said they would be 20% below Naperville!! WE’RE # 2!!!!!

In summary, I feel that the District collects $750 more than they need to and that the leaders promised. Unfortunately, they have wasted some of this excess on unneeded salary increases. SO THEY NEED TO MAKE DO WITH THE DOLLARS THEY TOOK AND NOT ASK FOR A PENNY MORE. Alternatively, they can come to grip with these issues and we are prepared to talk. However, our nominee for the financial advisory committee was rejected. So much for transparency.

To Bob S. at 5:21 p.m.

I disagree with the logic that 203's Asian population significantly skewers the test results. Look at this demographic data from the district's School Report Card:

http://www.naperville203.org/about/StateReportCards.asp

It says the district's white population is 76.6 percent and the Asian population is 14.4 percent. If you look at ISAT results, for example, it's true that Asian students as a group perform at a significantly higher level than their white counterparts in reading and math. Yet Naperville whites as a group perform at a significantly higher level than state average.

I concede that Naperville's Asian students influence overall test scores in a significantly positive way. But I believe if that one-sixth of the population were removed, Naperville schools would still be significantly above average.

And might I just add, the responsibility of public education is to provide equal opportunities for all students regardless of race, gender, disability, or income status. I believe public schools do provide these equal opportunities. I think when there are disparities in results by group, one has to consider social and cultural factors that are external to the educational environment.

Dan,

You make it so easy... It's called Google - you should look into it.

http://www.naperville203.org/assets/ReportToCommunity.pdf

page 5 (on the lower right side, labeled pg 9 ) has a graph -

203's rate is LESS than either 204 or St Charles - which are the closest comparison districts. 203 is in the middle of the pack. Which was my point. Yet the scores in 203 are higher. And I'll admit I was mistaken - It's St. Charles where they are higher, not Wheaton.

You want them to "make do" - So, which services do you suggest be cut? You had your pal Mike on the Board for 4 years - he found NO waste and found NO programs that should be cut. Yet now you claim they should "make do". You guys should put up or shut up.

Seriously. Tell which programs should be cut so that the district can "make do". Identify which children should be "left behind" to that the district "make do". When you ran for office, you did not suggest that the district "make do" - you had all kinds of suggestions for foreign language in the elementary schools, and more. Was that part of "making do"? Amazing how your tune has changed once you were rejected by the voters.

Seriously, Dan. Your claims are a pack of lies. You clearly value a few dollars over your community. You send your children to extremely expensive private schools and as such see no direct benefit from the 203 schools. That's why the community decided that you were not suitable to be on the school board. But now you want to dictate what the district should do because you can TYPE IN CAPITAL LETTERS? This is sour grapes, pure and simple. What you couldn't get at the polls, you try to get through the media.

SSD and Ted,
I'll ignore the personal attacks.

My comment was that we had the 2nd highest property taxes in DuPage. St. Charles is in Kane County. And they have $175 million of bonds outstanding, 203 zero.

In 2005, the District said they could not reduce taxes since it would create a deficit. Then they run a $10 million surplus. In a $200 million budget, you can find the obsolete programs and reprioritize them to where they are needed. The District proved they could do that even though that was not a priority. Imagine if the leadership asked the parents what they wanted, consulted with leading educational institutions, and set forth to do more. They did that in Chicago with tax increases limited to the tax cap AND making $3.5 billion in capital improvements. They created three of the top five high schools in the state. Before, these students went to the suburbs and private schools. Why can they do it and Naperville cannot?

Expensive private schools? Benet @ $7,400 per year ($2,000 less than 203, $1,000 when you eliminate contributions). Oh Avery Coonley. We looked at transferring to the public schools in 1st grade, unlike Chicago, 203 does not offer comparable programs. And I did not want to move to Chicago.

This is nothing to get angry about, just stay to the facts. I have never heard that 203 is short of money. How dare I advocate for more productivity. That has been happening all over the economy. Ask Jeansch. His pay was cut 35% and he works the same, if not more hours. Did we propose a 35% pay cut for the teachers?

All of these comments are a smoke screen. Remember $511.

Actually you have your facts wrong about Mike Davitt. He and Jim Caulfield attempted to slow down the rate of increase of teacher pay several times but were out voted. As I recall about 85% of the 203 budget is teacher salaries. If you look at www.thechampion.org the average teacher salary increase from 2000-2006 was around 7.2% for a teacher here in 2000 and still teaching in 2006. That is an enormous rate of increase. Administrator increases were worse. If the board was willing to limit salary increases to a more normal 3% annual increase you would save massive amounts of money in the district. So your allegation that Mike did nothing is simply false.

Wow 40 posts in less than 24 hours. Ladies and Gentleman we have a new record.

There is just way, way to much to address here in the specifics, unless I want to spend the next 4 hours replying, and I don’t, so I’m going to pick my battles here a bit.

To Dan D regarding his 10:48 AM post, these comments:

Dan wrote:

“Dave Zager's OFFICIAL 203 OVERTAXATION SCORECARD”

As you insist in characterizing this spreadsheet this way, I gave up and called Dave Zager and this is what he said.

"I created this spread sheet as a comparison of the differing scenarios as a vehicle for the school board and others to compare the differing views held regarding the implementation of the 2002 referendum. The file name you indicate must have been applied to the spreadsheet by others".

So may I respectfully request this incorrect characterization of this spreadsheet not be used in the future.

To this statement;

“And based on the allowable tax caps, these taxes would have increased to $4,555. But based on “phase-in” techniques (LEGAL AT THE TIME, OUTLAWED NOW),”

As I have indicated in the earlier thread, I discussed the PTEL law with the Naperville Township Assessor, Warren Dixon Saturday, and further confirmed the same with Dave Zager today. Both concur with the following. The phase in provision in the PTEL law and the law itself is still in force. The statement that the law has been outlawed is incorrect. Further, reflecting back on similar accusations, both men state that the district followed the law in applying the referendum increases, and the actions of the district were neither illegal, or unethical.

So again, I respectfully request that posters refrain from making the incorrect statement’s indicating that what the district did was illegal, unethical, or that how the district implemented the referendum has been outlawed. None of this is true.

I will note here that what has changed in the PTEL law is how a district phrases the referendum request in order to make the effects of the referendum clearer. A good thing to my mind.

OK, to the 2002 referendum.

here's the link again for Zagers spreadsheet. http://www.mediafire.com/?37odjhxpy30
Whoever posted that worksheet if they are interested in a fair debate needs to highlight Caulfield's number for the 2005 tax bill,$4,555. Listing just the $3,988 and the $5,255 only, is deceptive.

Can we all agree on this, based on the Zager spreadsheet, and that $300,000 home.

The line that is called Home bill without referendum is just what it says, the increase in the taxes due to only the CPI increases.

The line called Jim Caulfield method, which I am quite sure is the position of the posters here that are against the referendum, is the above with a ONE TIME increase of $511.00.

Actual is just what it says: what actually happened. The cost is higher and the reason for that is that the district phased in the increase over four years and the effect of keeping the referendum open those four years is the district also received the benefit of the home re-assessments during those years. Normally this is no big deal but those years 2001-20005 had a huge increase in property values and the amount attributed grew every year. See the line that says, difference home bill. The amounts you see there -2 in 2001, $266.00 in 2003 $535.00 in 2003 $660.00 in 2004, $701.00 in 2005 and $740.00 in 2006 is the amount attributable to keeping the referendum open and is caused by the increase in assessed value for a home.

So I think we can all agree with this so lets just all agree that this is true.

Since this is my post I get to make my case regarding all this
.
First this was not done under the cover of night. This process is the very same process that other districts all over Illinois used. The board debated the tax levy every year in public meetings and as I have indicated before, Mike Davitt voted in favor of the 2002 and 2003 levy. In 2005 the board elected to stop the referendum 1 year early so as not to capture another year of increased home values and went back under the tax cap provision.

So the above numbers the$–2, $266, $535, etc, translates on a total basis to the following in the aggregate, they actually lost $80,000 in 2001, had a surplus of $3.125 million in 2002, $8.798 million in 2003, and $11.282 million in 2004, $10.638 in 2005 and $11.458, in 2006. It was in 2005 that the district saw the need to stop the referendum 1 year early and go back under the tax cap. This is why the 2005 amount dropped I believe. Now 203 could have stopped the referendum even a year earlier I suppose. However at the same time this was happening the district was being rocked by unexpected increases in costs, and burdened by un-funded mandates, and yeah some of it went to staff and teachers. So while the district agrees that it has received $45 million over 6 years in excess of its projections, some of it has been spent on current operations. The decision was ultimately made to allocate the unspent remainder on building renovations, and that is where we are today.

The numbers above that I have pulled out from the Zager spreadsheet are there for all to see. The Critics of 203 and other districts are wild over the 2002 referendum as evidenced here on this blog, Many don’t accept the numbers on the spread sheet, and inflate and conflate them, to them I say guys, come on lets agree on these numbers and move on.

As I’ve stated in this blog all along, 203 does a superlative job educating our kids for a very average cost compared to other top performing districts. This fact is what makes the difference to me personally, as when it’s all said and done, from a cost standpoint, 203 is a bargain compared to other districts. So yeah, we could not do any major renovations or just make minimal ones, we could cut teachers salaries, all just to cut taxes, but to what end? Do we really expect 203 to be the very cheapest district and still deliver the goods? I’m really impressed they do so well with the funds they have. So I am content.

And if all of 203’s critics want me to make them happy on one small point, here it is. The district debated these issues in public at board meetings. They discussions are there in the minutes if you want to look I’m sure. However based on the avalanche of loud angry criticism by the very same people who are posting here criticizing 203, the district made an error in not making their deliberations, and ultimate decisions more widely known.

Mike Skarr, the outgoing Naperville Chamber of Commerce President, was reported in the Sun recently making the following comments,

The only government he defended was School District 203, blasting criticism that it had acted improperly in its implementation of the 2002 tax rate increase as bordering on slander, saying that "they have done nothing in District 203 that the law does not allow."

I couldn’t agree with Mike Skarr more.

Board member Mike Davitt found two like minded people, Dan Denys posting here, along with Jerry Busch and convinced them to run for the board last spring. The result is Mike lost his bid for re-election and Dan and Jerry also lost. They made the 2002 referendum the centerpiece of their campaign, along with bashing the teachers pretty good. Much of the rhetoric on this blog is the very same arguments they made during the election, and in the end they lost that election because voters recognized the value of the education 203 provides for the amount of money spent.

In the end we all have to decide if the cost we are paying is equal to the value received. If anyone feels it doesn’t, then don’t vote for the referendum.

To all,

I would like to pause and summarize my position (that could change if the District would answer the numerous questions posed to them by Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance) about the question, “HOW WILL YOU VOTE ON THE REFERENDUM?” I say no for the following reasons:

1. The District is OVER COLLECTING BY $750 per year for an average taxpayer. Since they have not addressed this error like Boards in Hinsdale, they should never get a PENNY MORE.

2. The plans for Central and the Head Start program are a TAJ MAHAL. A NO vote tells the District to adopt plan B (a more reasonable “renovation”) that Dr. Leis said would also work.

SIMPLE.

Now to Thom’s long e-mail.

1. Name of worksheet. Another SMOKESCREEN!! Note that Dave Zager admits it is his, he just did not title it. Thom, is my new title “Dave Zager’s 2002 REFERENDUM IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW” acceptable to you? Or instead of whining, you give it a name. By the way, you pasted the Newsweek link, the below is the correct link for our readers.

http://www.mediafire.com/?1cezixdbkyx

2. “But based on “phase-in” techniques (LEGAL AT THE TIME, OUTLAWED NOW),” Thom, I did not say that phase in’s are no longer allowed, JUST THE WAY 203 DID THE 2002 REFERENDUM. I did not say they did anything illegal. And you have still not directly addressed this comment. And if Skarr is accusing myself and others of slander, he should look in a mirror.

However, if your LEADER and NEIGHBOR (Suzyn Price and Dean Reschke) make a commitment ($511), does it matter that there were LOOPHOLES to go back on your word and collect more taxes? And how can we trust them now?

3. If you implement $509 out of a $511 tax increase, should the second year be only an additional $2 rather than $266 per Dave Zager’s worksheet? And the last two years should be zero? I do not recall the Suzyn saying the “would keep the referendum open” to increase taxes by more than the $511 commitment.” Can you point to their literature where that PROMISE was made?

4. “Come on lets agree on these numbers and move on.” Thom, that is what we are trying to do. I think Bob S. summarized it correctly, the range of the OVER COLLECTION is the following:

$91 million ($2,900 per house and $750 per year forever) based on the $511 commitment

$45 million ($1,500 per house and $400 per year) based on the 2002 Referendum Spending Plan

Are we missing anything Thom?

5. “Mike Davitt voted in favor of the 2002 and 2003 levy.” While you and others paint Mike (as well as Jerry and myself) as wild radicals, this shows his true character. While he opposed the 2002 referendum, once it passed, he was willing to live with the will of the voters. HE COMPLIED WITH THE VOTERS WILL.

However, he, like myself, was confused why the tax increases were greater than what we expected (CPI), particularly after the 2nd year. Then one of my clients, who knows I live in 203, told me about a seminar he attended where a person was bragging about telling the taxpayers one thing in a referendum campaign and after question passes, doubling or tripling the tax increases because people would not know better and would not bother to respond. This person was also an advisor to District 203 in 2002 (and recently not rehired, a good action by the Board). And then the Daily Herald articles (who you cite often) comes out detailing the abuse including 203. That is why we all got involved.

BUT AGAIN, MIKE ONLY WANTED TO DO WHAT THE VOTERS WERE TOLD AND VOTED ON, $511.

6. “voters recognized the value of the education 203 provides for the amount of money spent.” You know Thom, I will accept your comment. (But for parents--15%in 203--who want more and pay to send their children to private schools should not be criticized. In fact, the private schools are afraid that 203 will improve their programs and put them out of business. For example, elementary could get foreigh language if you changed the bus schedule and either reprioritized other district "support teachers or modified the union contract. Another topic if you are interested. Look at what they are doing in 204, maybe the reason their property values are higher is they are getting a better educational value.) BUT THE OVER COLLECTION HAS NOT BEEN SPENT ON EDUCATION!!! It has gone into the bank.

If the Board really cared about the taxpayers and wanted to be honest, they would have rolled back the taxes to what they committed (either the $750 or $400 overcharge, I have always been open to discussing this issue). Then do a Master Facilities Plan for the next 20 years, really seek meaningful input, outline all of the costs (I think there is at least another $200 million to come), and ASK THE VOTERS TO APPROVE THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.

Does this seem wrong? If so, why.

Because of the socioeconomic makeup of its residents, District 203 has been achieving high academic performance since it was founded in 1972. When the District was spending less than $50M, student achievement was