Will you vote for D203's tax hike?

In one word...NO!

No.

Absolutely. Central is an ugly hodgepodge of poorly built additions. It is too small and not adequate for the future. 203 is building for the future. Because of unexpected increases in property values, 203 collected more money that expected from the 2001 referendum - but they were good stewards and put that money aside and will use it now. Bravo to 203 for having vision and moving forward on this ambitious plan.

I would not vote no against any school construction or renovation referendum.

The 4 registered voters in this house will vote NO!
The 2001 referendum was a fiasco and I think the school board misled the voters. I don't trust them or the numbers they present for this referendum. When are the Naperville school districts 203 & 204 going to learn to live within their means as my family has to do? The taxpayers cannot afford the school taxes.

yes

No. Taxes are already too high. After living here for 27 years,I know that I will not be able to stay in Naperville after I retire. Let the parents of the students fund the cost if they feel that it is necessary.

No way.

Yes, This family will be voting in favor of the referendum. While no one likes paying taxes, I feel that district 203 is unappreciated for the exceptional education it provides for an average cost. People complain our test scores come in second to Stevenson HS, District 125, but fail to mention they spend 30% more than 203 for a minimal improvement of 2 percentage points. Across 76 Chicago land high school districts, only two had more than 50 percent of students meeting college readiness benchmarks in all four subjects: Stevenson and Naperville Unit District 203. You had 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. The District has been responsible stewards of the residents money, and considering the additional cost to my family will be at worst $150.00, it's money well spent. And let me say my kids will go to North in a few years, and I'm still happy to support this minimal funding request.

Let me also mention that the Cantera TIF that is expiring will start contributing $3.8 millon a year, totaling 36 million, or fully half of the surplus funds the District plans on using for the building effort. That's money we residents don't have to pay.

Naperville just passed a TIF for the Water Street development and two others are being talked about. When you pay your taxes remember they will be a little higher, because the money that could have gone to all the taxing bodies, especially the schools, is now going elsewhere, and all the remaining taxpayers are being asked to make up the difference. That means you and me. Food for thought.

Thom Higgins is a shill for the district. I will vote no and so will all my neighbors. Why is it this district hires Union outfits like Unicom to SELL the voters on this referendum. That is priceless, use our tax dollars to hire a union outfit to sell us to pay more tax dollars to the union schools. Just great Thom. Guess, what folks. In 3-5 years I GUARANTEE you the district will be back for another referendum because they have a deficit due to high teacher pay. We will be told once again, it's for the kids and if you don't pass it we will have to lay off staff, blah blah blah. The same old story.

Thom Higgens is absolutely correct about the TIF districts. True to form, he forgot to ask one question. WHERE WAS JACKIE ROMBERG? She supposedly had a strong financial background, but she voted YES to the TIF. Did she not understand? Or does she simply favor taxes no matter where they come from. I do not think that Steve Deutsch or Fred Lu or Jerry Buch would have been so foolish!

Another response to Thom Higgens. The school district has spent SIGNIFICANT MONEY to fight various aspects of the Canterra TIF. The District argument? The existing taxpayers are paying more because of Warrenville's action. When the TIF expires, the District can make two choices. Lower taxes to all taxpayers. Or collect a windfall from the new money just like Warrenville has done. People wonder why so many people do not trust the District administrators and Board. Besides reporting to the union, they are also hypocrites. Also Thom, you cannot compare the spending by a high school district to a unit District. Ask Dave Zager if he can provide you with the comparable costs in 203. The financial wizzard Allen Albus said he could not do that (although he was able to make $511 into much, much more!!!). By the way Thom, how much does the union pay you to be their mouthpiece?

No and No and No and No and No!!! 5 for the family!!!

I don't get health benefits or pension.

Before I vote for any money for any school, health benefits and pension for teachers need to be eliminated or reduced. It seems they have been immune from what the rest of us have had to lose.

Plus they only work 8 months where the rest of us work one year minus 2 or 3 weeks...

Seems so unfair..

Blake..

Ah yes, if you support the District you're a shill. I'm more than willing to debate the merits of the referendum, as long as it's an honest, respectful, discussion. But it take two to tango.

Unicom? you mean the polling group who did the telephone survey last month? How do you twist that into being hired to "SELL" the voters on the Referendum? The survey was done to gauge public feeling about the various options. Here's the link to their report.

http://www.naperville203.org/news/article.asp?NEWS_ID=118

Now, others have questioned the legitimacy of the survey as they feel too many people who took the survey either had kids at Central or took the tours. Ergo, the survey must be biased. My response to that is in order to get the 400 responses I believe it took 11,000 phone calls. I'm as guilty as the next person who hangs up on telephone pollsters. So, did the respondents somewhat "self select" themselves? yeah, probably. Did the evil monsters at 203 or Unicom pull the magic levers to get the results the so evilly desired? I kinda doubt it.

Lastly, I assume they are done with their work. The district is precluded from advocating for the referendum, so no one is going to get hired, or paid tax dollars, to "push" the referendum.

Yes, you are a shill for District 203 Thom. Just so everyone knows Thom is one of the founders of QE203, a heavily union backed outfit that supports nothing but more and more tax dollars for 203. Speaking of Unicom Thom, you are very naive. Have you even looked at Unicom's website? Do you even care. They brag about their success rate in passing referendum's and their union involvement.

Gee I'm having some fun here. Ya know folks calling me names just makes you guy's look foolish.

Let me talk about the TIF for a moment. If you look at the three questions that the review board had to vote on. They are about eligibility rather than desirability. The Water Street TIF apparently met the TIF eligibility requirements and so 203 voted yes to the three questions. here are the three questions

Does it meet the objectives of the TIF act,
Does it meet the plan requirements?
Does it meet the eligibility requirements?

Even though they were not asked whether they favored it they did offer this statement.

"The Board of Education is philosophically opposed to the creation of the TIF, but favors limiting the duration and financial impact should it be created. The Board of Education finds that TIF creation, in general, causes a temporary erosion of tax base. The Board would ask that any creation of a TIF be limited to as few years possible and provide minimal subsidy to project costs."

So everyone knows Dave Zager was the 203 member on the review panel who voted. So I don't understand the reference to Romberg. Don't know if the school board voted, but again the narrowness of the three questions tied their hands.

To this comment;
The school district has spent SIGNIFICANT MONEY to fight various aspects of the Canterra TIF. The District argument? The existing taxpayers are paying more because of Warrenville's action.

Well yeah, the latter part is true. For the time the Cantera TIF was operating 203 and the other taxing bodies had to pick up the tab. We will pick up the tab for the Water Street TIF. It's a bad deal for us. So I can see why 203 would have tried to fight it. Perhaps that's why they didn't do the same on Water St. They learned a lesson on the Cantera TIF.

To Conservative TaxPayer;
Your comment about not comparing the two different types of school district. My figures are based on a study recently completed and they factored in the cost of the first 11 years of education. District 125 cost's are $134,000 and 203"s are $101.000. So as a conservative taxpayer I'm sure your delighted how well 203 keeps their costs down. If you want to see the information give Ted your e-mail address and I will forward it to him.

Go Thom! You're making some very informed comments here. Keep up the good fight.

Blake: Teachers work 10 months, not eight, and I know their job is tougher than mine. Pay them what they're worth.

I don't have any kids, but I'll be voting "yes."

To Jimmy Stewart.

I am very proud of my affiliation with QE203. May I ask on what basis you claim that I'm a shill and heavily backed by the Union? Seriously, to all of you who are making the claim. Back it up. Please prove it to all of Naperville.

May also ask you to do a FOIA on UNICOM? I believe they were the low bidder on the phone survey.

Facts, those darn pesky facts......

On the cost of school education. This sounds like a union report, so why not just post the union link. Also, the average that you are showing is $6,733 for 15 years. This reflects the conservative board headed by Rudy Carl. In a couple of years, we should shoot right by them with the excessive taxes. And by the way, the overcollection DOES NOT go into the cost of education, just the bank.

On the TIF issue, go to the City of Naperville web site and review the agenda packet for the 12/4 meeting. It has the minutes of the joint review committee. You will note that JACKIE ROMBERG, not Dave Zager attended the meeting (he must have been busy counting the money). And a true Republican, Warren Dixon, voted no. JACKIE ROMBERG could have voted no to express opposition against TIF's. In the end, the public improvement is the Riverwalk and downtown parking. I would rather the dollars be spent for MEANINGFUL education than these uses (the net effect of a TIF).

Here is a direct quote from UNICOM ARC:

"Client: Naperville Community Unit School District 203

Challenge: Even though the District and community has all the looks of affluence, because of the tax cap law, District 203 was in deficit spending and facing a difficult financial future. Even though the "facts" of District finances were clear, there were multiple
sources of opposition in the District.

Solution: UNICOM•ARC worked with the campaign committee in developing the type of aggressive campaign that was needed to offset the very extensive organized opposition to this proposal to increase the District's education fund tax rate. There were literally dozens of full page newspaper advertisements run against the proposal and lots of direct mail. UNICOM•ARC wrote the campaign plan and oversaw the 'yes' campaign. We also worked with the campaign committee on designing and implementing stratgies to deal with the most aggressive anti-tax campaign we have ever witnessed in a school referendum. Despite this high level of opposition, District 203's proposal passed."

How can this firm EVER be hired to provide "independent" information for the District? And now Thom Higgens leaks the real truth from the union camp on the real story behind the survey--11,000 calls!!!!!! They had to make that many calls to get 400 people to participate? With 36,000 housing units in 203, they called one out of three. But then again, the 10,600 might be the same 75% of the electorate that do not vote and allow unior liberals be elected.

To Thom Higgens. If you are so proud of your affiliation with QE203, why did you and your other "members" take their names off the web site?

To Conservative Taxpayer.

The study I cite was part of an extensive series recently conducted by another local paper. I will respect the fact that I'm on the Sun's website and not provide the link, unless Ted e-mails me and says it's OK, but you don't need to be a brain surgeon to figure out who. Also, we will be posting it shortly on our website qe203.org.

As far as your UNICOM reference, will you agree that 203 did not hire them? The Campaign Committee did who was not part of District 203 did. Really love the leak reference, It's no secret, why try to make it into one? Know that the 11,000 calls were not all different numbers. Call them and ask for their methodology.

If Romberg was at the meetings and not Zager then I am in error. I've been talking to Zager about the TIF and must have thought he was the designated member. I agree with you on the uses of the TIF for the Riverwalk and the Parking, and I also was proud of Warren. Thought technically he'd have an awful time justifying the vote on technical grounds. I haven't talked to him but I suspect if you asked he would say it was a protest vote. If not I'd love to hear his rationale. I'm very active in local development issues, and my sense is the three questions are constructed in such a way that you have no choice but to vote yes. I see it all the time. Always ask the question in a way that the answer you desire is what you get.

Lastly, why the pseudonym? I've proud to put my name out here. Why won't you?

Mr. Higgins, I'd suggest you quit while you are ahead. Facts are pesky things.

The county board if very clever in trying to get its own way and get the sales tax increase.
The first thing they do is to attack the health care the Sheriff. What a clever ploy ---------
Why not decrease and just plain trim the fat from the budget. Maybe a pay cut to some of the county board officals would be in order.I am already paying too much in real estate taxes and am tired of getting taxed to death. (realestate taxes going up about 9% on new assements) Cut other services but not Health Care and the Sheriff !!!!

Bottom line is NO,NO,NO sales tax increase

To Conservative Taxpayer.

QE203.org took the names of our members off after we all were, in my mind at least, slandered by anonymous websites. Some which are still active and still posting this bile. You have to be a special person to deal with that. It's one of the reasons I don't respect much of the opposition to 203. The things I've read are disgraceful, but you can get away with it when you hide your true identity. I'd have a lot more respect if they had the guts to put their name on it. To a certain degree it's happening here. I've asked the question. Who has proof that I'm a Union shill? Why if you support 203 are you a shill at all of any stripe?

Let me also say considering I'm here with my name in public, and you're not, your making this comment why?

The following is a quote from a recent letter to the Sun: “……. necessary to hold the district accountable for its use of finances, but we mustn't lose sight of the fact that teachers and facilities impact learning, learning impacts school district reputation and school district reputation impacts property values.”

Ya know, I am really tired of hearing the same old saw about property values. Of what good are high property values if you can no longer afford to live in the damn School District? Students with positive parental motivation and support will be successful in damn near any school. No more swimming pools, no more tablet pc’s for teachers, no more ridiculously priced administrators, and yes to common sense spending. The “facilities” never have and never will “make” the school. If the roof leaks, who participates in the budget process and just where the hell have the monies that were budgeted for maintenance been spent? I’m tired of budgets including feel good item vice constrained budgets of needed items. Non lab-science classrooms don’t really cost a whole lot to build but all to often the intemperance of the modern school can cost a fortune.

I have always been willing to help pay to support education, but NO - MORE - FLUFF!

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The 2002 referendum lied to and fleeced taxpayers royally! The "promise" to only raise taxes $511 has become how much (hint: take a look at your 2007 tax bill versus 2002)? The referendum also promised to "reduce" the deficit. Oops, the district now has a multi-million surplus. How ignorant are taxpayers to District 203's fiscal incompetence? We'll find out in February.

Need another reason to vote no? Try this analogy on for size. Do you reward a child who has acted irresponsibly with an increase in his allowance? If you answered no, read on. So why then would you reward a school district that has increased your taxes by 60% in the last 6-7 years, provides teachers with 7% compensation increases and golden parachutes, has a declining student enrollment, has doubled spending in 12 years, and now says it needs another $40M for facilities? Are you a sheep, or do you have principles.

I met Thom Higgins, member of Quality Education 203, before the 2007 school board elections. Time and time again, he kept saying the Taxpayers' Ticket "scares the hell out of me." Interestingly, he wasn't referring to our fiscal position, he was referring to what he perceived to be the Taxpayers' Ticket being socially conservative. The greatest threat to education. If you look at the membership of QE203, it is comprised of people who are members of the farthest left organizations you can imagine. Google searches reveal QE203 members of, or contributors to, MoveOn.org and Emily's List. Take a look at the web sites of these organizations. T. Higgins' leanings can be quickly determined by those he associates with. And those organizations are left of left. For the same reasons Tim West endorsed Suzyn "Hillary" Price, QE203 is nothing but an extension of the socially liberal NUEA. It is not a coincidence QE203's three candidates were the very same as the NUEA. Independent organization my ass. Polygraph test anyone?

I can't see beyond the end of my nose, so I am voting "No" on the referendum. It will benefit my kids, but why should I have to pay for THEIR education?

Staying on point vice personal interaction might be a good idea here. In addition to the SD 203 request for your dollar there is also the City of Naperville tax increase, the DuPage County bail out tax increase, and we have yet to see what will happen if the State Legislators ever grow-up. Virtually every taxing body has spent themselves into debt and they each will be asking the lowly taxpayer for their paltry additional $3 dollars per day that surely everyone can afford. Well, perhaps everyone but me with my very modest income.

Bottom line, can SD 203 justify their bloated (my estimation) cost of Central High repair or not? This forum may be a wonderful way to swap Internet spit but it’s a far cry from being able to educate the voter and demand their participation. Until the SB can demonstrate a “lean and mean” budget I’m a NO.

Conservative Taxpayer,

Help me with your 2:49 post above.

First you discount the study I cite as being a Union report, so not to be trusted apparently (Although it's not as I explained above). In the next sentence you then seem to embrace the studies conclusions based your math calculating the cost for 15 years of education. 15 years???? Any one else see the logical difficulties here?

Being upfront about your activities and funding is the american way. That's why we have election laws. Mr. Higgins you are nothing but a hypocrite and shill for 203. Go back and look at how much money was spent by Suzyn Price, Terry Fielden, and Mike Jaensch on their campaigns. Then look at QE203 and PURE. The union sent out slanderous ads twice. No one could find out who PURE was until after the election. Turns out it was Dianne McGuire a Naperville District 203 teacher. She and QE203 hired FAKO and Associates (FAKO bid for the Unicom-Arc job...hmmm interesting coincidence) to run the campaigns of Price, Fielden, and Jaensch to the tune of over $30,000. Fielden was heard to brag that he didn't spend a dime of his own money for the election.

Here is a direct quote off of FAKO's website

"Fako has become one of the most often-used and most trusted Democratic pollsters based in Illinois." – Daily Southtown, January 23, 2006"

Go here and look for yourself http://www.fakoassociates.com/
No wonder no one trust this lousy school board and their union hacks like Higgens.

Thom, we appreciate your contrite comments, we appreciate the slight acknowledgement that not everything your opposition says is wrong.

But some comments. First, this is a blog and not a public forum. You put your name out there because that is most important to you. I applaud the Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance for making its case and I understand its leaders are constantly ridiculed by people like you. In fact, instead of simply replying to and refuting Mike Davitt's comments, you instead acted like the class bully and arrogantly state it was the start of "silly season." Clever, you never said he was wrong. However, if you ridicule others such as your comments about Mike and previously about Dan Denys and John Lawson without presenting SOLID EVIDENCE (Dave Zager did not remember, he also did not go to the joint review board either, OOPS), you should be ridiculed!

For me and others, it is not the people, but the ideas. We promote balanced and cost effective government. Just like the private sector. How much respect can you have for people such as Suzyn Price and Dean Reschke who serve on a committee and EMPHATICALLY states that the tax increase was only $511 and no more and then over taxes people by $750 FOREVER? Why didn't the 203 board follow the example of Hinsdale 181 and rollback their error and treat their fellow citizens with respect and dignity?

These facts remain since the board did not correct their error. So this is not silly season, that has already occurred. The board needs to state that they refuse to correct their mistake. And you wonder why don't people trust them?

What has been lost in this discussion is the true quality of 203 education. Fred Lu stated that if you eliminated the test scores of Asian students, the District performance would be mediocre at best. Is that a fact or a myth? It should be easy for the District to address, but the silence is deafening.

Chicago (yes the inner city) starts gifted education in the first grade. And provides various levels to over 40% of its students. 203? Fifth grade and 1% of the students. Why not more?

People who have a choice make the choice. Some try to make the public school work, others (15 to 20% of the student population) opt for private schools. Is that the same ratio at Stevenson? The facts to that question would be interesting. Should people be disgraced such as Dan Denys and Jerry Buch since they sought what they thought was the best for their children? I guess you support the Orwellian 1984 society, anyway as long as it is your way.

So much for America.

Mike,

Good to see you.

You guys scare the hell out of me because in the end I don't believe you care on whit for public education, It's all about the taxes and you don't want to pay them. My opinion. So yeah, this means I do have a problem with your fiscal position

I have a real problem with you not making an honest argument. I responded in the Sun because you are claiming that the $82.00 referendum cost will morph ultimately into $246.00. I have to believe that you know that simply can't happen, simply can not happen, but again maybe you guy's are all math challenged, Conservative Taxpayer seems to think kids spend 15 years in 203 schools. He also has problems with my previous responses to Mr. Denys and Lawson. Are any of you really willing to say 203 has something like 130 million stashed in a flower pot at 203 hdq's from the Cantera TIF? Or that the over collection has cost a billion dollars? Mr Lawson made those claims and Deny's shockingly endorsed them. Do any of you believe this?

I do agree with you on PURE by the way in that I don't like the fact that it was anonymous. Now don't all of you spill your coffee here.

To you all I have to say I find there exchanges fascinating. I'm sure you all are feeling like you're really taking it to me. I think you are making yourselves look foolish. Thanks for putting me in the same boat as Tim West, proud to be there with him. Does mean West is a Union shill too?

Conservatives do not care about education? They spend $10,000 to $30,000 more to send their children to private schools.

But do not stop there. During the campaign and in response to your groups contention that Naperville Central had the same math education as both North and Benet, a curious issue arose that your group refused to publish. Specifically, Candidate Denys asked Dr. Leis why students at North received College of DuPage credit for Multi Variable Calculus and Central did not. To all of our surprise (we expected him to claim it was a typo), it turned out that COD would not grant credit for the Central course since the teacher did not have the proper credentials, a Masters in Mathematics! We appreciate Dr. Leis's honesty, but what a problem. Imagine two students enrolling at Harvard (one from North, the other from Central). One gets credit for the class, the other has to take it over again! Dr. Leis suggestion? Any student who wants college credit (now if they are taking a college level course, why would they not want credit?) can take a bus to North for the class. We asked, why not have the qualified North teacher travel to Central? Answer: That would harm school moral.

During Freshman enrollment at Central, the principals promoted AP Classes (reading a letter from Dr. Leis). That sounds great (although Freshman year is a little to soon for AP classes), but this summer the real truth came out. Central did not make the top 1,200 high schools in the US by Newsweek (North made the end of the list). How are schools rated? The number of AP tests taken! So is it about the students or Dr. Leis's reputation?

What about the requirement for home economic classes ("Animal Pet Companionship" is not really a college prepatory class). Why not a full blown economics program (taught by teachers with economics degrees)to fullfill state consumer economics requirements like Stevenson and New Trier?

Finally, do not stop there. AP classes were revolutionary in the 70's, they are now common. Why not replicate the college program that 204 has established in conjunction with COD? Many of the District students are ready for such a program. It is easier to get transfer credit than AP credit particularly at the more prestigious colleges and universities. Oops! Using college professors provided by COD would eliminate union teachers. I am surprised the union hasn't struck 204 over this matter.

All of these positions were stated by Mike, Dan and Jerry during the campaign. In fact, Dan said he told these to you personally. So who is "silly"?

Comments about math.

The cost of the proposed capital program. The $82 per house is based on an "AVERAGE" house in the District of $335,440. Interesting, the typical or "MEDIAN" house value cited in the 2002 referendum by Suzy and Dean was $300,000. With reassessment, that house is valued for this year's taxes at $420,000 (and most are going up next year). Where did this lower number come from? Does the average include single room occupancy rooms and apartments? If you used the same house from the 2002 election, the cost per house (assuming that the $82 was calculated correctly, note the District is taking NO responsibility for the number) is $103!!!!!! Oops, that won't work, the number is over $100, they needed to get a new measurement technique.

How is the other $72 million being funded? You got it, that jar of money that the District has taken in direct violation of the referendum campaign pledge by Suzy and Dean (people with integrity try to live up to their word, not claim they did not understand). OUR PROPERTY TAXES!!! Using the District's payment for the $43 million of $82, this portion of the project is $137, a total of $219, not far from Mike's number. The real cost using the MEDIAN house from 2002 is $275.

The District is trying to legitimize their money grab. Too bad that they are taking $750 extra each year (NOT INCLUDING CANTERRA) and are only able to give us $172 back. Oh, I know, higher teacher salaries and about $500,000 to architects to draw schools that could not be built.

Anything wrong with these "facts" Thom?

By the way, that number for 203 education would be $7,769 for 13 years (K-12). You know us conservatives, we pay to send our children to pre school generally for two extra years.

Go Bennet!

Jim raises an excellant point.

It is my understanding the the Will DuPage Taxpayers Alliance has submitted questions on this very point and characterized the answers to date as either non responsive or evasive. They are preparing a final list of questions to the District. I hope the Sun posts them on this site and we can see the responses from the administration as well. Better yet, put them in the paper to create a broader audience.

I think Thom Higgens would approve, the facts are important.

By the way, note that UNICOM-ARC puts facts relating to 203 in quotes. I guess even they do not believe in their veracity.

Thom, when union teachers hide behind anonymous outfits like PURE you really have to wonder what are they afraid of? When they surrpetitiously pay for the campaign of Price, Fielden, and Jaensch it is a direct violation of the spirit on openness that such elections demand. No wonder no one trust this board.

I am working my neighborhood like crazy for a NO vote on this referendum. The district already has way too much money, they don't need anymore.

Dianne McGuirre is another person I am actively working to defeat. No way does such a person deserve to be our rep. in Springfield.

Mike Davitt, you are wrong. It is Suzyn "Barak" Price. Remember, she contributed to the left wing candidates, Barak and John Kerry. Hillary is too conservative for her!

To Conservative Tax Payer's comments on the math.

The math on the referendum is as follows. Total extension for residential parcels in the 203 district is 3,112,637,333.00 there are 29,141 homes in 203 for a average EAV of $106,813 + $5,000 homestead exemption = $111,813 X 3 to get FMV of $335,000. I haven't done the rest, but on the basis of the $43 million over 20 years the math comes out to $82.00 for residential homeowner with a house valued at $335,000. What you all keep forgetting or perhaps the don't understand is the TOTAL amount the district will collect is level over the 20 years and can not rise. However as I stated in my letter criticizing Mike Davitt's incorrect statements, a homeowner’s share will fluctuate ever so slightly every year based on where a specific homes value ranks in relation to all the other homes. But the aggregate total is fixed, and the fluctuation is so minimal as to be meaningless.

With respect to your contention on the tax increase on a 420,000 home. Here's the math
420,000 divided by three equals 140,000 less the $5000. homestead exemption for a net of $135,000 multiply that by .00076770 and you get a cost of $103.69, Let me say this again, the owner of your example, a $420,000 hone will pay and additional $103.69 more or less. How you conflate this, which is the additional cost that we will be voting on, and some how get to $275.00 is beyond me. Will you please show everyone the math?

For the other readers here, take out your tax bill and multiply .00076770 times your billing value I think its called, and you will know within a few dollars what your cost will be and yes it will bounce up or down ever so slightly every year, but the districts income is fixed. That number is what your cost would be.

And once again you are incorrect regarding the 72 million. Fully half is coming from the Cantera TIF expiration, so how do you claim it's part of the 2002 referendum? It simply is not, and can not be. I'm truly sorry but it is these kind of statements that shows you do not understand the numbers. How can we have a reasonable debate if you can't get the facts straight?

For those interested please go to this link on District 203's website it has the full breakdown on a PDF file of the final plans and in the last pages are the financial figures.

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

And guy's I have a daytime job, can you do a little research yourselves? I've got to make a living here.
I'll try to stop back later tonight.

Thom,

Thanks for the link to the web site, this was not there the last time I looked. Interesting number, parcels. I suspect the AVERAGE is lower than the MEDIAN when you factor in condos and vacant "residential" properties. Or the 2002 committee was using a bad number.

But you recreated my $103 number for the typical 2002 house, so I think we are in agreement.

I also think you answered your own question about the higher number Mike and I cite. The funding is coming from the Site and Construction Fund and Canterra. What is the source of these funds? PROPERTY TAXES. Not solely the 2002 referendum, but property taxes from all of us. If you did not use this money on the capital program, where SHOULD it go? LOWER PROPERTY TAXES. So by not lowering taxes, you are spending it, part of the overall program cost.

Thom, this money did not fall out of the sky. It is PROPERTY TAXES that you and I pay. And its seems reasonable that one needs to add this to the referendum cost to come to the total program. And remember, we have the 2nd highest property taxes in DuPage County (thank you 204 for being higher).

Thom, Can I come over and visit your house. Money must be growing on trees. How can you say that the $72 million does not come from PROPERTY TAXES? Did 203 get a gift from Bill Gates?

The Board should be proud and say that instead of giving us back the PROPERTY TAXES that they “stole” from us, it is in our best interest for them to keep it. And instead of allowing property tax reductions (maybe to compensate for the money they “stole”) when the Canterra TIF expires, it is also in our best interests for them to keep it. That is what is happening. The problem with left wing tax and spend liberals like you, Suzy, Dean, Barak and Kerry is that you do not have the guts to say what your intentions are. BE PROUD OF TAX AND SPEND! If you are right that 51% of Naperville feels the same way (even easier than that, 51% of the slim voter turnout--might be higher as your type go out to vote for Barak), then you will get your wish. But don’t be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

I love how you claim, "it will only be $82 per year for 20 years." You happen to forget all the other times that has been stated on top of this last one. They all add up to real money. Mark my words Thom, this district will be back in 3-5 years begging for more money for teachers salaries since they are in a deficit again. What will your excuse be for raising taxes again?

Ok, I think we are getting somewhere. It seems we are agreed that the $82 for a $335K home or $103 for a 420K home is the amount that a homeowners taxes will go up on those specific homes if the referendum is passed to pay back the $43 million.

So how you get to the $275 figure on that same 420K home? Does that number reflect the other 72 million? In that your position?

If so I still have a problem. While all of the $72 million is property taxes, half is from Cantera a commercial development. So you can’t say that money is coming from homeowners. It isn’t, therefore you can’t add it to the total for a homeowner. And as far the homeowners portion, part of that has been actually paid already, and the remaining part will be paid irrespective of whether the referendum passes. Don't go crazy here fellas, I understand you want the district to give back money, and not do anything.

So it seems to me that your argument is, I think, that the $36 million that has already been paid or will be paid amounts to X dollars of the current tax collected or will be collected for a house valued at say the median value of 420K, and this is on top of the $103.00 additional the referendum would generate, and that number would give a truer total cost of the $114 million. If that is your position then I don’t think it matters all that much. People want to know what this will cost them in additional dollars. Lastly the $36 million doesn’t amount to the $176.00 so you guys really need to show the math.

Let’s look at what Mike Davitt said in his LTE

"Now the district is going out of its way to point out that the $82 cost per household for its 2008 referendum is only a "projection." We can use the district's math from their 2002 "projection" to predict what its 2008 scheme might actually cost. The $511 cost per household "projection" from 2002 has become three times that. So, the district's $82 projection for 2008 multiplied by three equals $246 per household per year."

Now, I will wager that every single person will read that and take the meaning to be the additional $82 will end up increasing to $246.00. To me there is no other interpretation of those sentences. And I will state again. That is incorrect, and impossible.

The bottom line guy’s is truly, if you are claiming it’s going to cost more than the proverbial $82 on a $335K home. Please give us all a breakdown of the amounts and where the amounts are coming from. Spelling out your rationale would be helpful too.

And thanks to the Sun for hosting this, without this blog all of us would be much less informed.

Thom, you are starting to understand!! I know it is VERY DIFFICULT for a extreme right wing liberal tax and spend Democrat to grasp fiscal integrity. Your comments reflect the Democratic view on a no-growth budget, last year’s spending plus at least CPI.

State law allows governments particularly school districts to tax for only what they need. If the spending budget is $200 million and other revenues are $50 million, then you are suppose to tax for $150 million. In addition, the tax cap limits, but does not automatically PROVIDE, for tax increases limited to CPI and new growth. If last year’s taxes were $148 million, CPI was 2.5% and new growth was 1.5%, then the government could increase its taxes to about $154 million or $6 million in this hypothetical example. However, since their NEED is only $150 million, they should limit their increase to $2 million.

As we all know, the 203 taxing situation related to the referendum is far more complex that the above situation. And the technique used by Allen Albus to abuse the taxpayers was subsequently outlawed. Unfortunately, the legislature did not provide relief to those taxpayers such as those in 203 who were already abused by the practice.

Based on the above, when Canterra comes on line, this does not trigger new spending. Current and future boards could say, “We want to be open and honest with our taxpayers. Unless there are critical programs, we should not simply raise taxes by the increment. We should show financial stewardship to our taxpayers, voters and of course, our neighbors.” In fact, some school districts hold referendums BEFORE they spend such windfalls. And based on their honesty and integrity, their referendums are often approved.

That said, the current board is saying “Let’s spend the Canterra windfall on the building program and NOT provide tax relief.” So the Board is committing the District and its taxpayers to higher spending. In total, the Board is committing to a capital program of $115 million. If they did nothing, taxes could be reduced by $137 to $172 rather than increased by $82 to $103. The difference is the annual cost over 20 years, $219 to $275.

Why is 203 afraid to disclose the full cost? I honesty the worst policy? And to defend Mike, when there are all of these hidden tricks, what are they trying to hide? And what about the other 19 buildings? North’s classrooms are the same size as Central, that building will have to be gut rehabbed as well.

Your response, even if the referendum fails, is that the current board will tax and spend that increment no matter what. Thom, I would have to agree. Since they have to report to the union that funded their election, they have to raise every dollar. In fact, I am surprised that the union allows the board to use these funds that could otherwise go to additional salary increases. Ooops!! Now the union will oppose the referendum!!!!!

Conservative Tax payer,

Very long post by you, but you still didn’t respond to my request. Mike Davitt is saying that the additional cost of $82.00 will ultimately increase to $246.00. You seem to agree with that, and offer your own figure of $276.00, fine, but it’s incumbent then for either of you to document your numbers. Show everyone we get from $82 to $275 how?

Let’s put off any further topics until then, and frankly unless you can make a detailed case mathematically of how you get from $82 to $276 showing it in detail, that a interested resident can read and say OK I understand their argument, then guy’s, I have to say you are just blowing smoke. It’s put up or shut up time in all due respect

I really don’t want you to go off on this tangent until you answer in full my question above, but I have to say I love what you write here about “Extreme right wing liberal tax and spend Democrat failing to grasp fiscal integrity.” With the current administration taking this country’s debt from $5.6 Trillion to over $9 trillion in 7 years, I’d be careful about questioning the “lefts” grasp of fiscal integrity.

Post away and I’ll be back after work tonight, but really guy’s “show us the numbers”

Excellent point about the state outlawing would Allen Albus pulled over the taxpayers of district 203. Hmmm interesting the school board never discusses that issue.

Thom,

If you have questions about Mike’s number or concept, contact him. The following is the answer once again to your question ABOUT MY NUMBER, short and sweet.

$335,000 house
Referendum cost $82
Eliminate option to reduce taxes $137
TOTAL COST $219

$420,000
Referendum cost $103
Eliminate option to reduce taxes $172
TOTAL COST $275

As stated before, if the District did not pursue the capital program and no other items came up, they could instead reduce taxes ($137 for the $335,000 house, $172 for the $420,000 house). As you know, many people feel 203 should reduce taxes even more based on the SIGNIFICANT over collection!

I know you don’t like this number, it is harder to sell than just $82. BE PROUD, STAND UP FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SPENDING YOU ENDORSE. Are you ashamed of the $172? Then don’t do it.

But when you want to spend more money, don’t HIDE and accuse the people of highlighting your real spending number as not answering your question. Rather, we know your position, the District has authority to these taxes and does not have any requirement for further accountability to the taxpayers, voters, and yes, their neighbors. JUST SAY THAT!

Let the voters decide if they want to give ANY more money to people without integrity. WE DID NOT SAY $511, that was Suzy and Dean.

No,I would not vote to have anymore money given to the school. After all, the City must have more than I since they can forgive a $50,000 loan, give a check for $32,000 when you quit work, and pay for 6 mos. medical after you leave a job. Probably the reason is, if Mr.Burchard gets sued, then the City will pay for his lawyer because he is still working for the City as a available consultant. Might be pay back for the letter. I think people in Naperville should pay close attention as to what you hear and read and don't be afraid to speak out. It is our money we work for so hard and try to save.

Conservative Taxpayer,

Thanks, I think your post helps people better understand your position. I will respond in detail as soon as I can, but if I can ask you to show you calculations that resulted in your $172.00 figure I’d really appreciate it, as that seems to be the focus of our differing views.

It seems to me you have to do a separate calculation of the future revenue stream that 203 listed, and a separate calculation for the Cantera TIF tax anticipation bonds, and finally, add in the monies on hand. To be fair you have to be able to remove the tax revenue from any commercial properties, so it’s not a 1-minute calculation. If you just took the $72 million over the total extension, and extrapolated that for your $420K home that is incorrect.

Do you want to go on record here and now and state that District 203 will NOT be back in 3-5 years for another tax referendum? I can virtually guarantee you District 203 will be in deficit mode again in 3-5 years due to over generous teacher salary increases.

Let's get grounded here. Anyone who applauds the Board and thinks they are upfront with everything needs to go back and actually look at original data and not just read that which is written by others.

First, it was the 2002 referendum, not 2001

Second, the Board deliberatley implemented it in a manner that maximized the drain on the taxpayer DESPITE their published promises NOT to do so during the lead-up to the referendum. They also promisedat the time to NOT use the funds for other projects (such as buildings), but to only use them to get out of a deficit position.

Third, the Board, with the exception of Dean Reschke, finally admitted at an open meeting that they did over-collect on the 2002 referendum but that they needed the extra funds for "wriggle room". Apparently $75 million is just wriggle room!

Fourth, in typical 203 fashion, the cost and scope of the project is increasing on an almost daily basis. WHy can't they just be upfront and honest with us?

Fifth, those who took tours of Central, like I did several times, noticed that many of the issues were negligence of maintenance (It was pointed out to me several times what a shame it was that a water fountain didn't work for months and months, and certain bathroom sinks were plugged up). Where has the maintenance money been going the past 7 years?

Sixth, just because we want to improve the schools doesn't mean we should give this Board a Bye on telling the full truth, upfront, without having to lean on them through the papers and blogs such as this.

Finally, the tours and polls were performed based on a $100 million dollar choice ----- They should hold true to that number and cut things to get there. We are blindly and ignorantly allowing them to create scope creep before we even vote!!!

Thom are you any relation to Carol M. Higgins or Marie K. Higgins? Both Marie and Carol teache in Dist. 203. Marie Higgins was making $53,619 in 1999, in 2006 she was making $100,383 - a whopping 87.21% increase 7 years!!!!! Now it's all starting to make sense why Thom is so in love with property tax increases. I will post what Carol's pay has done over that same time period shortly.

Virtually anytime I run into someone from Naperville that is so forceful in defense of teachers, high taxes, etc. I invariably find out later their spouse is a teacher or they have a close relative that is a teacher. I sure wish I could find a job that gave me an 87%+ pay increase over 7 years. Thom, if Marie is your spouse you will be retiring very pretty, as long as the pension system in Illinois survives. Of course I predict Illinois will have to do what the City of San Diego did a few years back and will cut pensions on existing retirees.

Carol Higgins was making $35,821 in 1999 for District 203 and in 2006 her salary was $56,174, that was a 56.8% increase in 7 years!!! Wow, no wonder Thom loves taxes!!!

Thom, Thom, Thom,

If you look at the chart on the District 203 Capital Plan (can’t resist, they promised a comprehensive Master Facility Plan and did not deliver) on page 28, the tax rates that calculate the typical house impact include the total District EAV including commercial.

The following is how the $82 was calculated.

Bonds $43 million
Apparent interest rate 5.4%
Annual Payment $3.390 million
Cost per house $82.39

Using the same methodology for Cantera Alternate Bonds

Bonds $36 million
Interest Rate: 5.4%
Annual payment (18 years per plan) $3.013 million
Cost per house: $73.22

For cash on hand. Note: The annual payment is based on investing the cash in an annuity and using the amount to offset future taxes.

Initial Deposit $33.938 million
Interest Rate: 5.4%
Annual payment: $2.672 million
Cost per house: $64.94

Summary amount for a $355,000 house:

Referendum $82.39 (District number)
Canterra Bonds $73.22
Cash on hand $64.94

Total $220.53 ($260.90 for a $420,000 house)

Oh my gosh, I was off by $1. Do you think we would throw around numbers like 203? Remember $511!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We look forward to your detailed response!!!!!

Wow, Jimmy,

This is what makes you all look so very foolish. You jump to conclusions, and make unfounded, untrue, accusations without having the faintest clue of whether it's true or not, and then you get abusive to boot.

Neither I or my wife are in the education field, nor do we have any relatives in the field, and neither my wife, or I, do any business with any entity in the education field. Period.

We do have children in 203 schools, and I will say that I consider their teachers valued partners in my children's education. I have nothing but praise for the care, and education they receive. Wish it was that way when I was in school frankly.

And before you go too crazy, I've paid taxes for 22 years in Naperville before either entered school, and plan on spending the rest of my day's in Naperville, so I will pay taxes for the schools for many years afterwards.

Of course I'm voting for it.

Paying taxes isn't a necessary evil; it's the price we pay for the kind of quality city in which we live. I am truly amazed at the people who don't understand that quality educaitonal facilities are the backbone of this city. When you balk at any tax increase in order to maintain and grow a school, and when you selfishly say that only parents of students should fund education, you turn your back on your neighbor, your city and your future. And, worse, you jeopardize your standard of living as this city becomes a less desirable place to live.

Stop whining and act like adults. Sheesh.

Conservative Taxpayer.

Thanks for the full breakdown, helps a lot. I have some concerns on your logic so let me talk to some of my finance buddies and get back to you. .

The real positive is that through my comments, and yours, the two opposing positions have been clarified. I see the two positions as follows, let me know if you have any disagreements.

My position;

In order to vote yes on the referendum you have to be willing to accept your current amount of taxation, thereby willing to allocate to the building program some present balances and future income paid for by the current taxes, and be willing to pay a modest additional amount to cover the difference.

The numbers relating to the above are as follows. The total cost of the referendum is $115 million and will be paid for in the following way; $36 million, made up of cash on hand and additional future funds that can be allocated through 2011 An additional $36 million will be available from the Cantera properties when the TIF expires in 2011.That leaves a balance of $43, million and the district is requesting that amount in increased taxes to cover that amount. To the above I proudly vote yes.

We are in agreement that the additional cost will be $82, for a $355,000 home and $103 for a $420,000 home. We are agreed that the income received from the referendum will be fixed and cannot increase through the twenty years, as Mike Davitt has incorrectly claimed.

Here is yours;

You are not in favor of undertaking the building program, as it will raise your taxes, and further, you feel that the $36 million that will be coming to the district from the Cantera properties, is a “windfall” that should be instead used to provide “Rate Relief” to the residents, and in addition, the other $36 million, made up of future income and current balances should be likewise refunded to the residents. Are you willing to allocate some of this for some major repairs? If so will you elaborate?

You feel that the District, rather than saying the cost of the building program is $115 million, requiring a $43 million referendum, should instead say the cost of the building program is $219 a year for a $355,00 home and $275 for a $420,000 home. This number includes the actual referendum request, and your calculations of the $72 million that the district wants to allocate to the building program that you feel should be used to reduce existing taxes.

To reply to some of your other comments;

The board is not hiding anything. The question residents will have is how much more will their taxes go up, and so the district is correctly talking about the additional amount’s involved. I really don’t think people care about what specific dollar amount of their current taxes will go into this.

You complain the district doesn’t have a comprehensive master facilities plan, yet they do, they have studied all the schools, have a plan in place, and are projecting that they will be able to take care of future needs for the other schools out of the income stream. Frankly I don’t understand why you care if they have a master facilities plan.
You want to reduce taxes. So how are they to fund any repairs, or renovations? Seriously where would the money come from?

Thom, you are not correct the district does not a master facilities plan. Look at the title of the upcomming referendum, it is

District 203 Plan for Upgrading School Facilities 2007 - 2012.

Further more this is the districts response to questions about the task force that were asked on 10/30/2006. The response if found twice in info sent out to the task force

"That is why the work to date is leading toward a Strategic Facilities Plan rather than a Master Facilities Plan."

and

"This is the first phase of an ongoing Master Facilities Plan for District 203 that will require frequent updating, based on needs and available resources."

Is it too hard to assess what every building needs and then prioritize the needs instead of hurrying to spend money now to legitimize the 2002 referendum overcollection.

Task Force Member

The referendum covers what the district is attempting to achieve in the time frame of 2007-2012. Fine, that is only one part of the equation. The task force's charge wasn't to do a master plan, rather it was to address the most urgent issues, and come up with recommendations.

I'm not saying this is the definitive document but here a link from a 2005 study that was a district wide facilities study. http://www.naperville203.org/assets/FacilitiesSurveySummaryReport%5F11%5F14%5F05%2EpdfAll My point is all 21? schools have been reviewed, and in addition to the current plan, there is another plan or document that outlines what the district intends to do from 2013 to ??. I don't know the exact end date. The important point is they have plans in place that address the needs of all schools. As I mentioned above my, understanding is while the major issues are being addressed in this plan, the next phase in more modest and the district feels they can fund it out of their cash flow. But the bottom line is all schools have been reviewed and there are plans in place going forward to address the needs of all schools. That's what matters.

Hey Thom:

I really do appreciate your very vigorous defense of both the requested 203 tax increase and the 203 SB. I hope that this question has not been addressed within the volumes written because I do not wish to waste your time, but exactly how much money was budgeted for maintenance, both current and preventive, the last ten years for Central and just where did it go? If the school cannot clean drains, have working water fountains, and maintain a roof I find myself being a little suspect of their managerial cabilities.

I do not wish to paint 203 with the 204 brush because the 204 people are absolutely nuts. I do NOT mind paying taxes for EDUCATION but I do resent my money being wasted on feel good stuff such as tablet pc's, and then wondering why a simple water fountain can't be maintained.

Thom, if it was just schools then ok, but it is every taxing body lining up and telling us WE MUST HAVE MONEY OR ELSE! You strike me as being very pragmatic so I ask you just how we can be expected to continue feeding the inexorable government and educational sand pit when the average wage continues to decline?

Choices on who we pay first have always been difficult but are now becoming inundating to the average family. Unless you subscribe to an elitist society WE had better learn to be much more selective in our decisions and train ourselves to say no. You cannot segregate the school problem from the City of Naperville, DuPage County, the Park District, the Library, the Police and Fire Departments and their pension funds, the College of DuPage and its’ pension fund, the State of Illinois, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

There is a difference between being cheap and survival. I will be very disappointed if you suggest that perhaps some of the long time Naperville residents, who apparently are now finding it difficult to afford residency here, merely consider moving. The recent comments posted regarding SD 203 should be sufficient to alert you that many are in no position to indiscriminately throw their money at just anything knowing that there will be another open hand coming at them shortly.

Thank you, Uncle Buckeye, for opening up this box a little bit and reminding everyone why a "small" SB tax increase has become this huge emotional issue. We are getting hit from all sides, not only taxes but expenses in our private lives, as well. I must be very careful with my household budget at this time with groceries and monthly expenses, as it seems my disposable income is shrinking before my eyes. I won't get the raise or bonus this year that is normally expected, health insurance is being cut, as well. I don't have the ability to add a nice addition on to my home, as I may have in previous years, because of the credit stresses, falling home prices, higher energy prices, higher cost of everything, the cost this war is creating for our future, including taxes from all sides. Anyone suggesting that those who can't afford the lifestyle here must have more cushion than we do at this time, with the loss of capital a home sale would generate right now, the cost of moving, the fees required to buy and sell a home make the cost of moving prohibitive. We don't want to move, we just want to dig in and maintain through a tough period. A little sensitivity toward the middle man would be appreciated. I agree, also, regarding the maintanance on NCHS, it may be old, but an old building can be kept up with proper care.