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.

If this board had been COMMITTED to openness and fair play they would have never appointed Jackie Romberg to the board. Heck I'd have been happy if they had appointed Fred Liu, or Steve Duestch. At least they would have appointed someone that had the guts to run a campaign, spend their money, meet with countless voters, etc. To appoint another one of Suzyn Price buddies really just goes to show this current board doesn't give a rip for openness, fair play, democracy, you name it. At least a losing candidate had run the gauntlet of a campaign. Romberg did nothing to deserve her post except spew the party line. They wanted to stack the board in their favor. It's Suzyn's way or the highway. That's demonstrating real commitment to the community.

Yeah, I know Thom, it was legal.

Thom,

Here is your statement from December 6

"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."

I was referring to the union financing their campaign. I can see how you felt it was the entire comment, but that was not the intention. But then again, I am not an "English major" (I love Shakespearian plays, but do not read or memorize them).

As to answering the question, it would be nice if the Board put out their information and we would not have to rely on you for the answers. For example, your entire comment about the debt service, that might be what Dave Zager thinks as right, but when he was being serious about the estimates, the Board not only disavowed them, but laughed at them. Simple answer, THE BOARD (and not Dave Zager) can pass a resolution and put this to bed. I would not hold my breath. This would deprive Dean Reschke of his "wiggle room" (code word for higher taxes to the rest of us).

I just don't get why we need another tax increase. It sounds as though everyone agrees there is a ton of cash sloshing around the District. Every govt. entity is asking for more and more. Don't they see what is going on in the economy? How come public entities always seem to think they can't cut back during hard times but private entities do it all the time? They lay off employees, cut expenses etc., yet public govt. seems to have this attitude, "we can't cut and we can't lay off." It sickens me. Why can't they tighten their belts like everyone else?

Dan

"And the Board continues to owe their allegiance to the Teachers Union, the Union provided the significant funding that elected them. (And I think that Thom acknowledged that in one of his initial blogs).

I never "acknowledged the board owes their allegiance to the Union". I do not believe it to be true.

also guys as to what I haven't addressed, gee I'm only one person here, and some of it is pretty laughable anyway, so cut me some slack here.

Hey Ted, the discussion continues in the archives. Come on put us back up on the front page!

Probably shouldn't have said that.............

To conservative taxpayer and all who are claiming the district will somehow manipulate the $43 million referendum request into much more money as CT indicated on 12-16 as copied below,

“The current $82/$103 project cost is based on a $43 million bond issue repaid over 20 years with an approximate interest cost of 4.8% or an annual payment of $3.4 million.
If you issue the bonds with the maximum interest coupon allowed by State law of 9%, the District would be able to raise $59.7 million at the same 4.8% market rates. If you sell a bond with a 9% interest payment and sell it to investors with at the market rate (say the District's 4.8% rate), the investor will pay you more for the bonds. There is nothing "illegal" about raising the $16.7 million ($59.7 million versus the $43 million on the referendum). However, this is just like the $511. Of course, the payments would be $4.7 million and the homeowner payment would be $115 ($143 for the 2002 referendum median house). Depending on timing and the structure of the bond issue, even greater excesses could be put on the taxpayer.”
My comments,

If you are discussing issuing bonds then there are three questions you need to ask. I asked Dave Zager this AM and here is his responses to my questions.

1. Will the District use "Zero Coupon Bonds"?

Answer: NO.

“Use of this type of bond issuance defers some interest payment into
future payments - so essentially the District would be paying interest
on interest. The Naperville CUSD #203 bond issue and impact on the
taxpayer is based wholly on issuing serial bonds - no Zero Coupon Bonds
are used.”

2. Will the District issue premium bonds?

Answer: NO.

“The project costs for Naperville CUSD #203 and "Estimated Tax Impact" documents clearly illustrate that this is not being entertained by Naperville #203. The specific assumptions, retirement schedule, and estimated annual tax levies to repay the bonds are listed for each year. No premium is built in, nor was this even considered as an option.

3. Will the District "back-end load" the repayment of the bonds?

Answer: NO.

“Repaying the bonds can be done so that the annual payments are level,
increasing in amount, or decreasing in amount. If the annual payments
increase each year, taxpayers may see a lower tax burden in the first
year or two - but pay for it later down the road. Naperville CUSD #203
is using a level debt repayment schedule (clearly illustrated in the
"Estimated Tax Impact" chart). This means the amount paid for taxpayers
remains the same for the 20 year repayment schedule - there is no
"back-end loading."

Further comments by Zager;

“I encourage you to look at the documents and information available on
the District web site. The button "D203 Decision for the Future"
contains many documents describing the project as well as the financial
sources (specific documents include "Funding for Facilities
Construction" and "Estimated Tax Impact.") If there is something that
can be done to better explain these issues, or the documents are
confusing, feel free to let us know.”

My comments again,

So to all of you who are claiming that the district will somehow end up with more than the $43 million it is simply untrue.

Again, simply untrue.

TO JW and this comment

“have to say I am disappointed in Thom's most recent post. He and others have decried the use of emotional rhetoric, and yet, although he claims to be very busy, he posts a quite lengthy post, the last in a growing series, that deploys the same rhetoric he decries. No Thom, I and several others here are not accusing the district of committing murder, so please calm down. Let's please just discuss the facts.”

My reply,

I really don’t have the time to do this, but with all the dishonest accusations flying out there I can’t stop myself. I’m trying really hard to be civil but as you yourself said the arguments offered by some of the critics show “a reckless disregard for the truth” your words. JW in light of that fact, I think I’m doing pretty well in the civility department. I have to say I reject you contention that I am using the same rhetoric as my critics, please review all that has gone on above. I will say that it’s hard to “talk” to everyone on this blog at the same time. Certainly respectful questioners such as yourself should not feel that I was talking to you regarding the people who simply make s**t up and post it as the TRUTH! In caps always it seems.

So to your question,

“would someone please tell me why the district could not apply more of the overcollection to this building project? There's at least 20 million (and that's only for 6 years--which 6?) that has been spent from the overcollection that is not going toward this project. What is it being spent on?”

The six years are 2001 thru 2006 tax years.
Go to this link on our website http://www.qualityeducation203.org/referendum&taxes2.shtml

Hopefully it will load. This was our best answer as we understood the situation last spring as to where the money that was spent went. One of the things I need to look at soon to verify. The page is based on conversation and documentation Zager provided to us last spring.

To this comment,

“It seems to me the burden of persuasion is on those who want to tax us further. So please, explain why repairs at NCHS can't be done with the overcollection and without the added fluff. Please explain why we need to spend $11 million on the ECC. Is it really too much to ask the district to live within the massive windfall it received? Is it just 203 is great and whatever amount of money they want to spend is justified no matter what? Is that a recipe for good governance?”

My reply,

It would help me here if you JW would tell what fluff you are talking about. Seriously go to the districts website take a peek and come back and list what you think is extraneous. As far as the ECC and repairs to NCHS and the other issues you are inquiring about I ask your patience. We will be loading information on our website qe203.org and will discuss the issues under separate headings so you will be able to go through it item by item. Best I can do for now. Sorry.

Post all your unresolved questions here, and I will as I go through things, make sure I address them on our site or here on the blog.

CT,

I will go through this blog and note all of the significant open items that Thom has not addressed. However, I do admire Thom’s dedication and of course respect his opinions. Too bad the people he supports do not share his integrity.

Most significantly, I must admit that I totally agree with Thom on this following comment:

“THE DISTRICT MADE AN ERROR IN NOT MAKING THEIR DELIBERATIONS, AND ULTIMATE DECISIONS MORE WIDELY KNOWN. THE DISTRCT ERRED IN NOT GETTING OUT IN FRONT OF THE ISSUE”

But I think Debbie Shipley summarized the Board’s true feelings IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, “If people do not like our higher taxes, they can move.” I think that is the reason they do not want to share their deliberations and decisions. Prior to Reschke, the Board was controlled by an IEA MEMBER, Tim Costello. He was a strong labor leader in the Salt Creek school system. Reschke and Price, both government employees, have perpetuated the union mission.

And the Board continues to owe their allegiance to the Teachers Union, the Union provided the significant funding that elected them. (And I think that Thom acknowledged that in one of his initial blogs).

INTEGRITY AND TRUST. Skarr is right on that one. But the Board has a double edge sword. If they were truthful to the District voters about their motivations, I doubt if they could muster any support (beyond the union). So they count on voter apathy and perpetuate the status quo.

And lost in this debate is that the District can do more. But instead they perpetuate the mediocrity that permeates this District. But that is a blog by itself (if the Sun is courageous to open up that discussion). By the way, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE SUN’S COVERAGE. THANK YOU TED.

I have to say I am disappointed in Thom's most recent post. He and others have decried the use of emotional rhetoric, and yet, although he claims to be very busy, he posts a quite lengthy post, the last in a growing series, that deploys the same rhetoric he decries. No Thom, I and several others here are not accusing the district of committing murder, so please calm down. Let's please just discuss the facts.

As someone who has no blind loyalty to the critics or the district, I have posted questions here that have gone unanswered. I begin to wonder whether they are being ducked. You may check this thread for the questions I have posted. Among them, and assuming the board's numbers for argument's sake, could someone please tell me why the district could not apply more of the overcollection to this building project? There's at least 20 million (and that's only for 6 years--which 6?) that has been spent from the overcollection that is not going toward this project. What is it being spent on?

It is one thing to talk about a tax abatement. But that is not what either I or the district are talking about. It is a tax increase! A tax increase that follows a multimillion dollar overcollection of taxes. Again, to clear up some confusion out there, THIS IS A FURTHER TAX. You are asking me and everyone else to cough up even more from our wallets after you have overcollected from me and everyone else. Does anyone see why this might be a concern, or has common sense left Naperville in it's dust?

My concerns don't just apply to Thom. His critics have tossed out numbers (and some unfounded accusations)with a reckless disregard for the Truth. Not only does that fail to persuade, it just undercuts your entire position. So new ground rules for all from this point on, only post legitimate numbers here--numbers that can be verified or come from a credible source--or don't bother! Be prepared to support your assertions with real data or be prepared to be ignored. The mutual recriminations have become tiresome.

It seems to me the burden of persuasion is on those who want to tax us further. So please, explain why repairs at NCHS can't be done with the overcollection and without the added fluff. Please explain why we need to spend $11 million on the ECC. Is it really too much to ask the district to live within the massive windfall it received? Is it just 203 is great and whatever amount of money they want to spend is justified no matter what? Is that a recipe for good governance?

In effect, show me. I am neither unreasonable nor beyond persuasion. But show me.

thom,

I am disappointed that you, like Mr Skarr, are taking comfort in teh thought that 203 btoke no laws in the implementation of the 2002 referendum.

If both of you had been attending the Board meetings during the critical 20 mionths where this was an ongoing subject, you would remember that it was never said that they broke any laws ---- they broke promises!

First, they implemented over multiple years (their marketing arm AND a flier that went to our homes said they wouldn't

Second, they said the ref was only to get out of deficit --- see all the surpluses everyone agrees on

Third, they promised it wouold not fund any new programs --- it has funded several, not the least of which is the buildings

You again bring up the tone that those who criticize 203 are against improvements, etc. I repeat again for all readers: THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE!. The issue is doing it all sensibly and within our means.

By the way, as a little fact point for all: 203 saw the need to NOT go the fifth year only after severe and long debate and pressure from citizens and tax groups --- without our pressure, the over-collection would be even greater. This comes from teh mouths of 4 Board members, by the way, and isn't just wishful thinking.

What cracks me up the most about this thread is that we are all agreeing to an over-collection, but we are debating it's extent.

It reminds me of that old joke about "..now that we've established what you are, price is the only obstacle"!

Peace to all and Merru Christmas. This will never be settled over a blog or emails. If we efver want to REALLY try to do so, I would think we would have to gather face-to-face (how 20th Century) and do it properly.

Thom

So you are saying that when Proud to Be 203 supported the referendum in 2002 their final website FAQ which stated that 5 years after the referendum the Total District revenues and budget would be approximately 147 million is just an estimate and doesn't matter. Unfortunately it does matter because 5 years after the referendum the Tax extension was 167 million and the total budget was approximately 200 million. The community was misled and taken for a ride. I have a copy of the districts press release from Jan 2002 and it says nothing about phasing in and the second, third and fourth years increase just the 511. My house just reached the magical 300,000 assessed value and my tax increase due to the school district is approximately $1300 due to the referendum. The facts are very clear what the district did was legal but totally deceitful and unethical.

Regarding your comments previously about the district have a Master Plan, they do not. They have a plan the hurry up and totally redo central, token changes at north, partial fixes at Mill and ignoring the rest of the district's buildings. They will be back in 5 years or so for things for the remaining buildings. They essentially said that in a couple of emails to the facilities task force.

Thom, I don't know your personal situation, whether you are young, kids just entering the schools or approaching retirement but please apply good financial discipline when dealing with and defending the district. Don't just blindly assume that every thing they do is correct. My kids are still 5 years from graduating high school and I have been planning and taking action for financing college for them since at least 5 years ago. The effect of the over taxation does affect my financial planning and not in a good way. Therefore until they clean house the answer from my residence will be NO on this referendum.

THANKS DAN D. FOR POSTING DAVE ZAGER'S NUMBERS!!! Throughout this blog, there is much information and both your comments and Thom's should "frame the issue."

Just a question. If Thom is correct that the District overtaxed by $45 million through this year, then shouldn't this money be in the bank? And as Thom points out, there will be an additional $9 to $11 million going forward (assuming that 2004 to 2006 are indicative of the District's estimate of the over collection), then this entire program could be paid off in seven years without a referendum. Is that true?

I saw somewhere that they need a referendum for a new building for the Head Start Program. Could that be a separate question by itself?

I am glad you have spent some time posting this information and hope that you can respond to Thom's comments.

I think Mike Davitt is right, you can make numbers do whatever you want. LIKE MAKE AN EXTRA $45 TO $92 MILLION OUT OF $511. I AM MORE CONVINCED THAT THEY WILL TAKE AT LEAST $250 TO $500 MORE THAN THE ADVERTISED NUMBER OF $83 WITH EHLERS AND PREMIUM BONDS.

THANKS AGAIN FOR GETTING FACTUAL INFORMATION OUT THERE, THAT IS BETTER THAN MY GUT REACTIONS.

OK let’s look at Dan’s post in depth and perhaps wrap up this discussion up.

“OFFICIAL 203 OVERTAXATION SCORECARD” prepared by DAVE ZAGER”

Dan named this spreadsheet the above, not Zager. But of course is presented to lead readers to believe that is what Zager named it. Why do this? I believe it is an overt attempt to mislead reader into making the incorrect assumption that Dave Zager the Asst Supt of Finance named it that, so as to imply that the district concedes it overtaxed the public..

“the techniques used by the District have been outlawed as an abuse of taxing powers”

This is simply, completely and totally, untrue, as I outlined in my earlier post. The implementation part of the PTEL law is intact. Why does Dan describe it these terms? Again I believe because it leads the uninformed person to believe the school district abused its powers. Why make this statement? To mislead readers. This claim is made over, and over, and over. It’s wrong every time. District 203 did not do anything illegal or unethical here, it was all done in accordance with the PTEL law and I confirmed all this just last Saturday with Warren Dixon the Naperville Township Assessor and he said I can quote him. All other districts effected referendum increases in the same way

“Again, DAVE ZAGER’S ANALYSIS SHOULD BE THE FINAL NUMBER--$91 MILLION AND GROWING.”

Again not true, and again, the intent is to mislead readers. The districts official position is that there was a surplus created in the amount of $45 millon dollars over 6 years for an average of $7.5 million per year. In no way shape or form is it Dave Zager’s, or the districts contention that there was $91.8 million overcharge. Saying so, EVEN IN CAPS FOR EMPHASIS!!, will not make this true. So there is no $91.8million overcharge. The only way you can make that argument is if you don’t accept how the PTEL law works. Hey, go ahead and make the claim, but 203 followed the law in the same manner as other school districts. Period.

Finally this.

“Just remember the campaign promises of Suzyn Price during the referendum, $511.”

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)

So if without a referendum a tax bill would go up $460.00 and the solemn pledge was that taxes would go up only $511.00 then it is the critics contention that 203 did a referendum campaign for a lousy $50 bucks? I’m speechless. Simply, speechless.

Below is my commentary on the 2002 referendum

While the district is saying there isn’t a $98 million surplus, they are saying there is a $45 million surplus, what gives?

Essentially because of the interplay of the manner in which the referendum was implemented, the increase in CPI and the unprecedented increase in the assessed values of our homes in the years 2001-2005, brought in more tax revenue that Alan Albus the then Director of Finance projected. Here is where the revision to the PTEL law is relevant, as I believe the changes make the referendum question more illustrative of the range in which taxes could increase based on CPI and reassessment values, which will help taxpayer’s make a more informed decision. To see Albus’ projections look in the PDF file Dan supplied his link for, and look, at the box headed,

Referendum Projections (from January 7, 2002 meeting material):
These are Albus’ projections the district used for the referendum.

The districts calculations of the surplus can be found under the heading,
Adjust the referendum projection for Actual New Construction figures:

The difference here is it allows for the actual new home construction number rather than Albus’ projections.

Look at the bottom row; “Difference from actual”. Add those numbers together and you will get to $45.3 million approx. Had the assessed values of our homes not increased so much then the increase over 203’s initial projections would have been lessened. So all this gnashing of teeth is over, as I indicated in my post above, like $700.00 year in the spreadsheet example.

OK I’m still unhappy you say, there is still $45 million as a surplus over what 203 projected. My comment here is that if you look 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. I believe it was in 2004 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. Some other districts that do not have renovation needs have elected to abate some of the taxes actually,again they experienced the same issues 203 did. If it wasn’t for the need to renovate Central, etc, 203 could well have made that same decision. The critics are essentially here at this spot, They want current taxes abated, as has been done elsewhere because they are not interested in renovations.

As I’ve stated in this blog all along, 203 does a superlative job educating our kids for a very average cost compare 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. The district erred in not getting out in front of the issue and instead allowed this group of critics to go crazy with their allegations as we see here in this blog, and frame the issue to the districts detriment.

Truly, aside of accusing the district of murder, have the critics left any charge out? Mike Skarr, the outgoing Naperville Chamber of Commerce President, was reported in the Sun 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 more.

I’ve tried top illustrate in my posts above, all the outright fabrications, and the attempts to mislead people. There was as much I couldn’t get to as I addressed. In the end I just don’t get it. It is clear to me the critics hate the district, the school board, and the teachers, and they feel if they throw enough …. on the wall some of it will stick Actually they have been very successful in framing the issue, a lot of it has stuck. But I resent the attempt to mislead and distort the issue in all the comments they make. Perhaps I have failed here in being as civil as I would like, but when statements are made that are categorically untrue. I feel I have no choice but to expose them.

So in the end, to paraphrase Shakespeare once again, regarding District 203's critics,

It is a tale told, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Community Partnership for Education (CPE) was the district-supported citizen group that did the marketing for the 2002 referendum. They were district supported because filed records show $500 donations from 203 staff such as Weber and Albus (and many other district staff). CPE was chaired by S. Price (QE 203's candidate). Two of CPE's promises were: 1) the additional funds were to "reduce" the deficit, and 2) none of the additional funds would go to "funding new programs." Well, the 2002 referendum not only "reduced" the deficit, it created a multi-million dollar surplus. This surplus money was then earmarked for facilities (i.e., new programs). Zero for two. Ask S. Price for copies of the CPE literature. Now, if you're a voter inclined to hold a politician (or a group) accountable for their promises, you would be obligated to vote no on the District's 2008 referendum scheme based simply based upon their 2002 lies. Yes, "lies" is an accurate label per the aforementioned two promised from S. Price's CPE. As long as voter turnmout is

Wow! I have been following this blog for awhile. I just reviewed Dave Zager's numbers as posted by Conservative Taxpayer. That is a stunning admission by Mr. Zager. I had no clue District 203 was taking that much extra. In light of the above PDF file there is no way Dist. 203 should be asking for more money. This board is out of control.

Dan D.,

Thank you kindly for offering the link for all to see (if they really want to).

Thom,

Thanks for the clarification. I really was hoping that I was being reasonable to reasonable (not fed up!) people as I rather enjoy the discourse & debate! My brush is put away!

Concerning folks like "fed-up", their juvenile attacks with no supporting data only serve to diminish discussion and, eventually, the ability to understand each other and the resulting success of compromise.

I have dealt with folks like fed-up all my life, and their propensity to deal in attacks, emotion, and their pretense to understand the motives of those they have never met had always set them apart as intellectually lazy.

As far as my well-known stance of distrust as it concerns the 203 Board, when I am dealing with a group that wants to represent me [yet issues statements like "inflation and CPI doesn't apply to teachers (I have that one in writing!), older citizens who can't pay the taxes should move, and $95 million (or $43 million to take the numbers most of the Board support) is merely wriggle room] I tend to stand up and speak for myself.

As I have said many times, spending wisely is a good thing, spending to spend is a bad thing. Again, in the field of Education the data supports me on this one.

I never, in these blogs or in my LTEs, questioned the general motives of those who merely disagree with my viewpoint, but I relish the opportunity to question their methods. In that, it represents a mere disagreement and not a mortal attack! I expect no less from those who view me in the same light.

Pax.

To Dan and All,

Regarding your post above, my response?

Ah,,,,,,,,,,,,, No.

I went back in my files and found the excel spreadsheet you base this on. I didn’t realize Caulfields argument is on there. Thanks.

I will respond in greater detail, I mean hey the Bears are playing tonight! But briefly, this spreadsheet was prepared by Dave Zager to allow the board to discuss Caulfield’s contention regarding the $91.8 million figure, vs. the actual $45 million. Just because Zager offered an illustration does not mean the district agrees with Caulfield’s contention. So the following is simply untrue;

“DAVE ZAGER’S ANALYSIS SHOULD BE THE FINAL NUMBER--$91 MILLION AND GROWING”

Dave Zager will tell you he does not agree with the statement above and is a gross mis-characterization,

Additionally, you have a number of mathematical problems here. First you highlighted the wrong number in pink if you want to make Caulfield’s argument. The highlighted number in pink, $3998., is the No Referendum number sir, Caulfields number is $4,555.

All this in the 2005 column;

$3988 Tax bill no referendum- in pink
$4,555 tax bill allowing for the referendum and the CPI increase. This is Caulfields contention
$5,255 Actual tax bill using the referendum, the CPI increase and the re-assessed values also in pink.

So, ever so briefly, the difference we are taking about is $700.00 per year. Where does the $700.00 come from? It is simply what the law allows. When a referendum is passed the district gets the rate increase, (equating to $511.00 lets say here) plus it gets to add on the normal CPI increases (THIS IS CAULFIELDS CONTENTION) but in addition it is also allowed to capture the increased valuation of the homes during the time the referendum is open. The problem here was these years, 2001-2005 had huge increases in home values, and so the increase that in typical times wouldn’t be so extreme, in this case went up $700.00 And the $700.00 here is what all the fuss is about.

I will mention that this is how the law works, District 203 did not do anything illegal or unethical here, it was all done in accordance with the PTEL law and I confirmed all this just last Saturday with Warren Dixon the Naperville Township Assessor and he said I can quote him. All other districts effected referendum increases in the same way.
I also discussed the revision in the PTEL law with Warren, that you incorrectly characterize as correcting an abuse of taxing powers. Sorry my friend, but the law is still in effect in the very same way. What was changed was simply how the referendum question is posed so that voters have a clearer view of the possible outcomes. I think, not positive it requires some sort of range. So your statement below is incorrect in its entirety;

“As stated earlier in the blog, the techniques used by the District have been outlawed as an abuse of taxing powers.”

Finally this statement;

“Just remember the campaign promises of Suzyn Price during the referendum, $511. “We will tax only for what we need and NO MORE.”

As you see even Caulfield accepts the tax bill increase of $1,027. ($4555 -$3528)
So for God’s sake quit beating a dead horse on the $511.00! No one who understood any part of this thought the $511.00 was cast in amber. Property taxes simply do not function that way. Heck, even Davitt voted for the 2002 and 2003 levy. What’s up with that?

If you want to have an discussion on the effects of the re-assessment aspect of the P-Tel law and discuss the $700.00 that grew from it, then fine, but please, as I have shown above, the rest of your argument is simply incorrect or gross hyperbole.

That’s enough for one night.

To All,

One of the biggest issues, both on his blog and in other situations, relates to the magnitude of the over taxation. People want to know what the numbers are and so here we go.

First, everyone should go to the following link and download the “OFFICIAL 203 OVERTAXATION SCORECARD” prepared by DAVE ZAGER and not the Taxpayers Ticket, Mike Davit, or any of the other “rightwing crazies.” The following is the link.

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

What does this chart show us? (By the way, there is a significant amount of information, so people can analyze this from numerous perspectives). Here are my key points.

1. Total over collection through 2007 is $91.8 million.

2. The over collection for a typical house (about $300,000 in 2002) through 2007 is $2,900.

3. The over collection continues every year by at least $24 million. By 2021 (20 years from the IMPLEMENTATION of the tax increase), the over collection will be at least $425 million without compound interest. For a typical house, the annual over collection is $740. Over 20 years, this homeowner will pay almost $15,000 more in taxes than the District promised they would.

4. In 2004, the District rolled out some “NEW NUMBERS” that indicated that the tax increase was NOT $511, rather $900. Even using this number, the District is over collected by $45 million.

As stated earlier in the blog, the techniques used by the District have been outlawed as an abuse of taxing powers. In other communities such as Hinsdale, the Board’s have admitted their mistakes, reversed the extra taxes, and the superintendents and business managers that implemented the increased taxes are gone.

So remember, the District is approving a tax levy tonight that will collect another $24 million more than they promised, at least $740 extra per house.

Just remember the campaign promises of Suzyn Price during the referendum, $511. “We will tax only for what we need and NO MORE. No new programs.” As a Board member, she voted in direct contradiction to her commitment and turned her back on the voters of this District. Finally, I am glad there are others that are taking the time to explore these issues. Again, DAVE ZAGER’S ANALYSIS SHOULD BE THE FINAL NUMBER--$91 MILLION AND GROWING.

Bob S.

Please do not put words in my mouth.

Another poster used the phrase “ wiped the floor…” not I. You will note that I asked poster and people who agree with me not to use those kinds of words. It doesn’t help the discourse when people “throw bricks” my term, at me, or anyone else for that matter.

I apologize as I see how you could see that was directed directly at you. It was not. I was responding based on my being called a Union shill, on the payroll of the union and/or district 203, a far left wing, tax and spend liberal, etc. etc throughout this blog. Heck, one person incorrectly accused me of defending the district because I had a wife that was a teacher in 203, simply because we share a last name. Probably be accused of being a bigamist at some point now. So my comment about throwing bricks is directed directly at the people who make the comments above. If you did not make them, then please consider yourself not painted with that brush.

Hope that helps.

fed up,

Would you care to share YOUR name withus so we understand who we are debating with, or do you prefer to hide in your complete anonymity and toss platitudes and accusations like hand grenades?

fed up,

Per your question about where $$$ comes from --- I highly encourage you to perform research like the rest of us did. There are required filings with the State of Illinois where you will find the data you seek (if you really seek it).

That is exactly where I found the data showing the money laundered by the Union into the election and the inaccurate forms filed!

It is actually pretty easy -- let your fingers do the walking....

fed up,

You actually sound like the furious one. You baseless accusations ring of the resentment of a limited mind. I am certainly NOT a sore loser as I never ran for anything.

I AM an informed citizen who actually has researched well and has a pretty good grasp on the past financials of 203. I AM an informed citizen who has taken several trips and tours of Central. I AM an infornmed citizen who has spent hours at Board meetings and talking with Board members at those meetings. I AM an informed citizen who has spent many hours talking to the 203 administration (time which I was very appreciative to have --- Thank you Dr; Leis and Mr. Albus). I AM also an informed citizen who is well-trained in budgeting and analysis who can recognize spending that appears to be out of line with fiscal realities and which, at times, appear to be contrary to the public well-being!

I will state it clearly so even you can understand: I signed my posts (AFTER SOME INITIAL CONFUSION AS i HADN'T BLOGGED BEFORE!) and I have no need to post under other names as you blindly accuse me (and ohters) of doing in your 12/15 post at 9:55 PM. I correctly assumed that anyone really involved in the 203 issues would immediately know who was writing my posts.

As I read it, you accuse me of being a rightwing crazy and against education, and in "covering your back" Thom infers I throw bricks. Have I covered the essence of your little post?

Now, as I have posted before, it would be Oh So Delightful if folks actually used data instead of emotion when making arguments. As expected, you use emotion. Could actual research perhaps help you in that shortcoming? When I post data, it can usually be proven. As Thom mentioons a few times, though, numbers can sometimes be analyzed to differing conclusions.

Example: I say the rapid rise in spending in 203 over the past 12 years (about 3 times the inflation rate --- I add this is a provable data point, but I will task you with looking it up if you disagree with it--- and well beyond the enrollment rate by a magnitude) represents uncontrolled spending that needs to be addressed. Folks like yousay "it is for the children" and "the District is great!" Can you see my point?

To ease your furious concern, I have spent countless hours in the past sitting with the 203 Finance director and carefully reviewing the Distric-s complete budget and actuals. I am referring to huge spread sheets of numbers and formulas -- you know, complex stuff and not just pictures! By the way, I was told that very few people ever actually come in and do this.

Thom, could you please post and let me know what it is you wiped the floor with me with? I ask thsi because I actually thought we were having a very civil discussion. If not, let me know where I was furious or out of line with you so I can adjust accordingly.

That is it for now as I am more than fed up with fed up.

Thom,
I owe you an apology. I associated Ted's e-mail to you. Sorry.

To Ted's point, we are all very busy. But when an issue like this comes around, the more information, the better that it would be. We understand that you have a newspaper to run and as part of the financially struggling Sun Times, that is even more of an challenge. However, this interactive process enhances your print edition, both by people coming here to post their thoughts as well as for you to obtain editorial content for your papers.

One other point to Thom. You are correct, they are rerunning the NOVEMBER 19, 2007 MEETING. It use to be that public access channels would rerun these meetings EVERYDAY. We have no clue on when the December 3rd meeting will be replayed. I think that is why the City put the videos on their web site. But then again, this NCTV 17 is not a commercial enterprise, rather a government funded program. They should focus on their original mission rather than produce programs that few people every watch. But that is another issue.

CT,

Boy, oh boy, oh boy.

I have a call in to Dave Zager so we can put a fork in the meme that the evil empire is going to do this dastardly deed!!.

As far as the school board video, call NCTV 17 and ask for the video, they will supply one when asked, or know that they re-broadcast them on a delayed basis. They will be showing the 11-19 meeting on 12-18 @ 3:00 and 6:30 PM. So hey, get a copy, put it up on you-tube, but let it run, no editing please.

Let's also kill this canard that Naperville is more transparent. The city has just began posting the video of council meetings of the last 12 months or so. In fact I believe they first started 6 months ago, and they are slowly working backward to post older meetings. 203's board meetings have been re-broadcast on NCTV for what 5 years at least I believe. So it seems to me that 203 was making their meetings viewable to the public far before Naperville got into the game.

On what basis do you make the claim that I am afraid of first hand information?

In fact, my example assumed that the District would structure the debt with level payments. After doing more research (and again, I am not complaining), if the District used "Premium Zeros" like Valley View with increasing debt service, the taxes could start at $82/$103 (or at any number the District would chose) and increase to $500 to $700. And they could raise $80 to $90 million and keep the over collections and Canterra money for increased teachers salaries.

No wonder Thom is concerned about Mike Davitt's comments, HE WAS RIGHT!!!!!

Who use to be at Valley View? Allen Albus and Ray Coyne, the financial team that masterminded the $511 plan.

The Board could outline its assumptions and pass a resolution that they would conform to this structure (although they could rescind the vote later like they did with the $511). Maybe that is why the Board was laughing. You can never regain trust if you do not have integrity.

Also, Thom, we are trying to get the board meeting video. And we can post it. Why are you afraid of "FIRST HAND" information?

That's fine Ted if you don't have the time to hunt down .mpg or .wmv files, but Conservative Taxpayer brings up an excellent point about premium bonds that the average taxpayer does not understand. Your paper would do a wonderful service to the community if you would run such an article explaining how other School Districts gamed the system using premium bonds. A nice editorial by your paper could put pressure on this current board to publicly state they will not do the same thing.

CT,

My, how far we've come. Used to be you had to physically go to meetings to know what was going on. The actual presence of bodies in the room let public officials know they served an interested and involved electorate. If you wanted to check something that was said, you looked back at the minutes. And for a long time they weren't verbatim. Nowadays we're spoiled with televised meetings that you can watch live on cable or view reruns of on a Web site.

I might have access, but the question is, do I have the time. D203's referendum is but one of many issues in the community I'm doing my best to understand, not to mention there's a lot more that goes into running a newspaper than just knowing the topics and issues inside and out. Quite honestly, I draw the line at hunting down .mpg or .wmv files of school board meetings to check the demeanor of board members while they conducted business.

Thom,
Check out the articles that were done on premium bonds by the other newspapers. Here is the math (and I will not make a negative comment about having to do somebody else's research).

The current $82/$103 project cost is based on a $43 million bond issue repaid over 20 years with an approximate interest cost of 4.8% or an annual payment of $3.4 million.

If you issue the bonds with the maximum interest coupon allowed by State law of 9%, the District would be able to raise $59.7 million at the same 4.8% market rates. If you sell a bond with a 9% interest payment and sell it to investors with at the market rate (say the District's 4.8% rate), the investor will pay you more for the bonds. There is nothing "illegal" about raising the $16.7 million ($59.7 million versus the $43 million on the referendum). However, this is just like the $511. Of course, the payments would be $4.7 million and the homeowner payment would be $115 ($143 for the 2002 referendum median house). Depending on timing and the structure of the bond issue, even greater excesses could be put on the taxpayer.

Outlandish? This was done in U-365 (Valley View--Bolingbrook schools). Also, this was done by the same financial advisors hired by District 203 for District 204. They used this bond strategy to "preserve" the ability to raise an additional $12 to 20 million for the third high school.

How to prevent? Do not laugh about the matter, but simply pass a resolution outlining the specifics of the bond. Better yet, put the details in the referendum question. By not addressing this issue, this gives the Board "wiggle room." And Dean takes advantage of "wiggle room" to the detriment of the taxpayer.

Thom, if you need more mathematical help, contact Dave Zager and have him set up a meeting with Ehlers to explain it further to you.

To all,

It is second hand information, but my source was very reliable (just as I would not question Thom if his source was Peter Schulman).

We tried to see if this meeting was going to "reair" on NCTV 17. We cannot find it. It would be best if a copy of the video where they were discussing the matter and put on line. Then everyone can make their own independent judgement (I would like to see it first hand myself).

Ted, do you have access to those replays? Unlike the City of Naperville where they post the videos on their web site, 203 is very "NON TRANSPARENT", they do not post the videos. For that matter, they do not post the entire agenda books that they send to the board members (again, unlike the City). They only post the information they want the people to see or that state law requires them to post.

I can see why John Stossel of ABC 20/20 compares the public school systems in the United States to the former USSR.

Thom,

Sounds like second-hand heresay to me. I'll ask, though. Any one else here present at that Dec. 3 meeting? Was the board "sarcastic" and "laughing?"

Ok Ted help us here, will you please ask Tim Waldorf to weigh in on CT's contention that the board was sarcastic, laughing, and not wiling to take responsibility for the numbers at the Dec 3rd. meeting? Inquiring minds want to know.

To CT. Show us how 203 could manipulate the $43 million request into something larger. Complete argument with the math please.

Interesting article in "Out of the Files" in today's Sun.

"Dec. 14, 1987

Projected growing enrollments over the next 20 years in almost all 13 grade levels will necessitate more classrooms for Naperville Community Unit School District 203. That was the message school Superintendent James A. Clark delivered to the District 203 Board of Education in his fourth annual enrollment and facilities projection report. That's the good news. The bad news is that those classrooms will only be needed for a few of the next 15 to 20 years."

The last time this district had financial responsibility and board integrity was when Jim Clark was the superintendent. The demographics then point to what is happening now, a decline in enrollment. A fiscally responsible superintendent would figure out a way to use the existing capacity rather than trying to get more.

Is Jim Clark still available to save us from this current madness?

To All,

I have been busy as well.

I was told that at the December 3 meeting when the Board adopted the resolution to approve the bond referendum, that when it came down to discussing the cost, they were being very sarcastic about the precise cost of the referendum. They visibly laughed about the matter. They made a point that they took NO RESPONSIBILITY for the $83 estimate (that would be $103 if they used the same average house from 2002).

This is no laughing matter. Nobody would be upset if the actual cost of the 2002 referendum was $550 or $600. But $1,200? If they do not know what the number is and they are paying tens of thousands to consultants and administrators, how can they expect the taxpayer's support?

And maybe Mike Davitt might be right, they have some alternative plan like Valley View to make the cost higher to the taxpayers. Since they take no responsibility, they could issue premium bonds and raise twice the funds they are telling us. I do not see a board resolution detailing the assumptions so such a deception will not be put over on the taxpayers. Since Thom Higgens likes District 125 so much, that is what their board did.

If the actual cost came out to $75 to $90, people would not care. But the Board does not want to take ANY responsibility. With their history, CAN WE AFFORD TO GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY?

Thom, I certainly understand the time situation. Please feel free to respond when you can. No pressure here.

Ted, Thom's doing yeoman work addressing my concerns, but is there any chance we could get someone from the district to address some of the more pertinent questions raised by me and some others in this thread. I'm not asking them to overturn the election, I just need more information in order to make an informed decision.

Also, is there some way to keep this thread up? Look at the number of responses to it. Do we really need 5 Dick Furstenau threads? Can't those be combined or condensed somehow? I'm not saying there aren't important issues being raised about the council, but does this important education and tax issue have to be nosed out by five redundant threads?

Fed up,

While I appreciate your support, I'm really, really trying to remain neutral here, So If I may gently ask any, and all, who support my views here just to state "I agree with" or "I support" etc. otherwise we are no different than those throwing the "bricks" on the other side.

It's 10 days to Christmas, and especially to JW, I'm not going to be able to get to all your questions before then, although I will post if I feel I need to respond. I expect QE203.org. will have its website up after Christmas and we will be posting information by issue, i.e. Central, Mill, the ECC etc, and hope we will be able to answer question there, and provide a reference for those that want to know more.

Come on folks, this referendum is about one simple issue. Accountability. The school district misled voters in 2002. They have since over collected tens of millions more from taxpayers than they represented with their false $511 promise (a campaign by the way which was led by S. Price who is now the board president). And now they have the nerve to ask for "only" $82 more six short years later? Where in the world has all the money gone? Accountability. Yes, it's really that simple.

I see Thom Higgins makes the statement ". They don't have $72 million just sitting around." Actually, its more. Thom you need to look at the District's financial forecasts. They are going to fund $40 million or so out of current surpluses. In addition, once construction is completed the District is still forecasting $40 million in surplus funds to be on hand, using their self-admitted conservative projections. Its on the District web-site.

One should study the plan for Central very carefully. For example in less than 6 years after the project is completed, NCHS will be only 70% utilized -- i.e. for every 2 periods a classroom is used, it will sit empty one period (what a waste). Also, the area with the greatest new space is not math and science. -- its humanities.

Dianne McGuire endorsed by the AFL-CIO!

http://www.wurfwhile.com/blog/2007/12/06/dianne-mcguire-gets-afl-cio-endorsement-for-il-state-house-96/

I find it interesting that the whole so-called "taxpayer's ticket" and their club has come on here to share their sour grapes talk. I'm interested to know where the $11,000 in cash and $2500 in in-kind donations to their campaign came from? As you well know, Price, Jaench and Fielden did NOT run as a ticket. Only the threat of having 4 crazy right wing activists taking over the school board forced numerous groups including qe203 ( which is certainly not controlled by any union ) to choose 3 candidates to support. The anti-tax ticket would have destroyed the education system in 203, and that's exactly what the voters voted against. I'm sure Dianne McGuire is going to have an easy time defending being on record for supporting quality education in 203. I can imagine it - "yes, I am against rightwing crazies and for education" - It doesn't really sound all that scary. In fact, everyone I know is against rightwing crazies and for education. So I think Dianne will do just fine.
I think the "taxpayers alliance" should go back to their secret clubhouse instead of posting here under assumed names ( t-bone, Jimmy Stewart, etc ) - we all can recognize "Bob S", and "Mike" as furious (in more ways than one) letter writers Swininoga and Davitt. I assume the others are Mike and Bob writing under assumed names in some weird puppet show. The beauty is that Thom Higgins just needs to tell the truth to wipe the floor with each of you. I just hope the Sun doesn't decide to play in the gutter with these sore losers.

thom,

I'm not really comfortable contacting Mr. Caulfield as I really only know him from the election cycle.

If anyone out there is aware of the analysis I am referring to (it MAY have also been in the Sun) please do your best to post it on the blog.

I looked through all of my old notes, and I have written down that it showed the overcollection being at about $95 million at the end of last year and was growing at about $25 million a year for every year.

Again, if anyone out there has it, can you post the actual analysis?

Thanks

Thank you Thom for responding. I appreciate your efforts at answering my questions and understand that this is a busy time for everyone. If you feel I'm asking too much, maybe the moderator, Ted, could invite a finance person from the school district to address some of these issues. I'm not trying to be unreasonable, but many numbers have been put forth that only beg more questions. For instance, you would like to see how the critics got to $95 million, as would I, but I would like to see how 203 arrived at 45.6 mil. You say that is for a six year period, but which six years? 2006-2011? If so, what happened to the overcollection from the 2002 referendum until 2005?
Assuming good faith on the part of 203 that the number is indeed 45.6 mil., why is the district only applying 25.4 mil. from the overcollection? What about the other 20 mil.? Where did that go? (The other money the district is applying is from land sales, interest income, and future Cantera revenue) Is it really too much to ask the district to tighten its belt and apply more of the overcollection to this project?

Moreover, you say that the district would save 4 million by building the ECC and remodeling Mill to a lesser extent. But in fact, wouldn't we all save 7 million by not building the ECC at all and then completely remodeling Mill? Or how about saving even more by not doing anything but what is absolutely necessary at Mill and then redistricting? Is there really such a strong link between Mill and Elmwood and the ECC?

Finally, could we determine whether we are essentially getting a brand new NCHS, save for the basement and '92 additions? On the one hand, a $43 mil. bond issue to pay for that seems like a real bargain. If that's essentially the case, then why not be up front about it? If that's not the case, can we cut some of the fluff like district wide hot lunches and super-size classrooms and not double dip from the taxpayers by overcollecting and then hitting them up for more money on top of that? If I'm being unfair or wrong, then please feel free to civilly let me know where I am in error. I want to do what's right. Last time I not only voted for the referendum, I publicly supported it. This time, in light of the overcollection and the apparent spending by the district of at least a good chunk of that overcollection, I'm not so sure.

By the way, someone on here asked which board member made the following statement this past March in a closed board meeting. "If you can't afford to live in Naperville, then maybe you should move." That statement was made by Debbie Shipley, and it was confirmed to me by Mike Davitt, Jim Caulfield, and Gerry Cassioppi. If you don't believe it call all three of them and ask them personally, they will confirm it.

Let's face it, when it comes to the next 203 referendum people fall into one of two camps. Camp one conservatives do not believe the issue is about "only $82." To them, it's about principle. It's about integrity. It's about trust. And most importantly, it's about ACCOUNTABILITY! In 2002 the District said it the referendum was "only $511." That "only" was only off by several hundred dollars. The other camp is the liberal money-grows-on-trees crowd (led by our fiscally incompetent school board and comprised of the socially liberal members of QE 203, and the teacher's union). To them, this referendum could just as easily be about "only $500" or "only $1,000" and they'd still be there supporting its passage. Take a look at your tax bill from 2001 and compare it to your last tax bill. Notice any changes? This referendum is about tax-and-spend liberals versus fiscal conservatives. It's about ideology. The District 203 taxpayer has been getting fleeced for too long. The question is now, how long are they going to take it?

Hey Bob, ask Jim for the analysis and let's post it some where it can be downloaded.

We have qe203.org down for a bit as we are working on it. When it's up we could post it there next to the districts numbers. Would be an interesting exercise.

I agree that Mill/Elmwood/ECC is in flux based on the referendum result and ultimate enrollment numbers, so there are different scenarios floating around, and I haven't got it all down.

OK everybody it's Friday, it's the holiday's, I'm going to a party, let's take the whole night off.

Thom,

You wrote "The $95 Million has been tossed about by 203's critics,(like to see how they get there)".

I don't know if you attend 203 Board meetings and follow their antics in the papers (this one and others)m but ex-Board member Caulfield did a complete breakdown and reconciliation of the over-collections. I think, but am not sure, that it was late in 2006 or early in 2007, and was developed using two methods: one compared the advertised $511 figure to eventual actuals, and the second re-created the referendum as only a single year implementation period.

Again, don't hold me to the dollar but as I recall, his analysis showed that the least amount over-collection was at over $100 million at the end of last year, and would continue to be over-collected inot perpetuity. If someone out there could help me out here if they remember specifically, but I think the yearly over-collection going forward was somewhere around $9 million plus 5%/inflation forever.

Hopefully, this helps and points you in the right direction. Perhaps you can contact Mr. Caulfield for his data (he was oipen to sharing it at the Board meeting I refer to).

As far as Mr. Lawson, the only thing that would work with teh number you refer to would be a long-term analysis that either sums the yearly over-collection for some amount of years OR which applies a perpetuity calculation to it. Based on the current over-collected amounts of well over $100 million, getting to a billion isn't to tough.

On Elmwood, you are close but I understood it a little differently: I think the savings were based entirely on the Child center----I don't believe they have a current plan to redistrict, though I get sefveral different answers on this direct question depending on which Board member or which administration person I ask.

Mike,

I'd like to answer your question, but you're really better off asking Tim yourself, twest@scn1.com. I can tell you that the process of determining endorsements entails researching issues, meeting with candidates, asking reporters questions, considering input from others in the community and making conclusions based on all that and more. As for the rationale behind a particular decision, you're better off going straight to the source.

Ted,

You ignored my question about the West's litmus test. Ask him; he did say it. Why would any newspaper predicate its school board endorsements under such a litmus test? How in the world can the Sun rightly rail against the idiocy of the board's fiscal management, and then turn around two years later and endorse one of the key leader behind the fiscal mismanagement? How can the Sun expect readers to respect such hypocrisy?

JW

Not a lot of time so briefly from a Sun editorial last month regarding the "overcharge"

"Last year, district officials said the tax rate increase generated $45.6 million more than expected. Others calculated the overcollection to stand at roughly $95 million."

The $45.6 million is the districts figure over the 6 years so $7.5 a year avg. The $95 Million has been tossed about by 203's critics,(like to see how they get there) and one person named Lawson claimed in a Sun LTE it's a billion dollars. So hey, pick a number. I have the 203 backup in a spread sheet somewhere I think, I will dig for it.

Here is an excerpt form Dave Zager responding to my question about the source of funds.

"Of the $72 million we have $13.2 million "in the bank" right now
We anticipate another $10.4 million during our current fiscal year so by June 30, 2008 we should have $23.6 million. Then another $4.5 million in 2008-09 and another $5.5 million in 2009-10, and finally about $260,000 in 2010-11. This is a total of about $34 million."

You saw on the website the $13.2 million breakdown. I think you can fairly say the $10.4M, $4.5M, $5.5M, and $260K are the surplus funds the you can attribute to the increase in tax revenue.

Lastly on Mill. Won't swear to this this but I think this is how it goes. Mill renovation down from $11M to $7M??, Why? no new classrooms, becuase if the ECC gets built and the class space at Elmwood gets freed up, it allows re-districting some Mill kids to Elmwood. Wil-O-Way subdivision I believe. So it get complicated fast re-arranging, but it saves $4m? more or less. They have to see what attendance is in two years, some schools up others down so if they can the re-district.

Little time, will try to do better at a later date with other comments.

Mike,

Gimme a break. I'm happy to offer this forum because it's very interesting to hear peoples' take on things. I get that Jimmy's point, as you say, is "District 203 ripped off the taxpayer." Here's a link to a Nov. 27 article in The Sun, under the headline, "District 203 increase yields more than expected," which shows that we're still writing stories about the overcollection of taxes from the 2002 referendum.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/667916,6_1_NA27_D203_S1.article

If you're saying we're not doing enough to try to inform people about the issue, I must respectfully disagree with you.

As for the PURE connection, I get the message loud and clear, and I'll see what I can do.

Ted,

Jimmy's point is District 203 ripped off the taxpayer! It's not about the $82. It's a matter of principle. If the District 203 board had a majority of qualified and responsible members, there would never be a need for this referendum. The district has been neglecting facilities because it has been awarding the teacher's union far more than it should for the past three contracts. Just look at the District's level of spending over the past 12 years versus student enrollment! What is it going to take to wake the Sun up? Tim West said he was concerned the Taxpayers' Ticket were social conservatives. Is that the litmus test for Sun endorsements?

The Sun really needs to expose Dianne McGuire and her involvement in the organization called PURE. Voters need to understand McGuire and the District 203 teacher's union established PURE to make it appear as though it was an independent organization supporting Price, Jaensch, and Fielden for school board (the unions' three endorsed candidates). The union funneled $33,000 into PURE. One of the more despicable campaign pieces developed by McGuire and PURE was a direct mail piece that implied the Taxpayers' Ticket wanted to outsource bus drivers which might result in hiring bus drivers who could be sex offenders. Is this liberal logic? It was a sleazy direct mail piece that speaks volumes about the person behind its creation. Curiously, the last time the issue of sex offender raised its ugly head in District 203, it involved a teacher. McGuire is now running for State Representative. As a former teacher and union leader, and the person behind the PURE curtain, Dianne McGuire's allegiance is clear. As a long-time shill for the teacher's union, her election would not be good for taxpayers.

Jimmy,

What you see as easy neglects to address the questions I raised above about relevance. What bearing does all this have on the referendum? In your opinion, obviously A LOT. There are those who believe the current condition of Naperville Central matters A LOT and that $82 a year for 20 years is a pretty reasonable request to get essentially a brand new high school.

Will we get into background as we do stories about the referendum leading up to the election? Absolutely. Will it read just like you want above? Not likely.

Ted, I imagine the story could go like this.

Dear Naperville Taxpayers. You are being asked to vote for a referendum on Feb. 5th to implement a massive new construction project for Dist. 203. In 2002 the school board pushed through a referendum that was only going to cost $511 a year FOREVER on a $300,000 home. Turns out that was wrong it is really turned out to be $1,200 per year FOREVER. After this fact came to light several board members attempted to refund the overcollection to the taxpayers, like they did in Hinsdale and several other school districts. However, the union controlled board refused to refund the taxpayers money.

So, along comes the 2007 school board election. Mike Davitt along with two other candidates run for the school board on a platform of reforming the school board and refunding the taxpayers overcollected dollars. The three union endorsed candidates of Price, Jaensch, and Fielden oppose the taxpayers ticket and claim they (PRICE, JAENSCH, and FIELDEN) are not running as a slate, when in fact they are.

A group purporting to be a citizens group called PURE (People United for Responsible Education) comes out of nowwhere and sends out three massive, slick mailers, alleging the taxpayers ticket is going to hire sex offenders as bus drivers, nevermind the fact that District 204 already outsources its bus drivers. PURE claims the Taxpayers Ticket will make radical changes in District 203. Again, this is made to appear to come from a citizens group. No one can find out anything about PURE since they make no filings until after the election that contains who they are, their source of funding, etc.

Once PURE does file (after the election) it turns out the group was lead by Dianne McGuire (a current candidate for State Rep. in District 96) and NUPACE. The $33,000 plus in funds used for the mailers ALL came from the union. NOT ONE DIME came from a citizen in Naperville. PURE endorsed PRICE, JAENSCH, and FIELDEN. The union takes complete control of District 203.

Now dear taxpayer this school board comes to you with another referendum claiming the need is dire. PRICE, JAENSCH, & FIELDEN claim they had no knowledge of PURE and what they were up to. We leave that up to the taxpayers to decide if they believe that or not. Please remember the foregoing when you enter the polling booth on Feb. 5th, who really tells the truth?

Ted, that's my abridged version, but as I see it this is a VERY easy story to run.

Jimmy,

Great, then we agree there is relevance in the question, "How much bearing will the actions of the April D203 school board election have on the February 2008 referendum?" Though I maintain a more important question to ask is, "How much will the effects of the overcollection of taxes from the 2002 referendum influence D203 voters in February 2008?" We agree Dianne McGuire will have to answer questions about her role in NUPACE/PURE as she seeks the state representative seat for the 96th District. I never said it's too late to pose those questions, in fact I'm the one asking those questions in that form right now! But if want a story that recounts in detail events from eight months ago and reads like it happened yesterday, I can't promise you that.

Ted, I understood exactly what you meant. IT IS NOT TOO LATE to do this story. There will be new school board elections, this has direct bearing on the current referendum. If Price, Jaensch, and Fielden hadn't won we wouldn't be facing a referendum today.

Taxpayers MUST know how this current board was elected using dirty, underhanded tactics. If the taxpayers know they very well might vote down this referendum.

Jimmy,

You misinterpret what I said. Go back and look at the post. I meant by the time we learned of the connection, it was too late to affect the outcome of the school board election.

This is what I said about whether we would pursue a story:

"Now that I have a better appreciation for what transpired, I'll consider ways to incorporate the events of the past election into the context of the current situation."

http://www.mediafire.com/?3rm1t5dinzw

The link above is a PDF file with all the evidence of PURE, NUPACE, and Dianne McGuire's diry tactics in the last school board election.

Ted, are you going to do the right thing and do a story on it on the front page? It is NOT too late to do it. The taxpayers in Naperville deserve to know what kind of school board is leading them and pushing this new referendum. I do not understand your comment, that "it's too late."

JW, no one has abused Thom. If you have dealt with this district long enough you will find out how sneaky they really are and how tied they are to NUPACE. After awhile one becomes very jaded and distrustful. Remember what happened with Don Weber?

I want to thank Thom for providing the link. I have had a chance to look over the District 203 plan, but it still raises questions for me, and I would appreciate any relevant and civil responses.
First, it appears to me that the District is applying little or no dollars from the overcollection in taxes. The breakdown in the $71.9 million to be contributed from district sources refers, inter alia, to the sale of Walnut Woods, future revenue from the Cantera TIF, and budget allocations from operating funds from 2006-2011, mainly in the future. What about the extra cash from the overcollection? Undoubtably some of that is reflected in the operating fund allocation in 2006 and 2007, but what of the rest of the money? How much is that overcollection and where is it?
Second, does NCHS really require $87.7 million in repairs? How much of the remodeling is fluff? I fully support rewiring, reworking the HVAC, and remodeling the physical plant so that it is more safe and secure. Upgrading the science labs sounds good. 47 points of entry seems dangerous to me. But doesn't it appear that save for the '92 additions, they are basically building a brand new school? Do we really need a district wide hot lunch program and some of the other extras? My children do not get a hot lunch now and don't seem to be suffering. We actually serve our childrem more nutritious food. Couldn't this be done the right way for less money?
Third, while Mill is overcrowded, couldn't redistricting solve that problem for far less money? Moreover, is $11 million for the early childhood center really necessary? If it is, then isn't this just another example of an unfunded mandate and shouldn't we demand federal/state dollars for construction before taxing ourselves for the whole bill?
Again, I would appreciate any relevant and fair comment. I think Thom in particular has come in for unfair abuse and I don't particularly find abusive rhetoric persuasive.

With much thanks to CT and TH for their back and forth education on funding, I have to say that I find the numbers they're arguing about to be partially meaningless. The bottom line for me is that the board lacks any and all credibility regarding taxes and spending.

I also echo the questions regarding the maintenance of Central. I believe that broken water fountains and clogged drains are more than just red herrrings because they don't fit in with TH's arguments. In fact, I heard long ago from a Central adminitrator that his/her belief was that the building was being purposely kept in a state of disrepair for the facility tours and the referendum.

Lastly, the overcrowding at Mill is bordering on criminal. If the district had excess cash from the last tax increase (and they did) or if the students could have been sent to other schools via redistricting, then this should have been done long before now. Why do those students have to wait for the referrendum? And, by the way, I do not have a student at Mill nor one who will attend Mill in the future.

Kicker Shock (This is not my original writing but I pass it on to all)

December 12, 2007

Oregon has a very interesting provision in its constitution, a “kicker law.” What is it? Well, it has nothing to do with football.

Or soccer. Or the mistreatment of dogs. It has to do with giving money back to taxpayers.

When revenues exceed economist-predicted amounts — amounts which determine the size of each year’s mandated balanced budget — by 2 percent or more, the extra funds are to be returned to the taxpayers.

I think the “kicker” part is that a refund “kicks in” automatically.

I could be wrong. I have set my researchers on the origin of the term. It could be that the law really kicks politicians in the pants if their economists don’t do a good job of predicting a year’s revenue.

Like any good kick in the pants, one hears a lot of howls.

Basically, a whole lot of people in Salem, the capital, believe the money shouldn’t be given back. Why, the government taxed it fair and square.

The fact that bigger taxpayers get back bigger refunds bothers some people a lot, too. Steve Buckstein — of Oregon’s innovative Cascade Policy Institute — recently defended Oregon’s taxpayers’ and their refund against the claims of, well, envy.

“Envy is a powerful emotion,” he wrote, “but it should not trump reason. If we can find a better way to restrain runaway government spending, we should do so. But until that day arrives, the kicker law,” Buckstein says, retains enough kick to keep politicians in line.

Click on the link above to download a PDF file showing what NUPACE, PURE, and Dianne McGuire did. Ted, this is all public information and should not be deleted from this blog for any reason that I can see.

Now this board wants us to trust them after they did this????

Ted Slowik, moderator:

Which link? What date and time was it posted?

Dear Ted, how can you honestly state it's too late to do a story about Dianne McGuire, PURE, NUPACE and the crap they pulled in the last election? I am absolutely FLABBERGASTED you would make such a statement. It is ENTIRELY relevant to this issue facing the voters NOW regarding this referendum. If PURE hadn't pulled what they did PRICE, JAENSCH, and FIELDEN might not be on the board today. YOUR PAPER OWES the Naperville taxpayers a front page, full blown story about this sorry affair BEFORE this referendum on February 5th.

Bob,

OK, I've had a chance to do some research, and I see that you're right. NUPACE beget PURE, deceitfully disguised it as a residents' group, used about $30,000 of NUPACE funds to lobby against the taxpayers' slate. And the teacher's union sucessfully renegotiated a contract extension with the board before the election, rather than face the possibility of dealing with a more fiscally conservative board after the election. And The Sun endorsed two of the union's three candidates.

The way I see it, I feel like I (we) fell for the con as well. By the time I (we) figured it out it was too late. The deed was done. I, we, didn't appreciate the significance of the conspiracy until well after the fact, and perhaps we considered it stale by then and that's how it ended up in Gov Watch rather than a full-blown investigation.

It's hard for me to say how to make it right at this point. Believe me, reporter Tim Waldorf invested a lot of time and energy figuring all this out back then. I, as an editor, dropped the ball.

Now that I have a better appreciation for what transpired, I'll consider ways to incorporate the events of the past election into the context of the current situation.

Ted.

JW,

Oh Boy, brace yourself.....

Thank you all so far for the relevant responses. I will try to check the link posted tomorrow. One more question though, if the district doesn't have 60-70 million in hand that has been overcollected, what is the most accurate figure for that amount?

Ted,

I strongly believe one of the least-reported big stories in Naperville this year is the Teachers' Union, working in concert with some citizens, to launder money into the local 203 School Board election.

The use of cutout organizations, the inaccurate State filings, the hiding of all this from the voting public, the outright misleading of the voting public by pretending it was pure (pun intended) citizen groups that were "oh so concerned", etc., all seem to be important to all voters.

Why was this never fully explored by the Sun (as I recall, when your beat writer did look into is the Sun buried it in the
"Gov't Watch" section instead of the separate articles and editorials that covered the rest of teh election.

Can the Sun pick this up again via the Potluck sight?

To Elmwood Parent,

Like many who support the Board, you ask "Does anyone believe neither Central or Mill need to be fixed? Do we not need an early childhood facility?" in a manner/tone that suggests anyone who questions the Board, the amount, the extent, or the creeping scope of the project is either blind or an idiot.

Let me edify: EVERYONE I know who has been in Central in the past XX years believes it needs some significant remodeling (this includes all 5 of the folks who lost in the last election). You don't need to be a bright-eyed, wool-dyed parent or liberal to say this.

NOT everyone agrees it needs $90 MILLION of remodeling. This is espcially acute when we see another local school going through the exact same issue and doing it for less than $18 million! I also add here that everyone I know also think Mill needs SOME work, but that it also needs redistricting in the Nth sense. To date, the Board gives lip service, but no action on this part of teh solution.

As far as the Early Chldhood Facility, most I know DON'T agree with this expense. Their reasoning is simple: we currently have a program that works very, albeit in not beautiful and combined surroundings. When asked directly about the expected growth in this program, the District said they exoect very little future growth over current levels. Thus, we are being asked to fund over $11 MILLION for an un-needed building that will be dedicated to a stagnant program, but MAN, will it be nice looking!

As an aside, Elmwood, please strive to not be derogatory to the other side. Your left-handed comments are no better, or more cleverly couched, than the outright stated ones you were writing about!

Peace.

JW,

Check your data a little closer!

The current price tag to merely remodel Central is sitting at $90 MILLION, and has been rising every few weeks.

I have zero confidence it will end up as low as $90 MILLION.

To put it inot perspective, 204 is planning on building the brand new Mateo for only SLIGHTLY more than the $90 MILLION and Nequa was built for much less.

If you look at the schematics for Central, you will find, in my humble opinion, that they represent a complete, NEW, Central H.S. once the "remodeling" is completed. Funny how it went from a $40 million remodel, to a $72 million remodel, to a $90 MILLION remodel over the course of a few months.

It represents yet ANOTHER reason why we have no reason to put any blind trust into this School Board!

To Pine ---- she wasn't on the ballot this past election.

JW

Forgot your funding question,

Go to 203's Plan For Upgrades link below and scroll down to pg. 30. that gives you a detailed explanation of $32.7 million they will put toward the cost. There is an additional $36 million in new money that will come in starting in 2011 when the Cantera TIF expires. As you see most of it is future income of various sorts and the remainder is the referendum request. They don't have $72 million just sitting around. The whole document is worth looking at for the financials and the plans.

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

JW

There are legalities involved. Even if 203 had the funds, they need voter approval for some if this. I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn. Certainly the early childhood center requires a referendum vote. I think Central does too, but wouldn't stake my life on it. Good question. I'll try to get an answer.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

Ann, you're right, I'm sorry. Your comment did contain very good and valid points and questions about the issue. I merely took objection to the shopping remark, which I should have just let slide. I'm sensitive lately to the civility of posts. Your's was civil, and I thank you for that.

Look, I have no axe to grind with anyone and I would appreciate some straight answers to some reasonable questions without the ad hominems and garbage rhetoric. I have not yet made up my mind and am open to persuasion by one side or the other.

On the one hand, NCHS needs repair. I've been there on several occasions and do not dispute it needs work. And yet, does it really need $60-70 million worth of work?

On the other hand, doesn't the district already have this money in hand? Are the other projects merely being tacked on to build support for the referendum? In other words, if the referendum fails, won't the district still make the necessary repairs to NCHS with the money it already has? What does the district have to say for itself for overcollecting taxes? Wouldn't it be better to compensate for the overcollection in some way or live off the overcollection without another referendum on top of that?

I'm not here to batter anyone, I just want the Truth.

Ted, thanks for the reprimand. My hubby was also reprimanded by you this am on the "traffic ticket" blog, and he was out of line with his comment and I expressed that opinion to him. However, you can't have it both ways. The following personal comment was written by Mr. Higgins:

"This is getting really tiring, can't you do some of your own research on this stuff? If you had bothered to think about it you could have figured this out yourself, I can't keep holding your hand forever, I've got Christmas shopping to do!"

are also demeaning and unproductive. Yes, both Mr. Higgins and Conservative Taxpayer have contributed a lot to his blog and helped to share lot of info and questions, we should all be treated alike. I think my post was valid, and not so inflammatory as you may have thought.

wow

Ann, thanks for the comment. But please, cut Thom some slack. I think you need to review the huge volume of posts he's made on this topic, and the exchanges between him and Conservative Taxpayer have helped to educate us all. You must appreciate the levity of his shopping remark, and realize he's invested quite a bit of time researching and expressing his position on this blog.

Keeping to the point, and not bringing personal "Christmas shopping", or other innapropriate comments into the conversation here, I have a question:

If we are keeping capital expenditures out of the education expense equation, aren't we being a bit deceptive? We are not a new school district, and yet our capital expenditures do cost us taxpayers education dollars. Of course we need to keep up with population and maintanance and new technology, but are we, here in 203 (and 204), being fiscally responsible with our capital expenditures, and the maintanance of what has already been paid for by all of us in the past?

In my opinion, there is no way building funds should be kept out of the equation, unless there is a specific amount/contribution from new home building special education assessments, a one-time charge for new area residents that buy in new subdivisions that can be exceptionally impactful to the growth needs of the district.

Ah yes, when you don't like the numbers, attack the study.

Sure I'll gladly take ownership of the numbers, as they are they are but a piece of an extensive 10 part series done by the Daily Herald. It's all on their website, including these numbers, check it out.

So why the discrepancy in the numbers? You don't know? Let me help you.

Here’s the definition from the ISBE for their number;

Operating expenditure per pupil is the gross operating cost of a school district (except summer school, adult education, bond principal retired, and capital expenditures) divided by the 9-Month Average Daily Attendance (ADA) for the regular school term of those children being educated within the district boundaries.

Or more simply, it doesn’t include capital expenditures and retired bond principal, Gee, I would expect you to know that!
If anyone else is reading this stuff, the rationale for this number in the ISBE report is to give you a idea of what the costs are absent building/ financing costs so as not to cast growing school districts in a negative light simply because they have a lot of new schools they are financing. It’s a way to equalize the number.

Conversely what the Herald did was to calculate a total cost. They took the districts total revenue and divided it by the average daily attendance rate.

So yeah both numbers can be correct, they just are based on different criterion.

Frankly I don’t get why you would want to highlight a lower number when you keep harping on profligate 203 ‘s ways. Or was you intention to attempt to discredit the numbers, and by proxy, yours truly?

This is getting really tiring, can't you do some of your own research on this stuff? If you had bothered to think about it you could have figured this out yourself, I can't keep holding your hand forever, I've got Christmas shopping to do!

Well, if you can't pay the taxes, you can move, isn't that our current mantra? Lose equity on your home...maybe just rent and be done with it. Do we need to care about average joe, here in Naperville, we are so much more than average, right? Someone tell me I am above average, make me feel good again, I'm starting to sweat here...maybe I will be blackballed, no one will like me, or my kids, or my dog...ok, ok...I'll pay...here's my wallet and firstborn...

Addendum to my previous posted question.

Why should the taxpayers keep tightening their belts? Will the District show us where and when they have tightened the belt of District spending? Show us where you made choices that saved us bundles of money. As homeowners we have budgets, too. We cannot spend beyond our means without paying a heavy price.

Two other comments on Thom's last posts.

1. They are simply a smokescreen to throw everyone off course. I marvel at people who boast about paying high taxes. Are they nuts? You notice that Lake Forest is not on that sheet. Before Albus got their, there taxes were some of the lowest!

2. Sorry I divided by the wrong number (although I divided a bad number by the wrong number, how ironic). Again, it has no bearing about the cost of tea in China. Unless of course Thom has a scientific study that shows some meaningful corelation (UNICOM-ARC might have one!).

Hi Thom!!

We missed you!

A couple of comments on your most recent post.

1. If the spending per student has any relevancy, then you should consider transferring your elementary children to the Ford Heights schools. They spend $17,000 plus per the Daily Herald.

2. The numbers for Stevenson 125 reflect only three of their six feeder elementary schools. They also are the “higher spending” districts. Most significantly, the largest district, Buffalo Grove 96 is omitted.

3. The $101,057 number still strikes me as odd. But then how would I know since I have “some serious problems with math and logic.” So I went to the ISBE web site and outlined the per capita operating costs for the last eleven years (really 9 years, I assumed the two oldest years--1995 and 1996 were the same as 1997 since that data was not on line). The numbers are as follows:

2005 9,396
2004 8,939
2003 8,452
2002 7,935
2001 7,614
2000 7,157
1999 6,684
1998 6,695
1997 6,330
1996 6,330 (estimated)
1995 6,330 (estimated)

11 year total 81,862
11 year average 7,442

Where does that other source get $101,057? They must have even more severe problems with math and logic than I do. And by the way, when you endorse a number, you take ownership and responsibility.

4. None of these numbers include the over taxation (because they cannot spend it). That amounts to another $500 per student.

The key is that the District has not controlled spending since 2000. And they have taxed even more, beyond the solemn commitment of Dean and Suzy. If they were good stewards of our money, there would be no discussion. Thom, we are still waiting for the truth to come out!

Ted,

Please disregard the last post, I will finish it

I ask,

Who was the board member who said that if we cannot afford to live here we should move if we cannot afford the taxes here?

Regarding this;

"if we review CT's posts, he had argued with you regarding the per-year cost of education between 125 and 203"

yes he argues but he thought 203 had kids for 15 years on 12-5, and takes 11 years of costs and divides them by 15;

"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."

Then on 12-6 he thought it was 13 years;

"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."

So let me explain it very carefully. the study used 11 years as their basis. I don't know why, please ask them, but the numbers are correct for their criterion of 11 years, and are a valid comparison of those 36 school districts. My assumption is they did not include K as there may be some full and some half day programs in there, and they don't include 12th grade as the test is taken in their Jr. year.

So it is apparent that conservative tax payer has some serious problems with math and logic. If they give you 11 years worth of costs you can't then divide it by any other number than 11. So he can argue all he wants but in the end it's meaningless.

OK I'm out of here......

Wow Thom I thought you were finished here, according to your second to last post. I believe, that if we review CT's posts, he had argued with you regarding the per-year cost of education between 125 and 203. Numbers can be shown many ways.

Anonymous and Jimmy.

For the backup to the following go to our webpage

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/download/act&cost_by_rank.pdf

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 below 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.

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.

I know it's incredibly annoying you all that 203 does so incredibly well in educating our children at so much lower a cost than the other top performing schools, but with apologies to Shakespeare;

Nay, indeed, if you had your eyes, I might fail of the knowing the truth; it is a wise man that knows his adversaries. Well, I will tell you news, give me your blessing: truth will come to light; the distortions cannot be hid long; man may try, but at the length, truth will out.

Jimmy, are you saying that district spending should correlate to higher achievement? What an odd idea. I thought it was just how we looked from the street that matters in Naperville.

Actually, on a serious note--someone asked a while back if this spending would get us closer to District 125 test scores, as our spending is getting close to what they spend. No one answered. And you asking for this in writing, novel approach, no one will answer.

How much will ACT scores improve with the building of a new Central? (It really is NEW Central they want to build). I'd like all the pro-referendum folks on here to put it down in writing on this blog so we have some accountability.

Bob S. makes some excellent points. Everyone needs to read his post carefully.

I too wonder why Jaensch, Fielden, and Price had PURE do all their work for them in the last school board election and hid it from the taxpayers. Turns out PURE was a union backed job headed by Naperville teacher Dianne McGuire. PURE pretended to be a citizens group but was ALL TEACHER UNION work. You can check out Dianne here.

http://www.diannemcguire.com/

Elmwood parent--you contradict yourself by stating that we should move on from the 2002 referendum issues, and yet in the same paragraph, regarding the 2002 referendum, you write:

"No matter what the specific numbers should have been or were reported, in my opinion - bad move on SD 203's part. Even worse, many of us feel violated and do not believe we have been provided the accurate details nor has the SD203 rebuilt the level of trust of the taxpayer."

If there has been extra money sitting around, why is NCHS in such bad repair? Why should we trust the SB with this referendum, when key financial questions, many posed here by Conservative Taxpayer, have not been answered? Mr. Higgins best answer to the over-funding of this school district is to say, in effect, that regardless of what has happened in the past, the "new" charges will be around a hundred bucks per household per year. How many years? Have we ever seen a decrease in property taxes, even after bonds or whatever are paid off? Has the overcollected money been the SB's to spend, without our input? How many of us knew about the overcollection before Conservative Taxpayer brought it up here? There is major manipulation being performed on Average Homeowner when Mr Higgins and his "side" say that it's only that hundred bucks or so per year, per household.

How did we ever get to this position? We have 2 individuals on this blog battling about the financials of the 2002 referendum and the upcoming referendum. I am utterly blown away at the name calling and personal inferences being made especially by the "conservative taxpayer" against "Thom Higgins". This is a blog for the upcoming referendum - will you vote for it or not? Why? Please move on from the 2002 Referendum. No matter what the specific numbers should have been or were reported, in my opinion - bad move on SD 203's part. Even worse, many of us feel violated and do not believe we have been provided the accurate details nor has the SD203 rebuilt the level of trust of the taxpayer.

This referendum is to address the priority concerns of our facilities. I have taken the tours (in fact I took 4) and I was part of the facilities study group, I firmly believe something needs to be done with Central. I have had a child in the early childhood program and have watched how that has grown tremendously. I understand the wish for a centralized early childhood facility. I have kids at Elmwood - this is the school which will see the additional students from districting.

It is apparent that Central needs work - whether it is due to age, maintenance, or poor planning. Frankly at this point - I do not care because it does not matter. Something needs to be done to fix it. Do I want to open my wallet yet again to yet again another taxing body? No. But if I don't, what happens to SD203 in the future? Will my children's future not be as bright? Will my home values reflect the decline of Central?

Does anyone believe neither Central or Mill need to be fixed? Do we not need an early childhood facility?

Let's stop name calling and move on!

Thomm,

As an avid supporter of the Board, please answer this simple question:

If all they do is on the up-and-up, and if the Union has no influence over them, then Why did the Union (local and State-wide) find it necessary to launder money into our little election back in April '07?

I mean, really, if it was all kosher and OK, why didn't the Union just contribute directly without using cutouts?

As I stated earlier, we cannot just trust this Board because they have little credibility or trustworthiness (both which are built by actions, not words). You keep stating people should take a tour because you have ---- guess what? Many of us have and still haven't drinken your kool-aid.

Central (along with all District buildings) needs some remodeling. Just because some, like I, don't believe it needs $90 million (and growing regulalry) in remodeling but can be done better and cheaper (see Benet despite your seeming dislike for private schools DOESN'T mean we dislike teachers, or children, or apple pie, or any other accusations and platitudes you can come up with.

We, like those who are willing to just trust the Board, respect trhe school system and the resulta of that system. We just recognize that there is a point at which many jusat plain can't afford yet another hand in their pockets!

Uncle Buckeye,

You write "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."

Are you aware that one of our wonderful Board members has stated "If the old time residents don't or can't pay the taxes required, they should move"?

Tim Costello,

They needed further increases since the $511 was not enough!!!!!

Two things come to mind when reading about the proposed 203 referendum:

1)Can the District prepare a reconciliation from the $100 to the $115 to the now $118 million (and obviously STILL growing!) and offer it to the public? As a proposed example:
Original est. cost: $100 Mil
Storm water issues: +6
Materials Cost Decreases -8 (guess based on 11/23 WSJ article)
Project Creep +20
New estimate: $118 million (the "new" number that has just "popped-up" in all District discussions)

The over-collections on the 2002 referendum and the Canterra TIF inflow are the largest components in these newly-found funds for building improvements.

We all need to remember that most of the money for the improvements is from money we have all already overpaid!!! Do NOT lose sight of the factoid that the entire $118 million is coming from the taxpayers and is mostly based on the last (2002) and the proposed '08 referendum.

The fact is that the Board took so much extra money from us in the last referendum (an over-collection that does, indeed, go on forever in perpetuity and is currently over $100 million) that even they couldn't give it all away in secret and misguided contracts.

The truth is that this Board lacks transparency in virtually all of its dealings. Yes, they created a citizens' group to study "the issue". Of course, the citizens' group was told exactly what to limit their scope to and what alternatives to pick from. Then, to add insult to injury, the Board originally tried very hard to ignore the group's recommendation of remodeling Central and actively pushed a complete rebuild. Note here that this was also in conflict with the recommendation from the highly-paid consultants the Board used.

Then, of course, they did go ahead and create the tours of the schools. I attended a few, and it was regularly pointed out that certain fountains and sinks didn't work (items which represent neglected maintenence, by the way!). When the results didn't overwhelmingly support their want to rebuild, they THEN spent money on a poll to see if they could work the issue even more. Thankfully, the poll was extremely clear in pointing out the mandate of the public that we don't want a new Central.

So, what does our wonderful Board do next? Apparently, based on the regularly-increasing bill, they are going to manage to effectively build a new school disguised as a remodel. Think about it, Naperville! Our little remodel is going to cost almost as much as the building of the brand new Mateo in 204 and quite a bit more than Nequa (remember to ignore land costs when comparing, as Central has the decided advantage of not needing to pay for land).

In short, they continue to try to either ignore us or try to direct us to see things their way. When we don't, they just go ahead and do what they want in secret .

Think about their record: the 2002 referendum is implemented over multiple years despite the original promise to not do so; the collections from the 2002 referendum are used for many new projects (again, despite their promises leading up to the vote to ONLY use the money to get out of a defecit position); the clandestine meetingss to extend the teachers' contract and their denials of said meetings until the local papers called them on it; the laundered money into the '07 elections to stack the Board; the assigment of a "campaign manager" from the Board President;s election to the seat that opened when Member Caulfield stepped down (and in the process completely ignoring 3 candidates who had spent the money and time to run in the last election!). The list just keeps compiling upon itself!

The bottomline is that we cannot just blindly trust the 203 School Board. The evidence of this is simply overwhelming. It will be imperative that we all watch them closely, listen to them closely, but ALSO gather our own info before we vote in February. The referendum will be a big issue for all of us, and we need to decide as individuals if it is the right thing to do at the right cost.

We can NO LONGER just get with platituded like "It's for the children" and "the District is great!" We need to ensure there is a strategy to this Board's decisions (no, Taking what you can grab from the taxpayers is not a strategy---it is a tactic!).

Get informed and get out and vote!

Thom,

I think your last response gives us a good summary of the choices the voters have in the next election.

Point 1
CT “So as I see it, the union needs to increase the amount of funding that will be available to the District to increase teacher pay to fund dues increases to replenish this $33,000 as well as fund the campaign to maintain their control of the board in the inevitable next attack. So they ordered Suzy and Dean not to use all of the surpluses to fix the schools (as they could), but rather pass a referendum. Remember, the schools are run by the union, not the Board of Education.”
TH Response. “So Conservative Taxpayer is telling us we are being asked to vote for a referendum so the teachers union can order the school board to vote them a pay raise, so the teachers can pay the union back the $33,000 it spent in the last election, because the unions are in complete charge of the schools and control the school board.
How on earth does one respond to that?”

VOTER IMPLICATION. We note that you do not deny this charge. As a person active in the past election, do you know more than the rest of the community? It appears you concede that the Board is union controlled and are also content with this unique arrangement. IN CONTRAST, THEY ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND CANNOT BE TRUSTED AT ALL.

Point 2

CT “So in short, the Board did not want to regain their integrity with the community, so they have to live with what they take. They are taking $850 more and they need another $100? TOO BAD!!!!!!”

TH response. “In the end I don’t think your argument is going to mater all that much. People are going to look at the additional cost, which we all agree will be $100.00, or less per year for half of the homeowners, and decide if they think the total cost of their current taxes, plus “X” increase, is a fair bargain. If they do, they will vote yes, if they don’t, they wont.

VOTER IMPLICATION; To restate my point, the Board is currently taking more than they both said they needed and based on historical results over the past three years, than they ACTUALLY NEEDED. IF this is sound plan (and Task Force Member seems to take exception to your position on this matter), fine. However, use the excess taxes, don’t ask for more. The Board made that decision three years ago when they decided not to live up to their $511 commitment. If the Board wants more, atone for their past mistakes and come back to me in November.

CONCLUSION I must commend you for your fortitude. Unfortunately, if all of this was handled in a professional way by the Board such as in Hinsdale, New Trier, and Stevenson, we would not be having this discussion. Oh well.

By the way, nice quote of the Benet principal. I think if you checked their annual report, outside fundraising is in the million dollar range annually, no more than $1,000 per student. Still a better value than the public schools.

If you have read this far down you might have notice two things Thom Higgins knows his facts and little has been discussed about the need and impact of a modern Central. As a community I understand the need to know where and how the money is coming from but I think that was cleared up in the first couple of posts. It’s time to move on to what the new Central will do for the students in 203. The need for hot lunch in all the school? Talk to students at Central now hear what they have to say. Take the tour then you can have an informed idea about the need for the project. I have done both and will be voting YES. All four of my kids will be going to North and I still see the need and willing to pay the higher taxes.

I have to say that I agree with Ted, and although my critics seem to revel in thinking up new names to call me, and anyone connected with District 203, I’m am growing a bit tired of it.

So here are a few comments that I think are important to make, and then I’m going to retire for a bit and watch the show.

Peter Schulman. Not a teacher now, never was in the past. Likewise for is wife. Proud to call him a friend.

QE203.org. Proud to be a member. We never have, never will be, affiliated with the teachers union or any of its officers. We are a group of Naperville residents, some with kids in 203 schools. We are proud of 203 schools, and work to keep them strong. The constant whine that we are stooges shills, on the payroll, or otherwise connected to the teachers union is an article of faith to our detractors. There is just one problem. None of it is true, and our requests for some sort of proof of course goes unanswered.

Benet tuition vs. 203 costs; Conservative Taxpayer today uses their $7,400 tuition cost to imply that 203 at a higher cost wastes our tax dollars. I’ll let the Principal of Benet respond;

Board of Directors Establishes Tuition Rates for 2006-2007
Earlier this month the Benet Academy Board of Directors established a tuition rate for the 2006-2007 school year. Even though the $6975 per student tuition rate is a $300 or 4.5% increase over this year’s tuition figure, it should be noted that Benet Academy has consistently offered a high quality, college-preparatory education at a lower per pupil expenditure rate than many neighboring public and private schools. This can only be accomplished through the support and contributed services of the monks of St. Procopius Abbey as well as the generous donations of many of you parents and such benefactors as alumni, past parents, and friends of the Academy. We are especially grateful for the response we receive at the auction, during the annual fund appeal, and through grants and matching gift contributions, for these fundraising activities help keep tuition costs down for all of our families. While some of our families could afford to pay the difference between the actual cost of educating a student here at Benet and the tuition charged, we know from experience that for other families this discounted tuition makes a Benet Academy education affordable. So, thanks once again for your generosity!

Link to the above here. http://www.benet.org/PrincipalNewsletter2.21.06.doc

Below is from the same post above by Conservative Taxpayer earlier today;

“So as I see it, the union needs to increase the amount of funding that will be available to the District to increase teacher pay to fund dues increases to replenish this $33,000 as well as fund the campaign to maintain their control of the board in the invevitable next attack. So they ordered Suzy and Dean not to use all of the surpluses to fix the schools (as they could), but rather pass a referendum. Remember, the schools are run by the union, not the Board of Education.”

So Conservative Taxpayer is telling us we are being asked to vote for a referendum so the teachers union can order the school board to vote them a pay raise, so the teachers can pay the union back the $33,000 it spent in the last election, because the unions are in complete charge of the schools and control the school board.

How on earth does one respond to that?

The above is, to me, just two more examples from people who, again from my point of view only, despise District 203, it’s teachers, and, anyone who supports them. They fabricate, twist, manipulate and conflate facts to bash 203 any way they can. It is simply an amazing thing to see.

In the end everyone has to make the best decision they can on the decision to support the referendum. I am more than content with the comments I’ve made here, and feel this thread helps people understand what supporters such as myself feel and believe, as well as who 203’s critics are, and what their position is. That is all to the good.

I will leave anyone who wants to know more with this thought. Central will be offering tours again. Take one. Here’s the link to 203’s referendum document. Take the time to read it. http://www.naperville203.org/about/decisionforfuture.asp

Ask questions. Then decide for yourself.

I don't understand what the fuss is all about. District 203 teachers threatened to shut down the district in 2005. They voted 95% to 5% to authorize a strike; then returned to work after receiving $33 per year in additional salary.

However, the most senior teachers (MA+54 with 23 years or more experience) got another $511 as a result of the action.

Guess they needed that $511 more just to meet their increased tax obligations!! :-)

It's only "a pizza a week" when taxpayers are being pressured to anti up; however, that "pizza a week" never seems to apply to the employees of the district. With loyalty like that who needs enemies?

I so miss The Donald.

To Task Force Member,

Maybe the problem in the approach is the leadership and experience with facilities. Prior to coming to Naperville, Dr. Leis was the Deputy Superintendent in Fairfax County. Note the referenced article from the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB115672841445646981-lMyQjAxMDE2NTI2ODcyMjg4Wj.html

The readers should draw their own conclusions.

My post was not personal since Thom isn't related to the Higgins teachers, at least so he says. However, the two Higgens teachers I pointed out are illustrative of the out of control pay increases for teachers. Their pensions are out of control too. The information I posted is public information and freely available to anyone at www.thechampion.org

Hi folks, moderator here. I appreciate your comments and we're happy to provide a forum to debate this issue, but think this thread is deteriorating a bit. Remember to avoid personal attacks on individuals. Stick to the issues, please.

Thom,

Like I said before..quit while you are behind...You are getting lambasted!

Thom

You need to read all the district facilities reports and understand the district needs a master plan - no an "ad hoc" piecmeal plan which will make the cumulative district facilities look like the hodgepodge that is causing everyone to say central is a dump. Most importantly look at the Healy Bender reports and what is says about North - they are short approximately 12 class rooms and that is the about the same number those reports quote for Central. Those reports also state that the layout of Lincoln is terrible. There is more stuff brewing that this community is going to be asked to do but it cannot be done piecemeal. Everything that the district feels that needs to be done is layed out with a general time frame this current referendum cannot be judged as being the most important, therefore it gets a NO vote.

Thom,

I think the appropriate comparison is a con game. Suzy and Dean tell people that the increased cost would be $511. When passed, Allen Albus (and probably Don Weber and Tim Costello, we should not avoid giving them the credit they deserve) contrive a process of making $511 grow to $1,200 or so. Nobody will be able to do anything about it.

Then the con men are holding the money and are exposed, they do not know what to do. So they distribute "doomsday" budgets that never materialize. They give yet larger salary increases (5% PLUS generous pension and medical benefits compared to declining salary growth in the rest of the private sector) and that does not spend the money. I thought that they would simply do the capital program with these excesses.

Then the pesky taxpayers ticket shows up. The union had to spend over $33,000 of their hard earned money on the campaign to defeat them. By the way, it is an intriguing coincidence that you and Peter Schulman (who represents that he is a Naperville substitute teacher) supported the same union candidates in your parallel QE203 election campaign.

So as I see it, the union needs to increase the amount of funding that will be available to the District to increase teacher pay to fund dues increases to replenish this $33,000 as well as fund the campaign to maintain their control control of the board in the invevitable next attack. So they ordered Suzy and Dean not to use all of the surpluses to fix the schools (as they could), but rather pass a referendum. Remember, the schools are run by the union, not the Board of Education.

A simple question. If a thief takes the money they stole and gives it to a charitable organization such as your related Humanist/Aetheist group, does that make them innocent of the crime? And should such people be entrusted with more money in the future?

I think this is the question that the people will be answering in the next referendum.

Lastly, I do not think we need to rebuild Central (yes, that is what is happening) to increase classroom size. Look at Benet, they are funding science classrooms, rebuilding and expanding the cafeteria, improving circulation with new corridors and eliminating bottlenecks and creating a new education space in the basement of the new addition for COLLEGE PREP classes for $16 million. Imagine that, not tearing down a 100 year old building. Take a look at their web site. The project will be done by next school year, not 2011. And check out tuition, $7,400, $2,000 less than 203.

Conservative Taxpayer,

So from your last post, I gather you feel you can reduce current taxes, forgo the referendum, and embark on a $300 million capital program at the same time. Wow, will you guys do my income tax return this year?

Look, I know you have a problem with the current level 203 taxes at. Fine, I understand. But it seems to me throwing around all these numbers that relate to the taxes people currently pay, is just your best effort to try to convince people that the cost is really much higher than what 203 is presenting.

In the end I don’t think your argument is going to mater all that much. People are going to look at the additional cost, which we all agree will be $100.00, or less per year for half of the homeowners, and decide if they think the total cost of their current taxes, plus “X” increase, is a fair bargain. If they do, they will vote yes, if they don’t, they wont.

You seem to be wanting to fight the Spring election all over again. Mike Daviitt, essentially, lost making your case. So it seems to me you have a quite a mountain to climb here with the residents of 203 if you want to complain about the current level of taxation.

Thom, you better quit while you are behind. You are getting killed by Conservative Taxpayer, Uncle Buckeye and Jimmy Stewart to mention only a few. It's obvious that this tax referendum has hit a nerve with the many people in this community. It is time to stop the taxing of the homeowners in the district and come up with new ways to fund our school system.

Jordan, I meant Michael Jordan. What kind of Freaudian slip was that?

Thom,
The opposition of the referendum is simple and not as confusing as you laid it out. At the November 2006 Board meeting, the annual impact of Suzy and Dean not living up to their word was $724 per house (the $420,000 house and I understand that Dave Zager verified the number). In aggregate, this amounts to $12 million per year. If Canterra is another $3.6 million, this is increasing all of our taxes by $150 per year. In total, the District is collecting $875 to $900 extra per year and that amount is growing by CPI. THEY ARE NOT SPENDING ALL OF THIS MONEY! The cost per student you often cite (which by the way significantly exceeds the state average for UNIT school district like 203 by $1,300 rather than the overall average or $200) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE OVERTAXATION.

So in short, the Board did not want to regain their integrity with the community, so they have to live with what they take. They are taking $850 more and they need another $100? TOO BAD!!!!!!

More importantly, with declining enrollments (averaging 2% annually) and 2.5% CPI, they could give teachers an overall 4.5% increase (if that is what the market dictates) and continue to generate surpluses. Or they could roll back the taxes, quantify the total capital program ($300 million when you rebuild North to expand classroom sizes and fix all the other schools such as Scott and Steeple Run that the architects clearly said need to be rebuilt--the report only mentioned science classrooms and circulation at Central), and hold a building referendum to address the needs for the next 20 years. And then manage the schools.

Simple!!!

Newbie.

Couple of thoughts for you.

First, think of all the things public schools do that private ones don’t have to. For example 203 is mandated by law to offer a early childhood opportunities, private schools don’t. Unfortunately there is a rapidly growing special needs community that once again by law had to be served by public schools and is very expensive. The growth in numbers of these kids is just scary. The ESL and other special programs are another area.

I wonder, but am not sure if, private HS’s offer the breath of classes 203 offers too.

As far as test scores go, 203 came in second in a recent study, and the winner spends 30% more that 203 and the third thu sixth district spend more than 203 too. So 203 has much to be proud of, both in the education they provide, and the cost to the community.

I’ll also hazard to say that at least for High Schools private is more expensive. I think Bennett is like $14K and 203 High Schools are under $12K Won’t stake my life on it, but someone will chime in probably here.

Uncle Buckeye,

I enjoyed your comments.

I suspect the whole drinking fountain issue is a Red Herring by those that look for any excuse to bash 203. The reality I suspect is that there are a host of things they would be doing now but are holding off to see what the referendum brings. It doesn’t make sense to spend money on some things now if they can be more cheaply fixed during the renovation As I always say, take the tour and read the information on 203’s website, it is very detailed.

I took the tour and some of the things I remembered was the wiring is overloaded because of all the computers and AV equipment. The HVAC can’t handle all the heat the electronics create; there are hardly any bathrooms in the damn place, and my personal favorite. Years ago some one placed the cafeteria kitchen across a main hallway from the seating area! So there is a great deal of rehabbing obsolete systems envisioned, and straightening out past sins, and of course bringing the place up to date on how we teach kids today. I had forgotten the number of different programs they offer. I didn’t know they offer computer repair classes for example.

And there are new needs. Are you aware that Central has a special needs program mandated by law for certain children up to the age of 22 I believe?? There are a bunch of kids with individual personal assistants there. They have very specific, and very expensive facility needs. And of course there is the early childhood program that is required by law. The district feels it needs a separate facility for a variety of reasons. Is this a luxury? No, but it is another un-funded/under-funded mandate you and I get stuck with the bill for.

A dedicated kitchen is planned at Central to allow a hot lunch program for the Elementary Schools as part of it. Critics are going crazy over the Astroturf, but forget that Central is loosing a bunch of sports fields to the Cemetery. The Astroturf allows continuous use of the stadium space. If there are luxury skyboxes planned I missed that part.

With regard to your comments about the plight of the middle class, I couldn’t agree with you more. Unless you are in the top 20% in this country, it’s tough, and the lower you are on the scale, the tougher it is. It is the un-discussed, unacknowledged transformation that is happening in this country and it concerns me greatly. So I have no silver bullets to offer you.

I will say that 203 doesn’t get enough credit for the excellent performance of its students at a cost far lower that schools that have comparable scores. So in one sense Mike Davitt is correct when he claims that cost is no indicator of student performance. He just gets the conclusion wrong; in this latest study, 203 students score better that all but District 125 but at a far lower cost. So 203 proves his point, but unfortunately for him not the way he wants to frame it.

I will say that the whole TIF situation flies completely under the radar with people. Had the Cantera TIF not occurred, those taxes could have been used instead of yours and mine. Likewise the Water Street TIF will cost you and me money. There are two other TIF’s being proposed. Every single TIF takes money away from the schools, and other groups, and who do they look to, to make it up? You and me. I was at the Water Street council discussions, not one average resident came to even watch, let alone speak against it.

I’ll also make the statement that the city hasn’t helped. I’ve had city Councilman complain to me bitterly about decisions to take property slated on the master plan for commercial and industrial and re-zone them for single family Great, more kids, and less property taxes per acre. You and I pay more again. If I was mayor I’d have a big time program to bring in as much Office/Commercial /Industrial in designated places as I could. They have had some successes, but I can’t forgive them for taking the easy way out, and allowing residential in areas that should have been developed for OCI uses.

So in the end, I guess my comment is, thankfully the impact on a homeowners is pretty minimal. The homeowner of a $420K home, (the median value in Naperville) will pay $103 more a year. That means that half will pay less than that. As I said above, if you take your Billing Value and multiply it by .0007677 you will be darn close to what your actual cost will be. People should take out their tax bill do the math and decide. For many it’s a no brainier financially, for some it’s a problem, and I wish I had a better answer for them.

Hope this helps.

In response to Newbie's question, one reason public education is more expensive is that public schools do not have the option of turning away the physically or mentally challenged, students with learning disabilities, etc.

Because it's there, we must spend it because it's there. And what's there is never quite enough, so we must tax because we have some money to spend, and what we want to spend is more than the over-collected accounts total that we have there, so we will add to it always and forever, because it's not really our money...it's our neighbors and we don't care if they are strapped, because of this money that is there, we must get more to play more with it because it is there.

Will you assure me that this new tax will bring us closer to District 125's achievements, because monetarily we are close, so close? Perhaps if we had a few more Michael Jackson's or Chicago White Sox, Cubs or Bears living in 203 and 204 we would be in a better tax base shape. Wait a minute...why wouldn't they live within 125 bounderies, if they are paying just a little more than us, and yet achieve so much more?

Maybe my comments are a little off the current direction here, but why does public education have to cost so much? Given that the cost of private education is on average less than that of public education, how can I justify increased spending within our public schools? The information I have read shows the increased school spending over the years has NOT resulted in a increase in test scores.

Just to be upfront, my kids do attend private school (after starting at public) and our decision to switch had nothing to do with dissatisfaction with the education the children were receiving.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!!!!!

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 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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

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!!!!!

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, 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?

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).

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.

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!

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.

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.

Go Bennet!

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.

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"?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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!

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 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

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

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?

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?

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.

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).

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......

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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?

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!

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.

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.

No way.

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.

yes

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.

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

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.

No.

In one word...NO!