Cast your vote in our 203 referendum poll

Nope!

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Yes, Proudly!

Dan D: I had a feeling you were going to vote that way. It's fine on the blog but I urge you to use the poll box on the home page as well. That way we can record all the yea and nay votes. Thanks.

It's the right thing to do. Vote YES.

Yes, yes, yes and yes!!! Of course, we moved here for the schools.

Absolutely. Schools are why we moved here.

As presented - I think NO!

I voted early and the vote was NO!

Not enough solid information to support this -- the schools need work but we need more definite information about what is going to be done

absolutley NO

Approx 78% of our real estate tax goes for the school system. Each year our assessments have gone up by 9,7 and 9% respectively even though housing appreciation has gone down during the same period. How much is enough for these people. We are suppose to be cost effective conservatives in this town. Take the money spent on bell towers and BMW test tracks and give it to the schools!

YES!!

I don't know. It needs to be done but with all the foreclosures and people losing their jobs, I don't know if I can do that to them. More taxes in the financial crises we are heading into doesn't sound like a good thing. The condition of NC didn't stop me from moving here. It is really about the education itself. They should have upgraded years ago, when the economy was better. I don't want someone to lose their home because I want my kids to sit in a nice room. I won't vote, I'll let you decide.

"Not enough solid information to support this -- the schools need work but we need more definite information about what is going to be done"

Have you gone on any of the school tours, or checked out the District 203 website? I'm not trying to convince you to change your vote, but I'm curious as to what additional information you think needs to be provided.

I've decided to vote yes---though it took me longer to come to this decision than it normally does for school funding measures.

When will we get a school board that tells the truth and can be trusted? Nice summary at the below link.

http://www.hold203accountable.org/Opinions.html

No...and btw, when are teacher's contracts coming up for negotiation again? Please stay on point - just a date will suffice.

Thanks.

Jay

I was part of the Facilities Study Group; I have followed closely all of the information put forth by 203 and followed the 203 blog on the Sun's website - kudo's to Thom Higgins for the straight forward analysis he has presented and the research he has done. However, when it comes down to it - I will vote YES for a very simple reason: I moved to Naperville for my kids, I moved here for the 203 schools. I may not agree with the 203 BOD for all their past decisions but as a whole 203 does a great job and I will trust they will continue to do so. I will support 203 and urge all to do so!

To Sandy Weber

Truth? The website is Mike Davitt's. Please see my post of 1-27-08 at 7:08 Am on the Sun's School District 203 page, "How will you vote on d203's referendum" thread, where I expose him for this site, and his other anonymous website. This truth tellers response?

Having respect for eternity, I'll only respond to one point within Higgins' endless rant. For the record, I don't hate teachers. I despise them. (I do though hate liberals who think money grows on trees; who equate money with education; and who resort to bullying on blogs). I have a problem with 75% of the teachers who threatened to strike in 2005 because they were not getting 5% raises. I have a problem with the teachers who were caught campaigning during the last school board election using school resources in violation of the state's Ethics & Gift Ban law. But then again, the end justifies the means for this group. I have a problem with a former teacher and union president (now running to fill Joe Dunn's seat) who produced ads implying I wanted to hire sex offenders for bus drivers and custodians. I have a problem with a certain girls basketball coach coming before the board saying "Central is a dump, and should be torn down." The money's been going to striking teachers, coach (would you volunteer to free up some of your strike-gotten gains for facility improvements for the students?). I have a problem with administrators who rate 75% of tenured teachers as "excellent." That's one hell of a public sector bell curve, and pure B.S. And I have a problem with enablers of this militant out-of-touch union. I hate to ruin my reputation, but I actually wrote a letter to one of my children's teacher's this semester complementing her for her hard work and creativity work. Not as creative as Higgins' rant though. Posted by: Mike Davitt | January 27, 2008 09:22 AM

Please realize this is the person you are attaching you name to.

Jay,

Teachers contract will be up for the 2010-2011 school year.

A word of warning to our 203 friends. Be sure to ask if the bond amount on the ballott is the amount you will be paying back. We approved a $124,660,000 bond amount for the third high school.

The district issued the bonds at an unfavorable interest rate for an 8M cash payment at issuance. Kind of like the opposite of paying points for a more favorable interest rate on your mortgage. So us taxpayers get stuck paying more than we approved and our "new" budget for the high school is now exceeding $140 million.

This practice has been outlawed in other states but is still "legal" here in Illinois.

Sad in 204

It sounds like you are talking about a Bond Premium.

203 is on record indicating that the issuance will be for $43 million, with no premium.

Actually we have the opposite situation. As of yesterday, before todays Fed announcement, the interest rate used for the projections was 1.5% higher than the current interest rate.

If that holds, and it may go lower yet, the cost to the taxpayer would go down.

Sad in 204

Guess I should have checked the news before posting. We are now 2 full percentage points below projections. This means if the bonds were issued today the $82.39 would decrease to $75.80

See link pg 39 for more information

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

Thom -
Good for the residents leadership in D203 for stating up front that there will be no bond premium.

Lesson learned for 204 residents. A little too much trust on our part on the front end.

Will that be in the referendum wording, in other words is it legally binding? Another place we got into trouble here, anyway. They will not keep their word on anything that was not legally binding in the referendum language.

To Sad in 204,

Our school board has not said no to premium bonds, they laughed during the presentation on the cost to the taxpayer.

Thom Higgens said there would be no premium bonds. He is not the school board. We are in the same boat as you.

And remember, they took $1,250 ANNUALLY instead of $511.

Personally, I still support building a new school. Fixing up Central is like putting lipstick on a pig - except it'll cost a lot more - kind of like it already has (remember, originally the reason the Task Force recommended the renovations was because they didn't think a referendum would pass - at least that's what Principal Caudill said during the tour). A new school could be built where the current Administration building and football field are now. NCHS could borrow NNHS's field in the interim. (For example, several High Schools in Peoria share the same stadium - it can be done.)

Also, with all the teardowns, homes in my neighborhood, more than I can count, are generating 4 to 5 times more real estate taxes than they used to. I think the money is already there.

Plus, no one has justified to me why we're spending $3M on Astroturf? Or are they going to raise ticket prices too? What other fluff is in there?

So I'll vote "No", because even if the referendum doesn't pass there will still be renovations and perhaps the Board will focus on what's really needed and drop the fluff.

Thom Higgins -

Since you don't believe that certain critics of 203 represent the mainstream ideals of the district, just what makes you think your ideals are in the mainstream? I’m not trying to be judgmental, just letting you know it sounds elitist.

I'm not a big Davitt fan, but in between some of his overblown rhetoric he makes some good points (emphasis on some). Taxes just keep increasing and increasing. At some point, the district has to learn to live within its means.

I understand that $72 million is available from other sources and $43 million more is sought. Was a study done about what could be done for the cash available right now? This is still a staggering sum.

And don’t tell me how it’s only $82 a year, or one Big Mac a week, bla bla bla. I’m tired of getting nickel and dimed to death.

T.B.

No.

Did anyone else actually look at the wording of the referendum? Tehre is nothing in it to preclude bond premiums.

I took several tours, and I bnelieve there is work to be done.

However, I also believe the $72,000,000.00 available to the District, along with the tens of millions of expected extra State funding, savings from enrollment drops of 11%, and new construction which are NOT in the current projections of $72 mil are MORE THAN ENOUGH to renovate (NOT rebuid) Central.

Some of my neighbors have told me they may vote yes, but aren't sure, because they want it for their kids and to get good test scores. My usueal reaction is to let them know that if scores are their real concern, they should take a look at Benet (with test scores SIGNIFICANTLY higher than either 203 school) and their very responsible remodel undertaking. Exact same major issues as Central, but at a fraction of the cost and timeframe! Yowsay!

So, NO!

No! No! No!

They need to cut costs like all businesses do.

Back to the Napergate thread for me and I hope you all vote NO!

Regarding this by Dan Denys,

Our school board has not said no to premium bonds, they laughed during the presentation on the cost to the taxpayer.

Thom Higgens said there would be no premium bonds. He is not the school board. We are in the same boat as you.

No,No, No!

For those of you with a strong stomach I commend the Sun’s earlier thread., “How will you vote on D203’s referendum, to see Mr. Denys mendacity in it’s full splendor. But if you have better things to do, go here,

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

Go to page 41 and read question 5. You will see then Mr. Denys nose continues to grow here in this new thread. And because I have a reputation for long posts and I really enjoyed writing this one here is a reprise of a post I did regarding the laughing school board.

This first paragraph is one of Mr. Denys typical posts.

To Ted’s question about trust. You quote Dave Zager and the document. Yes, they show $83. But remember, the Board made a point on 12/3 to DISAVOW these numbers. And again, I was told they were laughing when they did this. (We are trying to get the tape from NCTV, I would like to see this first hand.)
If they truly wanted trust on this issue, they should have passed a resolution stipulating to Dave's terms. THEY DID NOT!!!!
Remember, Dave's predecessor, Allen Albus, was quoted 49 times in the local press saying that the increase was $511. Now, Suzyn Price and Dean Reshcke DISAVOW that number. Dave’s words and documents are not binding.
WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THEM NOW?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

This is me now

Ok what are the problems here?

The board made the point to DIASVOW these numbers?

The evil Board was laughing as they did it?

We’ll get that tape and show they were laughing. Laughing!!, at their evil scheme to defraud the taxpayer in public, on tape, with the press there!

1-31-08 Still waiting on that tape Dan!

They didn’t pass a resolution stipulating to Dave’s terms?

The dastardly Price, and Reshcke DISAVOWED that number?
All this with much exclamation and FULL CAPS TO SHOW HOW OUTRAGED I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The press was there. If what Dan claims occurred here is what Waldorf’s article would have said:

In a stunning display of indifference District 203 board members laughed as Dave Zager Supt. of Finance begged the board to only ask of $43 million in the upcoming referendum

District 203’s school board last night, led by School Board President Suzyn Price and aided by her hand picked union crony Dean Reshcke openly mocked at the notion of guaranteeing the referendum request would be only $43 Million as Dave Zager stood by helplessly watching.

Proceedings were halted temporarily while the board attempted to regain their composure after commenting that the public was going to be really shocked when they find out its really going to be triple the amount as Mike Davitt had exposed in a letter to the editor in the Sun recently. The laughing went on for approximately 5 minutes and only ended when another board member indicated his concern that Davitt somehow uncovered their dastardly plan. It was then overheard that Price whispered to another board member that she was going to speak to her Union controller and ask if they could break into Davitt’s office and bug his phone so they can find out who leaked the plan.

The meeting adjourned at 9:52, after Dave Zager pleaded for the board to please, please just this once, don’t rip off the residents. He we told to take his spreadsheet, use it as a handkerchief, and go back to his hole.

If Waldorf reported this I missed it. But of course we all know what Dan claimed didn’t happen.

New thread here, Same old Dan Denys.

My apologies to the Sun for making such a long post here.

Sad in 204

I mis-spoke regarding the fed funds rate cut. They do not have an impact on long term bonds such as what 203 is issuing, so the 2 percentage point drop is incorrect.

However, the The Bond Buyer's 20 bond index (a standard gauge for municipal bonds) is down to 4.15% this week from 4.39% last week. This still represents about a 1 percentage point reduction from the Districts projected interest rate. Further thanks to the Districts excellent fiscal management the bonds will be AAA rated possibly, if not AA1-2. These will be very desirable issues as so much of the bond market is in turmoil due to the sub-prime mess.

Message to Thom,

We personally talked about the laughing and you acknowledged that they did laugh. Instead of your disertations, tell everyone on the blog why they laughed. You have their first hand information.

So don't deny that they laughed when you admitted such to me. And let the readers get a laugh out of the reason you told me.

And if you don't want to tell everyone, then just drop comments that I made this up.

Here's the referendum wording:

Shall the Board of Education of Naperville Community Unit School District Number 203, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois, build and equip additions to and alter, repair and equip the Naperville Central High and Mill Street Elementary School Buildings; alter, repair and equip other school buildings of said School District, including the Naperville North High School Building; build and equip an early childhood school building; improve the sites thereof; and issue bonds of said School District to the amount of $43,000,000 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof?

Central needs to be torn down or repaired, BUT having been a lifelong resident I think we deserve to know where our money is going before we approve this. This referendum seems to be going very fast without many facts. Where are the final plans? Seems backwards to ask for money and the community not know where the money is directly going. Did this not happen at Central already with the pool and fieldhouse? Is the entire staff happy with this? I have heard from teachers that say vote no; This plan is not meeting all their needs. If staff is saying vote no why are we voting yes? Let's get this right. I would pay more money to make this right despite what certain district administrators think. This community WILL support the school system. Give us a chance BUT DO IT RIGHT!

District 203 already has the funds buried in its budget for the maintenance and remodeling requested. Property Taxes will be rising at least 10-15% based on a recent review of the property assessment increases mailed out to all home owners. On top of that there will be an addition amount for each year and inceasing throughout the 20 years proposed. It would be safe to say that the referendum will effectively along with ongoing increases double the property tax bill in less than ten years.VOTE YES for higher taxes and less accountabiltiy.

Anonymous Please try these links, It's all there.

http://www.buildthefuture203.org/index.php

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

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/

I was riding through a couple of the Tear Down neighborhoods last week and realized that eliminating the older,smaller homes is the best thing for Naperville. When it comes to the tearing down of my home I think the City will have accomplished its mission. Get rid of the lower economic classes, get rid of the elderly and let's get on with the process of making Naperville a real high end jewel. As for the schools. Just remember that there are those who DO, those who Teach and those who can't teach,teach GYM. To think I would all year long and have to fund my own retirement.

Stanley,

You are incorrect. We are operating under the PTEL caps. While your assessment my have gone up 10-15%, your property taxes can only go up at the rate of inflation or CPI (with some slight variation). If you look at your previous years tax bills you will see the tax rate has dropped the last few years, to account for the higher assessed valuation.

When we were operating under the 2002 referendum for years 2001-thru 2004, it was a different case. But your 2005 and 2006 tax bill should have shown modest increase over the 2004 tax bill, unless your did some work on the house.

You should call the Naperville or Lisle Township Assessors Office for verification.

So can anyone tell me how spending over $3M on Astroturf helps education? Why do we need a hot lunch program for the grammar schools, with the food prepared at NCHS? That sounds like a logistical nightmare and long term cost. And why 5 years is too long if it's the difference between doing the right thing versus just doing something, anything, now.

I honestly think that people who really care about education in Naperville will vote "No" on this plan.

The Poll question is worded rather poorly; "Will you vote for the Dist. 203 referendum?" It would read better as "HOW will you vote on the Dist. 203 referendum?"

When I read it my first thought was "YES, I'm going to vote for (on) the referendum. I'm going to vote "No".

Please note that the referendum wording does NOT preclude bond premiums OR ensure it will be "fixed" debt financing. Of course, we have their "word" that both issues are covered.

This is the type of stuff that drives me crazy! They could have worded it as such, but now it just makes me wonder why they didn't.

When I temper (or inflame) this with the 2002 referendum screw-up, I cannot see why some are defending them so!

Anonymous

If you will go here you will see in writing that you are incorrect. The district will not be issuing premium bonds.

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

Go to page 41 and read question 5.

Tell you what, if they issue premium bonds I will donate to a legal fund to sue the district.

But that's a safe bet on my part. Anyone want to bet they will issue them? the loser makes a donation to charity?

Sorry all,

I was posting from my laptop. The 5:23pm post was mine and I didn't have the computer set up to remember me.

This said as I await all of those doubting Thomas's that want to take me up on my wager!

Step right up!

If it's not in the referendum language there is no legal ground to sue. They can say whatever they want in the FAQs but it's only binding if it's in the referendum language.

A couple of people have questioned installing synthetic turf (not Astroturf!) at the football stadium. I wondered about this too, until I took one of the tours of NCHS. Apparently, the school is about to lose a couple of practice fields that it has been leasing from the cemetery. So the football field is going to have to do triple duty for sports, PE and band.

To Dan Denys and all readers,

cross posted on the "How will you vote in D203's referendum" thread.

I will contact the district offices and request a statement be made, on the record, regarding both the issue of the projection balances, and the issue of the $43 million in bonds.

I will also make the statement in advance that the bonds will not be premium bonds, and the analysis that I have offered regarding the projection balances are correct.

Shall someone agree to meet me at district offices, or will posting it here be acceptable?

Please advise me by posting a response here.

Okay, so it's "synthetic turf" instead of "Astroturf". It's still over $3M for something we don't need. But if it's because NCHS is losing practice fields then tell me why we need it at BOTH NCHS and NNHS?

I'll listen to a good reason, a business case, but the district never makes one.

Also, about the practice fields. You're being snookered. You may have taken a tour, but I've had kids go through the NCHS and lived nearby for 17 years. Take a look from Google maps, click on satellite and zoom into the school. See that field across West street. It's the soccer fields that you don't notice because it's surrounded by trees. See how much larger it is than the field that we're "losing". How often do you think all those fields are being used at the same time? Based on all the times I drive by there, I'd say not very often.

Also, I looked up "synthetic turf", here are the pros and cons from Wikipedia. It's not as "low maintenance" as you might think. And, considering we just had a MRSA event this school year, why would we spend millions installing a product in our schools that increases the liklihood of infections?

Again, beyond just the turf issue, I believe the people who really care about education and who've studied the issues will vote "No" for this plan.

Advantages
+ Artificial turf can be a better solution when the environment is particularly hostile to natural grass. An arid environment or one where there is little natural light are examples.
+ Ideal for holiday homes when maintenance of lawns is not practical. It is also a solution for elderly homeowners who find the upkeep of lawns too much hard work.
+ Suitable for roof gardens and swimming pool surrounds.
+ Artificial turf pitches can last up to ten years.
+ Some artificial turf systems allow for the integration of fiber-optic fibers into the turf. This would allow for lighting or advertisements to be directly embedded in a playing surface, or runway lighting to be embedded in artificial landing surfaces for aircraft.[5]

Disadvantages
- The abrasions caused by artificial turf have been linked to a higher incidence of MRSA infections [6].
- Some artificial turf requires infill such as silicon sand and/or granulated rubber made from recycled car tires. This material may carry heavy metals which can leach into the water table.[7]
- Periodic disinfection is required as pathogens are not broken down by natural processes in the same manner as natural turf. This notwithstanding, recent studies suggest certain microbial life is less active.[8]
- Turf toe is a medical condition which is often associated with playing on artificial turf pitches.
- Friction between skin and artificial turf causes abrasions and/or burns to a much greater extent than natural grass.[8] This is an issue for some sports: for example, football in which sliding maneuvers are common and clothing does not fully cover the limbs.

As for the teardowns: With all those new houses generating 4 to 5 times the taxes of the homes they replaced, our taxes should be DROPPING, not going up!

There is plenty of money to fix up the schools and do an excellent job without raising taxes.

As for people saying great schools raise property values. That's great! My reward for high property values is higher taxes. High property values only help people who are going to sell and leave Naperville. Those of us who're in for the long haul don't get anything... well, except higher taxes.

I am not saying they will, I am only saying that despite all the rhetoric about they won't, they are unwilling to put it in writing!

I am certainly a doubting Thomas!

As for the being upfront vs. being legal, the board will go with legal. When they wanted to raise the driver's education fee from the Illinois mandated $50 to $250, they did the bare minimum to notify residence of their chance to address the Board on the issue. That amounted to a small ad in the Legal Notices section of the paper. Even though they had the email system set up at the time, there was no email sent to parents. No notice sent home with students. By the time most of us knew what happened it was too late. God bless the one man who saw the notice and went to the meeting to complain. BTW, as it was characterized to me later when I complained "Well, we had a public meeting and only one person came." Without mentioning that the only notice was that small classified ad, which is all the law requires.

As for being in touch with the world, they're not. I was at a School Board meeting last year during the discussions about returning some of the overtaxes. When Jim Caulfield said residents were feeling stretch and some were suffering foreclosures, Suzyn Price scoffed. Sadly, he was right and was seeing the beginning of a trend that we all recognize today. And now, he's off the Board and she's President.

So if you think the Board is in touch with reality or cares about whether or not you might need that tax money for yourself, then think again. From all the Board meetings I've been to, they're generally just a rubber stamp on whatever the Administration wants to do.

As for sending money to a group that's done such a poor job maintaining our current schools, it's just throwing good money after bad.

And all this from a guy that supports building a new NCHS. But this seems like a bad plan, and I'll vote "No"

If anyone wants to talk about D203 finances then I urge you go here,

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/costperformance_mediasurvey.shtml

When you consider our students’ academic achievement record, the amount NCUSD 203 spends per student is an absolute bargain.

By every measure I've seen (some of which are detailed below), there is only one conclusion: NCUSD 203 excels in educating our children—and at a lower cost than any other highly achieving school district. The only schools that do better in the various academic benchmarks are admissions-based Chicago Public Schools college prep academies, schools that spend a boatload more than NCUSD 203.

We stand alone in dollars spent for ACT score achieved. The statement that 203 overcharges us on our taxes is simply not true.

As the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/documents/costperactreadiness_v2080128-2.pdf

We will soon find out if District 203 voters are as uninformed as those of District 204. Do voters require accountability or do they merely throw money whenever a school board says gimme, gimme. Vote NO!

The chart doesn’t show high ACT scores, it shows “ACT College Readiness Requirements”. What does that mean? Sounds fairly basic, must be if we’re only spending $100 per student to meet it.

Anyway, this notion that we spend less than average is a dangerous argument. It creates spiral increases.

With the cat out of the bag so to speak. In regards to the condition of Central. I do not know how anyone could vote no and hold your head up with pride. With the housing market back to 2002 prices, the community wants to vote no? If this does not pass what will the pricing fall to them?? Shut up about the teachers. Would any of you like to work in the central locker room area for twenty five years. Possibly to develope cancer as well? We expose our children to conditions of mold, asbestos, overcrowding, possible electric fire. If you put the school out of the building and incorparated your one place of employment YOU ALL WOULD SHOUT CONDEMN THIS BUILDING!!!! Shut up about the taxes. Naperville pays less taxes than any of the surrounding suburbs. So you are living in a deal town.

VOTE YES!!!!!!!!!! With pride! Just remember if you expect to move or die between now and 20 years you should vote Yes!

Renovations will happen even if you vote "No"; we already paid for those.
Unless you're saying the District will punish us for not voting in the full package.

jhu here's the link for the ACT college readiness score

http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/benchmarks.pdf

Central needs major work, that and other needs, necessitates the $43 million additional. please read the following,

http://www.qe203.org/20080205referendum/thecaseforcentral.shtml

It lays it all out for you.

HERE WE GO!!!!!

The scare tactics have officially begun!

Now Dawnd wants us all to believe that our little children will get CANCER if they attend Central! If not cancer, AT LEAST abestos a and/or mold poisoning. Oh My! Oh My! [see her post, 10:26 am, 2/2/08].

Like, Oh My Gosh! I heard that there is, like, a one-armed man with a hook for, like, a hand, that wanders the halls of Central and, like, you know, murders students! Like, really, and he is like, an employee hired by, like, the guy who was like on the Tax ticket thing!!! OMG!!!!

Do I have this right?

Some of you WANT to pay more taxes just because other districts pay more and get less? Is this some strange "big swinging you know what" thing where you want to prove we have as much money as these other districts AND we are as stupid as them?

VOTE "NO" 203!

Response of Dave Zager Assistant Superintendent of Finance District 203 responding to e-mail inquiries by Tim Waldorf Education Reporter of the Naperville Sun.

These questions were from Tim Waldorf received on (01-30-2008):

Dave Zagers responses are in Italics.

Tim, from your e-mail:

“The District is projecting ongoing annual budget surpluses through 2013-2014, even with the $154 million of Operations and Maintenance expenses and $60 million Site and Construction expenses it anticipates paying from its operations budget between now and then. And, once annual revenues exceed expenses in 2013-2014, the district’s projected cumulative surplus of roughly $40 million is expected to keep it out of the red until 20__.”

OK. I am guessing that a lot of this is based on our 2007-08 budget document and the financial projections in that document. I think your $154 million is the projection in Operations and Maintenance from 2008-09 through 2013-14 – or 6 years (roughly $25.5 million per year). The Site and Construction $60 million is the amount shown in 2008-09 through 2010-11.

This latter amount is included in the $114.9 million. At the time this document was created (April of 2007) the recommended plan from the Task Force was a total package of $100 million. $60 million of this was to be a combination of the $36 million bonds funded by Cantera and $24 million from other sources (Walnut Woods sale, operating surpluses, Land Cash, etc.). This $60 million is the amount you see in the Site and Construction Fund expenditures. The additional $40 million was to be referendum approved bonds.

After this document was created – in fall of 2007 – the Facilities Project was revised to a total of $114.9 million and funded as detailed in all of the District referendum documents, including an additional $9.2 million provided from operating budget surplus.

Please note that the additional funding that went into this package also cut into those annual operating surpluses that were projected.

So a few corrections to your sentence above (I’ll base everything off that projection from April, 2007 – although I am in the midst of doing a new projection right now):

The operating budget was projected to be balanced through 2012-13, with 2013-14 being the first year that expenses exceeded revenue. The cumulative balance at 2012-13 would be projected at $29.6 million (the number in the document is $38.8 million – then subtract the $9.2 million = $29.6 million). I am currently revising the financial projection so I expect that to change again (Interest income will be reduced - so I expect revenue to be down a little. (Dave Zager indicated to me this number is approx $ 8 million based on projected interest rates and the current lower interest rates, TH 2-01-08) At the same time, we have reduced expenditures through new labor contracts and health insurance contracts).

a. The “$60 million” in the Site and Construction Fund is not in addition to the $114.9 million facilities package.

b. Your second e-mail about an additional $36 million is incorrect. ALL of the Site and Construction money is already in the $114.9 million facilities plan.

c. The projected (financial projection document of April, 2007) $154 million over the next six years includes all costs of operating, maintaining, repairing the District facilities. Included in that figure is about $6.5 million every year for major repairs and renovations. If the referendum were to pass and Naperville Central High School and Mill Street School are remodeled and renovated as planned, some of the repairs that are detailed in the District’s Five Year Plan and outlined in the District Wide Physical Facility Survey would be done in those projects. This would free up some of the annual budget for major repairs and renovations in the Operations and Maintenance Fund so that some of the Phase II projects could be done.

d.. As far as the fund balance keeping us out of the red – let’s say until 2014-15 (maybe even 2015-06) given the additional use of fund balance for the $114.9 million project.

I always remind everyone that the financial projection is NOT a budget. I always stress that the “Financial Projection – Trends and Assumptions” includes a three page explanation as well as the “numbers.” In that explanation (and I quote),”on a practical basis the meaningful years are the current year budget plus an additional three years. Beyond that, there is little meaningful information to form the basis of the projection.”

Tim, I think there has been some talk that the District would not need to issue the referendum bonds – there is plenty of money in future fund balances. First of all, maintaining some amount of fund balance is advisable. For example, the City of Naperville has a similar size budget to the School District and maintains over $30 million in balance. This ensures adequate cash to satisfy obligations without resorting to short term borrowing (such as Tax Anticipation Warrants) and is a source of funds if property taxes are delayed or state payments are delayed (as happened this year).

Second, the projections are just that – projections. The District has committed future funds for the next three years toward these projects. The District has committed future funds to be generated when the Cantera TIF expires. There is a balance that must be struck between minimizing additional taxpayer dollars (through the referendum) and maintaining a reasonable financial position so that the future of the District is not jeopardized.

Thom Higgins here. So any reader here will see that the $39 million, 2012 projected surplus, as offered in the April 07 budget papers, has been reduced by $9 million as I stated previously. Mr. Denys is incorrect again. Further as I have indicated there will be an additional $8 million loss in interest income if current conditions hold! Time will tell and the variables are numerous. Again these are projections, 5 years in advance. To claim that it is a certainty are guaranteed to have these funds is disingenuous to my mind

Regarding this,

Do I have this right?

Some of you WANT to pay more taxes just because other districts pay more and get less? Is this some strange "big swinging you know what" thing where you want to prove we have as much money as these other districts AND we are as stupid as them?

There has been some people making charges that 203 taxes too much, and the board is fiscally irresponsible.

The Herald and Chicago magazine studies prove that is false. My point is 203 is a bargain compared to other districts, and the needs are real and legitimate. Asking for $100.00 a year for all that want to accomplish is a reasonable request, and I expect the results of the Sun poll, 63% Yes, 37% No, will be borne out on Tuesday.

To all,

I am financial person. Thom "Bill Clinton" Higgins confuses me, but then he is a salesman.

HOCUS POCUS DOMINOCUS (another fellow Democrat--Harold Washington)

2008 Projection in 2005

$3 million

Actual planned

$40 million per budget, sounds like $49 million now.

Dave's numbers are simple, Thom's confusing.

Thom don't "PITCH" me on being poor. Manage enrollment and keep costs to inflation (everyone else is below) and their would be $200 million by 2012.

Thom - I appreciate the reference to the web site, but it doesn't lay everything out. I'll tell you why, but first some background so you understand I'm not just a naysayer. When others were arguing with the Board to return the overcollected taxes, I was the one citizen in the room that said, "Keep the taxes, but fix up the schools."

What I object to is that the renovation plan approved by the task force intentionally didn't require a referendum. It appears a lot of "stuff" has gotten included in the renovation plan now. Since I don't have time (and I doubt I have access) to the detailed plan, I can only point to apparent "fluff" like the synthetic turf that will cost over $3M (to do NCHS & NNHS) and may require more maintenance over its 10 year life than we think. On that one, I'm primarily concerned about the increased incidence of MRSA infections from artificial turf - especially since we already had one outbreak at NCHS. That's a lot to spend without some due diligence.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/5/468

Thom,

Very Clintonesque. You have learned well from the master.

Here is the classroom size summary from the blog.

QUESTION

Does Heally Bender specifically detail a classroom size standard for their $350,000?

ANSWER

Can’t find it. District refuses to provide it when asked. And Thom it is not in the 21 binders.

QUESTION

(Posed by Dan for fairness) What are the size of GENERAL CLASSROOMS (not science labs and gyms that Thom has cited) in other schools--say---North? (Remember, if Heally Bender did their job, there would not be a need for any more questions.)

ANSWER

District once again refuses to reply. Thom says, larger. Source: Unknown.

QUESTION

If we got the space capacities, do 75% of the classrooms exceed the 1,100 planned for Central? For that matter, do 75% exceed 750 square feet.

ANSWER

District again refuses to reply. Thom says space plans are irrelevant since they are for safety matters. HUH? If they say a class can hold 100 children at 7 square foot per child, you can calculate the square footage. If it is like other construction plans I reviewed, it probably has the dimensions noted.

QUESTION

Tom, do 75% of the classrooms at some representative schools exceed 750 square feet? (Now we are doing Heally Benders work for free.)

ANSWER

A list of schools with numbers. No source, no documentation. AND THE CLINTON MANEUVER--YOU prove ME wrong.

With all due respect, I was trying to grasp the reasonableness of the proposal based on the information provided. DISTRICT RESPONSE, SILENCE. Thom, a salesman, is the surrogate FINANCE AND ARCHITECT expert of the Distirct. Sorry Thom, I will listen to your sales pitch, but you cannot replace the MISSING EXPERTS.

Tuesday will tell if the VOTERS have enough information.

One other point.

District 203 TAXES are second highest in DuPage County, only 204 is higher.

I agree with the previous post, we should spend more to be as inefficient as the most wasteful districts in the state? I hear another referendum for MORE MONEY!!!!!!!

Comments on Naperville Central High School room size and renovation

NOTE: posted previously on the "will you vote for d203's referendum" thread. Mr Denys has responded here on this thread today at 1:34. So readers understand the context I post it here with my response to Mr. Denys below in a separate post.

Dan Denys, and Mike Davitt have made repeated claims claiming that the renovations for Central would result in a TAJ Mahal. Let’s look at the facts.

Over the last few days I have been studying the space plan provided to me by Wight and Assoc., the architects District 203 chose to prepare the preliminary plans.

Here is what I found.

There is approximately 171,307 square feet that will remain essentially untouched or will have minor renovations. The largely untouched areas are the theater, the pool area and various gyms, all of recent construction, and it also includes a number of storage areas and hallways. The industrial technology and business classrooms and labs, also of newer construction, will receive minor renovations. This is one of the ways we get an updated modern facility, but at a lower cost than a new school., This shows sound decision making.

I am pleased to see that almost all the classrooms will be new or remodeled. They all will be larger and the school will have a number of new labs. For example, foreign language and math labs which are large rooms with computer stations. In the same way the English department will have some larger rooms to accommodate the technology needed to write and produce documents, web pages, etc. The days of students writing with just pens at their desks are ove.

So, what about the size of the classroom rooms?

Most of the core curriculum classrooms (science, math, english, foreign language, and social studies) reside in renovated and new areas resulting in differently sized classrooms. Ultimately, this will be to the district's advantage as they will be able to place programs based on their space needs, technology, instructional approach. This will provide enhanced flexibility for room utilization.

Dan Denys has outspokenly labeled the renovation as being excessive and unnecessary. On 1-17-08, he equated the standard for the amount of space a student needs to safely exit a room (18 s.f.) to the standard for how much space a student should be provided for instructional purposes. He incorrectly claimed that the existing classrooms (at 650 s.f.) are 167% larger than they have to be and to enlarge them further would be an unnecessary luxury. A Taj Mahal in his and Mr. Davitt’s words.

Mr. Denys used an irrelevant standard as the basis of his argument thereby rendering that argument invalid.

So what classroom standard is Wight Architects using? They are using the accepted 30 s.f. per student standard (Council of Educational Facility Planners International) and basing the classroom size on 26 students per room, for a total of 780 sf. I need to correct an earlier comment about this issue: I thought they were building to a 30 student classroom population, not 26.

The general education traditional lecture classrooms are mostly in a newly constructed wing and are 775 s.f. for the most part. The english classrooms will average 802 s.f.. I do not have a classroom by classroom breakdown, but my expectation is they also will be predominately 775 s.f. each, with some larger ones in the mix, too.

This conflicts with some higher numbers that have been discussed and this is where understanding the complexity of a modern school comes in. For example, the English lecture classrooms will average 802 s.f., but add in the 3 labs or centers, as the architect labels them, and you have a 912 s.f. average. Which number is correct? They both are. But, you need to know what the numbers represent to understand them.

The district has used the 900s.f. figure, based on including the larger spaces, in some of their communications as it is more illustrative of the increase in space over the existing classrooms.

So, how does this compare to Naperville North HS, for example? If you take all their classrooms and average them out, you get 875 s.f. If you take only the traditional, lecture style, gen ed classrooms, it is 720 s.f.

Let’s look some general ed traditional lecture classrooms in newly constructed schools.

Metea (in planning), projected to be 840 s.f. (28 students per room standard?)
Neuqua 840 s.f. (28 student per classroom standard?)
Waubonsie 780 s.f. (26 students per classroom standard?)
Oswego East HS’s either 928 or 960 s.f. (30 Students per classroom standard?)
Plainfield North 751s.f. (25 students per classroom stated standard)
CUSD 300 Hampshire, IL 825 s.f.

These are not averages, you will find in modern hs’s that all gen ed classes are the same size.

As you see above, the size of the room is only part of the story. The next part is how many students are in each classroom. The architect for Plainfield North told me it was designed to a 25 student per classroom standard. Oswego’s larger rooms are, I believe, designed to a larger student per classroom standard (30?) and then with some added space to boot, I bet.

So in the end, I can say that, the size of the rooms are appropriate considering the demands of 21st century technology, and the many and varied classes students take.
As they are being designed to a 26 student per class standard, the design is in accord with the demographic projections calling for Centrals enrollment to decline slightly in the coming years.

Further, I feel the desire by the district to be fiscally conservative coupled with the fact that there is not a logical alternative site for a new high school, the decision to renovate Naperville Central high school is a sound one. Please click on the following link for a detailed discussion regarding why the scope of the renovation needs to be so extensive.

http://www.qualityeducation203.org/20080205referendum/thecaseforcentral.shtml

Finally this,

On 1-25-08 Mr. Denys challenged me thusly,
My plain statement. If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet (note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA. Posted by: Dan D. | January 25, 2008 07:28 AM

Mr. Denys can easily verify all this information. Absent him offering proof to the contrary, I will be expecting his letter to the Sun and QE203.org shortly.

Posted by: Thom Higgins | January 31, 2008 09:41 PM

Responding to Dan Denys,

Does Heally Bender specifically detail a classroom size standard for their $350,000? ANSWER Can’t find it. District refuses to provide it when asked. And Thom it is not in the 21 binders.

Classic Dan Denys obfuscation. It wasn’t for HB to detail classroom size. It was for the Architect Wight, and they did so. The district has not refused to provide this information. Please show your proof where the district refused to provide it.

(Posed by Dan for fairness) What are the size of GENERAL CLASSROOMS (not science labs and gyms that Thom has cited) in other schools--say---North? (Remember, if Heally Bender did their job, there would not be a need for any more questions.) ANSWER District once again refuses to reply. Thom says, larger. Source: Unknown.

I have the size of every classroom at North and a layout of the rooms. As I indicated earlier, the average of all classrooms at North is 875 s.f. and the average of the gen ed classrooms is 720 s.f.. I can easily arrange a tour on Monday. Will you come and verify my facts with me? We can use your tape measure.

If we got the space capacities, do 75% of the classrooms exceed the 1,100 planned for Central? For that matter, do 75% exceed 750 square feet. ANSWER District again refuses to reply. Thom says space plans are irrelevant since they are for safety matters. HUH? If they say a class can hold 100 children at 7 square foot per child, you can calculate the square footage. If it is like other construction plans I reviewed, it probably has the dimensions noted.

I have an the space program for Central, you don’t. I find it amusing that you are the expert. Do 75% of the classrooms average over 750 s.f? YES., and I can prove it to you if you cared, your 75% over 1,100 question ? NO . For the record I never said the space plan is irrelevant, and you are simply doing your pale Ali imitation here bobbing and weaving, The rest of your statement is nonsense. You want proof? I can arrange a meeting with Wight to discuss their plans for Central.

QUESTION Tom, do 75% of the classrooms at some representative schools exceed 750 square feet? (Now we are doing Heally Benders work for free.) ANSWER A list of schools with numbers. No source, no documentation. AND THE CLINTON MANEUVER--YOU prove ME wrong.

I will provide written documentation and can arrange tours of the schools. Will you have the integrity to write the letter to the Sun if I provides same? What is your schedule Monday?

With all due respect, I was trying to grasp the reasonableness of the proposal based on the information provided. DISTRICT RESPONSE, SILENCE. Thom, a salesman, is the surrogate FINANCE AND ARCHITECT expert of the Distirct. Sorry Thom, I will listen to your sales pitch, but you cannot replace the MISSING EXPERTS.

Classic Dan Denys, all accusations and no follow through. Had Mr. Denys cared he could of asked last week to meet with me and we could have gone over this, and meet with he various professionals, instead he hides behind his keyboard, types this drivel, and hopes no one notices his mendacity.

Regarding this by Dan Denys,

To all, I am financial person. Thom "Bill Clinton" Higgins confuses me, but then he is a salesman.

Perhaps it would be helpful for the readers to understand your “Financial Background”

http://www.qe203.org/denysifabondfailure.shtml

Readers will find an excerpt of a Bloomberg article and a link to the full article last updated on Dec 6th 2006 and still live.

In addition, at the bottom of the page are links to the IRS findings in their Proposed Letter of Determination, Closing Agreement and press release. Note that NTN (Dan Denys and Warren Matha, principals) were renting space within the George K. Baum Co. at the time.

NO! HOLD SUPERINTENDENT ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS

When I read about holes in the roof of NCHS and lockers falling out of the walls - I have to ask the question - If the money is there - (And it is) why have these repairs not already taken place? Is the Superintendant deliberately leaving these items undone so as to manipulate the vote? Mr Superintendent: Fix Central Now! Start Today! Stop gaming the taxpayers of Naperville!

To All,

My original comment on January 25, 2008 @ 7:28 AM

“If Thom can note that 75% of the general classrooms in these schools are greater than 750 square feet (note I am not using the 900 square feet the district is proposing), I will ask the Sun to publish an article stating that the reconstruction of the exiting space to increase the classroom size is reasonable. Thom, I will give you a letter to post on QE203. We will post the info on WDTA.”

After thousands of words, Thom says the following today (February 1, 2008 @ 4:33 PM)

“I have the size of every classroom at North and a layout of the rooms. As I indicated earlier, the average of all classrooms at North is 875 s.f. and the average of the gen ed classrooms is 720 s.f.”

I do not need to consult a math genius; it is IMPOSSIBLE for 75% of the GENERAL EDUCATION classrooms to be greater than 750 square feet if the average is 720.

Thom has addressed my comment and CONFIRMED MY SUSPICIAN. No letter will be needed.

ASKED AND ANSWERED!

Dan D.

PS Amazing how Thom can get all of this information and the District cannot respond to our questions. I will post the link for all of you to review.

Capital Questions

http://www.mediafire.com/?9lzyvy2cxm5

Operations questions (we get new gobblygook EVERY DAY!!)

http://www.mediafire.com/?2twlz1zmwb2