D204 superintendent fires back in 3rd HS controversy

I think it's great that Dr. Daeschner finally responded publicly to some of these ridiculous claims by the NSFOC group. The ad in the SUN was yet another alarmist attempt by them. What was spelled out in your article today is the true estimated costs.

It's about time the School District responded to these ridculous claims.

Again folks, there are no PROVEN environmental issues with the site besides a small section of land, that is easily remediated.

And, the math in that ad was laughable.

Good job Dr. D.

So Dr. Daechner is frustrated? Wow, now that is something. Maybe he might be getting some of the same slop he is feeding to the district? As far as I can see, with all the "we believe" in the disricts budget comments, what makes the ad any less credible?
Here are some bits that the district will not say or comment on:

1. They have under priced the cost to clear up the wetlands issue in their budget by using best case numbers. That number will likely go up.
2. The mitigation cost for the Mid Gem clean up will likely go up, up, up. If the enviromental report back on this property were good, Dr. Daechner and Metzger would be doing a Kentucky 2-step in celebration. As these things go, the site is fixable but at a price. They say that the district will not have to pay for clean up? As these things go, the seller will ask the district to help cover the cost of the added clean up or the sale will not be worth the sellers time. The helpless district, so far along in the project, will have no choice but to pay. Who cares....use some of the districts 91 million dollar surplus? Will that show in the Eola budget? Watch!
3. On time bonuses at 5 million? Folks that is just a start! This project has not even started? It will stay at 5 million when pigs fly. When the district realizes they are behind schedule, and there will be, money will be flying. The word out is that they are already tossing out bonuses like drunken sailors. It will continue and get worse. Watch!
4. "We believe there will be no damages on BB"? Currently, the 3 million is only for legal fees. A judge would not be studying this if there were not some damages. Even Metzger bragged that they have 5 million in their "budget". I guess the extra 2 million is not part of the Eola budget? Is it part of their 91 million dollar surplus from over taxation?
5. The sale of the currently owned BB property will offset the cost of Eola. Who really knows this as a certainty? It will not be if "the church" is sold the piece? Likely at a greatly reduced price? Part of a friends to the district sale? If that sale does not happen, what makes the district think they can sell the piece at what they paid for it? They are already betting that the BB piece should not be awarded any damges? Watch!
6. Oh yeah....trust what they say? These people also promised to their graves the BB piece. Fanned out to 25 communities promising the BB site, school, and boundries. How has that panned out?

Dr. Daeshner should not be shocked at what he is seeing and hearing. This is what he did in Louisville. Finally fed up, the Louisville district let him go. Now, regretably, he is our problem. An expensive problem. Watch!

How come there is no mention of redistricting? my wife and I moved to Heatherstone 2 years ago because we wanted our kids ( now at White Eagle) to attend good schools. The price of our home reflected our kids being in district to eventually attend Nequa or Metea. Then, against the dictates of the referendum, the district boundaries change and our kids are slated to attend the very schools that we moved away from. Our home value dropped once due to the real estate bust. After the district announcement, it dropped again. We do not have the money to send our kids to private school and cannot afford to move. Is this what out astronomical property taxes are for? To give District 204 a huge surplus so they can save some money by placing kids at risk at a site that cleary presents environmental risks and breaking faith with many other families ( White Eagle, Tall Grass) by placing their children in schools that are ranked far far below the schools that they thought they were paying for? Is this how Naperville takes care of its own?

I would like to hear what Mr. Daeschner would have to say about saving money if his family were placed in the same situation as ours.

Thank You IPSD!!!!!

End of that argument NSFOC? You're putting out "half truths", or worse yet, completely incorrect information to gain support for your group. Apparently the only way you can do it is to exaggerate costs in your ad and create hysteria over "safety" issues - which will soon be debunked if not completely thrown out of court.

Face it. We all know what you're REALLY concerned about is BOUNDARIES. Stop the charade.

The only way to know if the BB costs are accurate (as provided by Dr. D.) is to wait until the ruling on BB damages is made. To proceed with the Eola purchase without knowing that piece to the puzzle is reckless!

Our school board and their attorneys have a history of mis-reading court rulings. We were shocked by the jury verdict on the BB land, lets not get shocked again by a huge BB damage award!

I urge the Eola supporters to not make the same mistake many people made in relying on and believing the words of MM regarding how sure he was that the jury verdict would be in the districts favor on BB. History has proven that the judgment of our school board should be in question.

Regardless of which site the school is built on I am confident my kids will receive an excellent education in this district. What I am not confident about are the decisions that need to be made by our school board to ensure a fiscally responsible use of my taxdollars.

Thank You Dr. Stephen Daeschner!!! It's about time someone set NSFOC straight. As a school district I wonder why you would even waste your time with a group like the NSFOC and countering their wrong calculations and misinformation. Truth is no one knows what the court will hand down but in all unlikelyhood they won't require the IPSD to purchase the BB land, there is no precedent for that. Take one look at the NSFOC's web site and anyone educated on this issue can see how the NSFOC twists the truth and raise issues on things that have either been answered or addressed in the past. It's is their way of pushing ahead or scaring residents in regards to their frivolous agenda.

Your hard work along with our school board and the long hours you've spent on this project will be well worth it for the whole IPSD. Unfortunately, we still have and will continue to have upset neighbohrs because things didn't go the way "they" wanted. In time hopefully those residents will move on as well and make the best of their situation. I hope they can.

I look forward to the Phase II studies and breaking ground in April.

I can see his point about that ad. It appears that the ad was not truthful and in my opinion hurt NSFOC.
Also why does Dr. D only have a three year contract with the school district?

So the decision to continue with the purchase of EOLA is based on the fact that Dr. Daeschner does not forsee damages from BB (despite an ongoing lawsuit where the Sun reported over 20 million dollars is being sought)?

If I recall correctly, the District did not "forsee" having to pay more than $275,000 per acre for BB (the actual cost is $520,000 per acre, ALMOST TWO TIMES what the District "forsaw").

Not feeling much better about things. Not only do we have multiple boundaries and mutliple referenda, we will now most likely pay (at least partially)for two high school sites.

Not how I want others spending my taxpayer money.

He should resign as should the entire school board. The are incompetent and have mislead the public evey step of the way.

Breath deep the gathering gloom or if you at the Eola site, the PCPs.

Would you build your house on a piece of property surrounded by high voltage power lines and railroad tracks? How about one which you knew to be contaminated and required a superfund clean-up? How about PCP contamination, would that be a problem? Now throw in high pressure gas and hazardous pipelines running under the middle and all around your new piece of property?

Would you build your house on such a piece of property? Of course, you wouldn't.

Then why in the world would be build a school on such a site?

Does the NSFOC really believe they can publish whatever they want in print and on the web and actually believe that the general public won't see through the B.S.? I hope the taxpayers of 204 have the legal right to counter sue NSFOC for all expenses incurred by their temper tantrum.

I guess with "Neighborhood Schools for Our Children" launching of their first ad on page 39 of the Naperville Sun, a tactic was stolen from the Napergate Man's book of ideas to beat the system. Not so simple!

Unfortunately, unlike the Napergate Man, the NSFOC did not do their homework. They were taken apart at the seams and had their credibility shattered by the Superintendent of 204, as soon as the full page ad was published. The Napergate Man always did his homework and his information, data and numbers eventually held up. He reviewed what he wrote and had others vet it out for accuracy!

Forgetting that the BB property actually cost 31 million plus 6.4 million or 37.4 million showed that the NSFOC did not do their homework on its first attempt to mimic the Napergate Man.

Conveniently forgetting the expediated expenses resulting in overtime, apply to both sites equally, was misinformation that also led to a massive failure of credibility.

Doubling the cost of the expediated expenses to speed up construction from 5 million to 10 million was also a ridiculous fairy tale!

Assuming District 204 was going to lose its litigation before it is even launched, is yet another flaw in NSFOC analysis.

Full page ads do not work automatically. They have to be credible. That is why the Napergate Series of Ads worked. They were credible!

I advise and recommend Neighborhood Schools for Our Children attempt to regroup and restart all over again. They need to try it again and understand ads don't work unless they are truthful, credible and sensical. If you are going to copy the Napergate Man mimic him all the way and be CREDIBLE or you will LOSE!

Looks like a big announcement tomorrow night at a special Board meeting (about acquisition of land). Are they finally going to close on land. Anyone have any insight??

Ed,
First of all, White Eagle is in the Aurora City limits, not Naperville. District 204 is not a Naperville school district, it is a district that serves Aurora, Naperville, and Bolingbrook.

One reason we built a home with the builder we used was that they were honest to people about the chances of schools being switched at some point. They pointed out that 204 was a constantly changing district and boundary changes were inevitable and could impact anyone moving into the district at any time. Unfortunately, many builders will sell homes based on the schools they believe that the kids will attend rather than the fact that it could change. We purposely chose not to utilize a builder who in their talk with us said that our kids would be able to attend a school on land in the subdivision. At that point they could not guarantee that a school would ever be built on that site. You have obviously lived in 204 for a while, you should have known that nothing is written in stone with boundaries here. If your builder guaranteed that your kids would attend specific schools, you should take the issue up with them.

Keep in mind Dr. Daeschner chose to move his family into a home where his daughters could attend WV. His junior is at WV while his senior is at the Frontier Campus. Both will be out of school before Metea opens.

Why construct a High School on property having several large diameter DOT Hazardous/Flammable pipelines running through it, having major industrial electrical power lines adjacent to it, and having potential long term safety/environmental concerns resulting from a heavy industrial plant still on the property? Wouldn’t anyone of these unsafe conditions by itself be enough not to purchase such a site? Wouldn’t all three combined together suggest even greater safety risks? Can you imagine all the governmental required warning signs that may need to be posted on the property telling children and parents to avoid flammable, environmental and electrical dangers? We all know that some forms of construction can occur within 25 to 100 feet of pipelines. Do you honestly believe this standard should also be applied to school children? Do you think evacuation thousands of children would be easy should an explosion or fire occur. Why take the chance? I’ve been to the property and its worse than I thought. Does someone really believe it's possible to adequately mitigate away these safety risks?

Our Naperville children and the Naperville/Aurora communities deserve better. I’m surprised a local newspaper hasn’t printed an editorial illustration depicting Naperville/Aurora as a towns willing to school its children on property with such risky conditions.

To Paul W.

"Would you build your house on a piece of property surrounded by high voltage power lines and railroad tracks?"

I live in Oahurst North and although my house is probably 300 yards away and protected by a large hill I'm much closer to BNSF railroad tracks and those are much larger then the E&J tracks which is 1 track. MVHS will be at least 600 yards from those tracks. As far as the high voltage line I believe TG and WE residents are closer to high voltage lines then MVHS would be. MVHS would be close to 300 yards from the high voltage lines. Have you driven to the Eola site and/or looked at the proposed site, there is no danger, no more then Cambridge Chase (neighborhood on Eola, WE or TG.

"How about one which you knew to be contaminated and required a superfund clean-up? How about PCP contamination, would that be a problem?"

Contaminated with what? Have you seen the Phase II reports? The only thing so far they have found is diesel and that is limited. PCP? Has this been shown in an area in which will be used by the school? Please explain to me where you're getting your information, I'm curious?

"Now throw in high pressure gas and hazardous pipelines running under the middle and all around your new piece of property?"

High pressure gas? Yep, that pipeline is about 200 yards from the school (2 football fields). Also know that there are about 12 other schools in the Chicago land area that are actually close to a gas pipeline then MVHS will be.

Hazardous pipelines? Please explain to me what is hazardous? Natural gas is not hazardous. There is a pipeline down the middle of the property which is gas and 200 yards from the school. There are other pipelines to the east which are even farther away.

Please Paul get your facts straight.

If you read between the lines, the price differential between the two properties will all boil down to the settlement. If it is zero, as the district claims, then Eola-Molitor is $17mn cheaper. On the other hand, if it is $17mn, then the price of the two pieces of land is the same, with the Brach-Brodie site having less environmental problems and less community relationship problems since it was the site presented during the ballot period.

I hope everyone understands that the district has to say publicly that it thinks it will 'win' the damage claim by not having to pay anything. That is completely unrealistic, but they'd be killing their own case to say anything different.

The Brach-Brodie lawyers probably went for a damage amount that would make the district indifferent between the two choices. That is a smart legal tactic on their part. Can they really get that? Who knows, but they got pretty much everything they wanted in the first phase of the trial, while the district somehow thought a piece of land would cost half of what the jury determined. Given that this is going back to the same court, I have to think the Brach Brodie people have the upper hand.

This story points out that there is no precedent for a settlement like this. That does not mean that the district will likely not have to pay anything. There is no precedent because government bodies that condemn property don't normally back out. I've never heard of a government backing out of a condemnation case.

What normally happens in a condemnation is that the government body offers 90% of market, the land owner and attorneys ask for 125%. An eventual out-of-court settlement or in-court settlement results in the land being sold to the government for 100-110% of market value at the time the condemnation proceeding started. Normally land prices go up during the condemnation proceeding. That is the first aspect of this particular case that is unusual because in this case land prices have clearly gone down. The second unusual aspect is the fact that the jury didn't find a value in the middle--it sided with the landowner, which suggests that the district's offer wasn't legitimate in the first place. But the fact that the district backed away and didn't purchase the land once the jury ruled is by far the most unusual aspect of the case.

This case has the makings of a Supreme Court classic. Can a government entity make a lowball offer for a property and tie it up in a condemnation proceeding for years, thereby preventing the landowner from either selling or developing her land, and then walk away without penalty? That is the issue at question. I have to believe that the decision will be appealed several times, regardless of how it comes down, because it will set a potentially important precedent. Is the district prepared to pay all of those legal fees? Is that what we the taxpayers would want the district to do with our money?

The NSFOC is right when it says the district would be advised to slow down and not purchase the Eola-Molitor site. I'm sorry Dr. Daeschner, but there is a lot of evidence that the district is a lot better at public relations than due diligence. Can you imagine IPSD-204 buying an environmentally damaged site and then having a court rule that it has to either build on the Brach-Brodie site or pay the Brach-Brodie trusts the whole $17mn savings? That would be as stupid as offering $250/acre for land that is obviously worth over $500/acre. Oh wait, the district did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as short sighted as overestimating HS enrollment by 900 students and elementary enrollment by 2000 students in data released just prior to a referendum. Oh wait, IPSD-204 did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as stupid as not putting in A/C when a building is built and then telling residents that the district would be happy to raise taxes and retro-fit the schools at 7 times the cost of putting it in at construction time. Oh wait, the IPSD-204 did that too.

If you read between the lines, the price differential between the two properties will all boil down to the settlement. If it is zero, as the district claims, then Eola-Molitor is $17mn cheaper. On the other hand, if it is $17mn, then the price of the two pieces of land is the same, with the Brach-Brodie site having less environmental problems and less community relationship problems since it was the site presented during the ballot period.

I hope everyone understands that the district has to say publicly that it thinks it will 'win' the damage claim by not having to pay anything. That is completely unrealistic, but they'd be killing their own case to say anything different.

The Brach-Brodie lawyers probably went for a damage amount that would make the district indifferent between the two choices. That is a smart legal tactic on their part. Can they really get that? Who knows, but they got pretty much everything they wanted in the first phase of the trial, while the district somehow thought a piece of land would cost half of what the jury determined. Given that this is going back to the same court, I have to think the Brach Brodie people have the upper hand.

This story points out that there is no precedent for a settlement like this. That does not mean that the district will likely not have to pay anything. There is no precedent because government bodies that condemn property don't normally back out. I've never heard of a government backing out of a condemnation case.

What normally happens in a condemnation is that the government body offers 90% of market, the land owner and attorneys ask for 125%. An eventual out-of-court settlement or in-court settlement results in the land being sold to the government for 100-110% of market value at the time the condemnation proceeding started. Normally land prices go up during the condemnation proceeding. That is the first aspect of this particular case that is unusual because in this case land prices have clearly gone down. The second unusual aspect is the fact that the jury didn't find a value in the middle--it sided with the landowner, which suggests that the district's offer wasn't legitimate in the first place. But the fact that the district backed away and didn't purchase the land once the jury ruled is by far the most unusual aspect of the case.

This case has the makings of a Supreme Court classic. Can a government entity make a lowball offer for a property and tie it up in a condemnation proceeding for years, thereby preventing the landowner from either selling or developing her land, and then walk away without penalty? That is the issue at question. I have to believe that the decision will be appealed several times, regardless of how it comes down, because it will set a potentially important precedent. Is the district prepared to pay all of those legal fees? Is that what we the taxpayers would want the district to do with our money?

The NSFOC is right when it says the district would be advised to slow down and not purchase the Eola-Molitor site. I'm sorry Dr. Daeschner, but there is a lot of evidence that the district is a lot better at public relations than due diligence. Can you imagine IPSD-204 buying an environmentally damaged site and then having a court rule that it has to either build on the Brach-Brodie site or pay the Brach-Brodie trusts the whole $17mn savings? That would be as stupid as offering $250/acre for land that is obviously worth over $500/acre. Oh wait, the district did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as short sighted as overestimating HS enrollment by 900 students and elementary enrollment by 2000 students in data released just prior to a referendum. Oh wait, IPSD-204 did that. Buying the Eola-Molitor site now would be as stupid as not putting in A/C when a building is built and then telling residents that the district would be happy to raise taxes and retro-fit the schools at 7 times the cost of putting it in at construction time. Oh wait, the IPSD-204 did that too.

Ed showed that this is all about his children going to NVHS.

It doesn't matter if the on time bonuses are $5m or $10m. They apply to either site - Eola and BB. NSFOC pretended that they apply only to Eola.

By WV Mom on March 19, 2008 9:36 AM
Ed,
First of all, White Eagle is in the Aurora City limits, not Naperville.

To WV Mom and everyone else: The south portion of WE, basically south of 87th street line is in the City of Naperville.

Let's see, the district told us we would get the land for under $300,000 per acre, and they were so sure about this that they walked away from an early offer by BB to sell us the land for $420,000/acre. So we spend countless millions on feeble lawyers, and end up with an order to pay over $518,000/acre. Brilliant.

Now Dr. D "believes" that there won't be any walk away costs at BB, and is working full speed ahead to further obligate the taxpayers money without having all the facts in from BB. God forbid they're as right as they were last time. And to top it all off, he's annoyed by all the "misinformation" out there. Gee, maybe that's because he shut down all opportunity for community discussion of this issue. People are forced to discuss it in their own communities passing along the best information they can gather independently.

And speaking of misinformation, how about the pack of lies we've been fed all along by the school board? Freshman campuses would be all we would ever need, vote yes for the referendum and we promise to build on BB we have the money even for the top end, no problem getting the land for our price, don't worry we'll get quick take - we spent more of your money on lobbyists to insure it, We have eliminated the Eola property from consideration due to probility to certainty of EMF problems, Oh wait a minute forget what we told you last year it's fine after all trust us, there is only one pipeline on the property, oh did we forget about the other two? sorry.

PLEASE. Dr. D is only getting some of his own medicine - spread misinformation to get what you want.

So it appears Dr. Daeschner is now selling us on the fact his calculation show that the Eola/Molitor parcel is cheaper. Before, the sales pitch was that we can't afford Brach Brodie and must walk away.

Turns out we are sitting on $91 million and now know that we indeed can afford Brach Brodie.

Here's the biggest problem with telling us that the reason for the site switch is due to the cost differential. We all knew Brach Brodie was more expensive before the referendum. The district's now infamous site selection report pointed it out more than 2 years ago: "The only obvious downside of the [Brach-Brodie] parcel is that the land cost would be relatively high."

So now Dr. Daeschner has torn this district apart to save a few bucks in the short term when the voters agreed that the more expensive property was a better long term solution. Add to that flawed assumptions regarding the real cost of walking away from Brach Brodie as well as the health and safety concerns surrounding Eola/Molitor and it's not even going to be cheaper in the short term.

To WV Mom:

The southern part of WE, basically south of a line extending from 87th street was added to the City of Naperville under ordinances #93-200 and 95-64.

By Anonymous on March 19, 2008 8:44 AM
He should resign as should the entire school board. The are incompetent and have mislead the public evey step of the way.

My response

The NSFOC should resign as should everyone involved with them. They are incompetent and have mislead the public evey step of the way.

Our School District in Court:
You see your honor, we're sorry we can't pay the jury verdict for the Brach Brodie property. It's just too much money. We're so very sorry we kept their land tied up for 2.5 years, but we don't think we should have to pay any damages because of that. Clearly we don't have the money. We only have a $91 million surplus.

Several years ago the SB made the decision to travel down this dark and murky road. The SB hand picked and selected the consultants and gave them their marching orders for the study to justify the need for a fourth HS. Since then the SB has put more spin on this issue than a Washington politician.

And now the SB is upset about a group who would dare spin the "truth" in the opposite direction? Give me a break. Spin is spin. Most of us are smart enough to realize that people on both sides of this issue are going to do their very best to try to convince us that they are right or to otherwise manipulate us into agreeing with their perspective. Somewhere our own intelligence needs to kick in and we need to be responsible for our own conclusions and decisions.

Maybe, just maybe we should go back to square one and start again from the beginning. How many HS students do we need to educate? Were the earlier projections accurate or inaccurate? Is there a bubble or not? What is the most cost effective way to educate these students at present and for the future? Would a reasonable solution be to build additional space and student capacity at all 3 of our existing HS's? Or do we really need a fourth HS? If we agree that a fourth HS is truly needed then what should it look like? How many acres are really needed? If we are buying more than what is needed what can be done to economically dispose of the surplus acreage? How big of a footprint... i.e. one story vs multi-story building? What kinds of amenities... swimming pools, field house, stadium, auditorium, practice fields? Parking lots or parking decks... for how many cars? What kind of interior finishes? Environmental friendly? Energy conservation? Building life cyle?

These are all important questions that speak to what we will get for our tax dollars and most everyone voted for or against the original and second referendum without knowing the answers to the vast majority of these questions.

Maybe, just maybe, before all of us have "buyers remorse" we should learn what the answers to all of these questions? The best decisions are made based upon fact, not emotion. Right now this entire issue is totally fueled by emotion. In so doing the whole concept of need vs. want has been turned upside down. A lot of folks want certain things that tend to be more self-serving than anything else. Let's all step back a few feet and see if we can agree on the facts and what we really need. Life is a compromise and we all should realize that the needs are what are most important. Want are great, but we don't always get what we want.

Higher taxes, a supposed dangerous school site, a supposed incompetent board?

These are all choices here?

Move!!

My children are not effected by the boundary issues in any way, but, my family is effected by our tax dollars being wasted and our quality of life has changed when our community is in the midst of an US versus THEM mentality in a redistricting fight. We have already lost. Now let's look at HOW MUCH versus HOW MUCH MORE? Naperville sun March 19th page 6 'comparing pricing.' Where are the (any) estimated figures in the BB column regarding LS costs & damages? We need to be realistic here people, we didn't think the jury would come back with the #'s they did. So we need to know how much it is really going to cost to pull out of BB.. Bottom line, everything included. To pull out of BB after we sell back the 22 acres we already own. How much will we be ahead or in the hole????? I don't think we can make an educated decision on whether or not to abandon BB. What will the judge/jury award BB in damages/revenue loss. At best we are hedging a bet.
THE NEW SITE: The only thing that concerns me about the new site is the possibility of long term contamination problems. Any future problems with the site will become our (taxpayer) problem. Midwest Generation does cleanup now, EPA says good job, MG take their money and say, see ya. Will there be more contamination? Obviously, the Board, before they had all the information, felt it was worth the risk. What we All, School Board included, need to do is stop, slow down and carefully review all the information. As of today we don't have all the information. Are we saving $17mil - $3mil or are we minus $1mil? I don’t have a crystal ball. I can’t make a decision because I DON’T KNOW.

Quote from sunnews:

But from there down, "it's a whole different ballgame," he said.

Paul W. no I wouldn't build my house around power lines and RR tracks. That's why I DON'T live in WE & Tall Grass.

I hear lots of people who are opposed to the new school asking for a new vote on the referendum because the location is unsafe and they are concerned for the children's safety. I think they are right, there should be a new vote, but the only people that should be allowed to cast a ballot are those whose children will go to Metea. After all, who would care more about the safety of the school than people sending their kids there. As a parent who will be sending my children to Metea, I can assure you I am not the least bit concerned about their safety. In many conversations with my neighbors, I do not beleive any of them are concerned either. I do appreciate my neighbors from the south showing their concern for my kids, but please know us Aurora people can take care of our kids if we thought it necessary.

Thank you NSFOC for dedicating your time and effort to try to get answers as to "IS IT SAFE".

I like the fact that everyone who is against NSFOC can only comment on "Power Lines" in TG and WE and that they want to go to NV. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

First of all, for those of you who are misinformed TG and WE were NEVER going to NV in the first place they were going to MV and they were fine with it.

Second, there is support from around D204 and alot of it, not just TG and WE subdivisions. There may or may not be 100% from every subdivision but is there ever.

Third, Stop looking up at the power lines like the school board would like you to do and start "LOOKING BELOW YOUR FEET"! That is where the REAL problem lies. If your child spends 7 or more hours a day on contaminated property YOUR CHILD WILL BE EFFECTED.

The ground could be serouisly contaminated and you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend otherwise. How many of you who are for the Eola site actually will have kids attending the school?

If so, Why wouldn't you want answers as to "IS IT SAFE!!"

If the NSFOC is trying to make sure that a child will not become seriously ill or die because ground contamination then we should be thankful.

I feel sorry for those of you who are so short sighted that your jealousy for TG and WE rage through your blogs and no I am not from either subdivision. This is not about TG and WE it is about the KIDS coming first something our school board has elected not to do.

I would like the school board to slow down and wait. What's the rush? Usually, you have something to hide when your in that much of a hurry.

To everyone wondering what the Brach Brodie damages are for.

The valuation that the jury awarded Brach Brodie was $518/acre. The valuation date is the date the district filed suit - December, 2005. So they have a judge and jury agreed valuation of $518/acre in Dec. 2005.

To:

All Brach Brodie needs to do is have their same real estate appraisers do an appraisal as of January '07 - when the district abandoned the property. If the January '07 appraisal is less than $518/acre - there's your damage claim.

Brach Brodie was not allowed to sell their property from December, 2005 until January '07 due to the D204's condemnation suit. Actually I agree with them on this point - they probably could have sold that property (given it's residential) during the real estate boom and now they are stuck with it during a bust. And it's D204's fault for forcefully tying up their property in a lawsuit and then walking away from the purchase.

EXACTLY RIGHT....

Of course there is no precedent for the damages being sought against the District by BB, because governments do not back away from condemnation jury verdicts! Find me ONE sitution where a District's calculation was HALF of the fair market value (this does not happen when reasonable due diligence is employed). If you can find me that example, I would doubt that it occured in a market where real estate has tumbled like now (so there would be fees but no damages if the land appreciated in costs during the condemnation case).

There is NO QUESTION that BB will be entitled to damages (just is common sense based on the representations made by the District during the case). Will it be 20 million....I do not know (depends on what the appraisals say as suggested above). However, if our District is moving forward based on Dr. Daeschner's "expert opinion" that there will be no damages, this Board and District are even more irresponsible than NSFOC and others have given them credit for.

The School Board has given notice of a special meeting March 20th.

" FORMAL ACTION may will take place at this meeting"

What do you think this means? Are they going ahead with the AME site purchase? Are Phase I and Phase II studies going to be released?

Thoughts...

To Democracy Advocate: Great post!!

Admin and SB should wait until we have the final damages in the spring that WE have to pay, and THEN evaluate our choices from a cost perspective. Problem is our SB/SD track record is horrible and I fear they will dive right in ONCE AGAIN without looking. If I didnt live in D204, I would say this is comical, but the laugh is on us; the taxpayers.

I donnt blame BB at all and I think they have a pretty good case. If someone didnt negotiate with me at all, and did quick take (hey we will pay what a jury decides, we dont want to talk to you!!) and then slapped me with a condem suit and tied up my assets for 2+ years THEN said NO and walked away; I would be a very unhappy person and would be fighting tooth and nail as well. I think the Jury sees this as well (puts themselves in the shoes of BB) which does not bode well for the District. SB should not be suprised with the jury decision of 518/acre or the upcoming damages for the land price differential between 05 and jan08. When you play hardball and try and run roughshot over everyone (the arrogance is mind numbing) sometimmes it comes right back at you. SB is finding out you cant bully everyone because eventually you will run into someone or some group that stands up to it.

A shame. We need to get our Admin/SB enrolled in a couple of negotiation classes and conflict resolution classes. Would sure help their handling of our D204 business (if they are still in their roles as they come up for re-election)

Bottom line is that the School Board has shown they are continually wrong. Let me say this again; they are continually wrong. Wait. It gets worse. They DO NOT admit when they are wrong and it costs us millions. Examples:

A) 1st referendum - failed (they were wrong)
B) 2nd referendum - failed (they were wrong, it would not have passed if they marketed Eola site. Period. So, what passed was BB land.)
C) lawsuit - failed, they were wrong. They said they would win, they failed miserably. Metzger's emails used in the lawsuit. What else do you need to determine that these board members are dangerous. And Dachner's job is based upon the Board members being happy with him.
D) Need for school different today then 4 years ago; no need now, enrollment will drop off

Wake up. After all this horrid handling of the situation not 1 board member has resigned. At some point they should stop doing things the way they think are right: its' only given us results that EVERYONE determined are inappropriate.

They've cost us millions of extra dollars in waste. And now they have decided to build a school where it's dangerous. Anyone who agrees with them must have some subjective view; like the fact they never were slated for a new school and now they are.

Keep it simple. Ask someone impartial and they'll say the same thing anyone does: these people need to be made accountable for their actions. And only a court of law can do that.

After all, just look at what the court did in BB. When there is an indpendent ruling, the sb looses. And that's because they are skewed in everything they do.

Facts are tough to argue.

People please wake up!!!! How can you trust the SB after all the mistakes they have made with BB. You are kidding yourselves if you don't think that BB will get a lot of district 204 $$$ by walking away from BB. They will come back for damages and our arrogant SB will once again mess up. This is not a boundary issue!!!! This is about the mistakes and throwing away our tax money.

TO WV MOM;

Although I fail to see the relevance ....White Eagle subdivision is in BOTH AURORA AND NAPERVILLE. The entire subdivision has a Naperville address which was requested/obtained by the developer many years ago and which NO residents had a say in.

And I do agree with you ; District 204 is NOT a Naperville school district...it is for Aurora, Naperville, Bolingbrook, and Plainfield!

This is in reponse to "interested" who mistakenly believes that only Aurora kids will attend MV at Eola and only parents that don't have children slated for MV are concerned with the site safety.

First, my kids are slated to attend MV and I can't yell loudly enough that this site needs more testing before we declare it safe! The site needs to be remediated before we begin construction and before we close and the title switches hands. Daeschner has been dodging the question: Will the rememdiation happen while kids are at the school? I don't believe a fence will adequately protect my children from the toxins during remediation. The toxins present in the soil are only one issue on a long list of environmental concerns with the site.

Secondly, please review the elementary schools slated to attend MV, because you are again mistaken if you think that the majority will be from Aurora:
Brookdale - Naperville
Longwood - Naperville
Cowlishaw - Naperville
Watts - Naperville
Brooks - Aurora
Young - Aurora
portions of Gombert and Owen at 83rd Street - Aurora

"I hear lots of people who are opposed to the new school asking for a new vote on the referendum because the location is unsafe and they are concerned for the children's safety. I think they are right, there should be a new vote, but the only people that should be allowed to cast a ballot are those whose children will go to Metea. After all, who would care more about the safety of the school than people sending their kids there".

How about adding language to the above vote that only residents within boundaries of Metea School will be liable for all future lawsuits regarding the unsafe conditions of the site.

YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. COMMON METEA RESIDENTS, LET US SEE HOW MANY OF YOU AGREE TO THE ABOVE.

Apparently the full NSFOC Sun advertisement didn't get printed.

The last line was supposed to read:

"Ensuring that our children will NOT attend WVHS....... Priceless"

>Thoughts...

The school board and administration are incompetent and change the story whenever it suits them.

They have no clue what they are going to owe on the BB property but are rushing ahead with a contaminated piece of property surrounded by high voltage power lines and railroad tracks.

What idiot would build a school on a piece of property with PCP contaminated soil and groundwater?

They were just begging to get sued.

The board needs to be replaced and the administration fired.

http://www.nsfoc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=77

As a former D204 student I understand the need for another high school. I went to WVHS when NVHS was still being built, and was there when they made the switch over. Traffic within the halls was horrid. Maybe it's me, but I don't believe ANYTHING politicians (including School board members) say. All they do is feed Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. As Mark said, the first Referendum failed, along with the second. I think that major things need to change. We, as tax payers, need to tell the district to get their act together and settle this once and for all and get our students the education that they deserve.

So powerlines are safe to live under in Tall Grass but not for a school? And yet the residents of Tall Grass feel entitled to put their school choice/location above the rest of the district. I think the property owners of Tall Grass should hurry up and sell their homes before they spend anymore money promoting their view of the hazards of power lines.

Ed layer, I'm sorry you think the second drop in property value is due to the new boundaries. Maybe you should ask NSFOC to quit seeking publicity for their selfish lawsuit. The NSFOC is not only sueing themselves, they are doing everything they can to drive down property values for Tall Grass and White Eagle.

Dr D. is Frustrated?

Here's my advice. Go back to Kentucky and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. No wonder he got dumped by the SB down there.

He's frustrated! We have been dealing with the incompetence of district 204 leadership long before this "yes man" arrived.

To "My kids are assigned to MV"...please come to the next NSFOC meeting.
We are well organized and will support you. We KNOW that there are many, many parents out there who are concerned about the site (we know because we have received your checks! Thank you!) ...and yet these blogs keep singling out 2 neighborhoods to convince themselves this is a "TG/WE thing".
Parents from Brookdale, Longwood, Cowlishaw, Watts, Brooks, Young...if you are at all concerned...come to the next NSFOC meeting and introduce yourselves...we are here for you.
Parents who are not concerned, who live in D203 or who are otherwise not convinced that this is a problem...good luck with that and we wish you nothing but the best.

To Mark on March 19, 2008 11:50 AM: "Bottom line is that the School Board has shown they are continually wrong. After all this horrid handling of the situation not 1 board member has resigned. These people need to be made accountable for their actions. And only a court of law can do that."

Wrong. YOU (and me, and all the other residents of D204) could have made them accountable for their actions. WE HAD A VOTE. WE RE-ELECTED THESE PEOPLE. So who is really continually wrong -- is it the voters who keep voting for the school board and the referendum and the taxes? Who BELIEVED what POLITICIANS were peddling?

Sorry Dr D you have no credibility with us.

Unfortunately, you inherited a mess and are working for a SB that is not trusted by the community it represents. Its also suprising to me that with the continued blunders (read the BLOGs) for proof by this SB that they have NEVER once admitted they made mistakes. I am sickened by the way you and your administration (including the SB) are wasting our hard earned money and seemingly with no guilt.

I believe one of the tenants of the SB is that they must act in a fiscally responsible manner. My humble opinion is that you'd be hard pressed to prove that is occurring within our district. Therefore we as a community should demand you step down for breaking that contract with us.

I am not sure what you (dr D) did (or did not do) that resulted in you being released from Kentucky but based on your performance since arriving here my vote is that you're current contract is a terminal one.

The SB starting with MM should resign NOW and allow fresh blood to fix this mess. MM himself preaches that the residents/parents are not objective and are selfish in their opinions and that the SB members look for the greater good. Really? MM, have you read the email your fellow board member AT sent to the Springbrook community? THis is a joke and would be funnier if the consequences were not so serious.

I do not favor lawsuits to resolve issues but I applaud the NSFOC for at least attempting to challenge this team who is by each passing day becoming more of an embarassment as the leaders of our SD and SB.

Instead of trying to bring folks closer together, they are proceeding and ignoring the community they represent. I understand the board members are volunteers and may be working hard but the results are disgusting and this district needs new leaders and a team that the community can uniformly support.

I don't buy for a moment that the support from our Northern neighbors is sincere since you voted down the 06 referrendum but now are getting a school and so are behind the SB. Wake up folks. I don't buy it and the SB, SD and the rest of the district ought not to buy it either.

To Stop the School Board on March 19, 2008 12:33 PM

"Parents from Brookdale, Longwood, Cowlishaw, Watts, Brooks, Young...if you are at all concerned...come to the next NSFOC meeting and introduce yourselves...we are here for you. "

Are the rest of the parents in D204 not invited? Do you know want to hear from us?

Midwest Generation wasn't even trying to sell the Eola site until 204 came knocking? Why? They thought no one would want it!

"Hi, yes this is District 204, would you like to sell your PCB contaminated site on which you operated a peak plant with no pollution controls for 33 years. No, no we aren't with the government superfund, we are a school district and we would like to build a school on top of your contaminated soil and water. Oh, we can good a good deal on the land? We'll take it!"

Is it safe? Hardly.

http://www.nsfoc.org/pdf/notagoodplace8.pdf

Boy, the NSFOC folks are really going to be freaking out about the meeting scheduled for tommorrow. How dare the School Board move forward?

Hope they sign the contract so they can start building our new high school that we voted for.

You do realize that a lot of Waubonsie graduates are teachers at Neuqua.

If we take a moment and set aside environment issues, cost concerns, and personal agendas there are three fundamental questions that need to be answered.
1. Whose money is this? (Undeniably, the taxpayers.)
2. Who is in charge of spending it wisely? (Undeniably, the School Board.)
3. What is the primary issue? (Undeniably the location of the proposed school site).

It's safe to say that most of the voting residents in Naperville bought their houses knowing (or at least thinking that they knew) where their children would be going to school. It influenced their decision to move to specific neighborhoods. The voters in Naperville District #204 were lead to believe that they were voting to increase their taxes in order to approve a school to be located at a specific location. After an earlier referendum failed, the School Board informally communicated the proposed location of the proposed school prior to the second, successful referendum. Had many voters known that the school would be located at a different location, or had they know that massive redistricting would be required, they may have voted against the referendum.

The School Board can't deny what was said leading up to the second School referendum. The right thing to do is to put the referendum to a re-vote and specifically state where the school will be located. The Eola road location needs to be approved by the voters, not by well connected land owners, lawyers, or personal feelings.

The School Board needs to do the right thing, tell us the facts, tell us where the school will be located and tell us how you intend to redistrict as a result of the proposed location. Then, and only then, will you have the right to spend the voters tax dollars.

Did you know, according to the EPA, typical emissions from plants like the Eola “peaker” power plant contain CO2, N2O, Lead, SO2, Methane, Benzene, Acrolein, Acetaldehyde, Butadiene, Ethyl Benzene,
Formaldehyde, Naphthalene, PAH, Propylene Oxide, Toluene, and Xylenes; Typical oil-fired turbines at plants this “peaker” power plant could emit Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury,
Nickel and Selenium?

A sign on the peaker power plant gates reads “CONTAINS PCBs”.

I wouldn't go pheasant hunting on this property much less have kids running in the grass. Totally inappropriate site.

What are they smoking over there at 204 headquarters?

little buddy - gilligan,

don't forget that some people voted for the second referendum because it restructured the bonds - lowering the short term property taxes. that's right, the referendum lowered the property taxes in the short term. it did spread the taxes out over more years but actually lowered the taxes during the life of the original 15 years of the previous bond. if anyone at nsfoc can prove that every swing vote was just to send the tall grass and white eagle kids to the new high school building, i'd be interested in seeing that data. i wanted the lower property taxes.

Ron -
I don't think a 3 year contract for a Super is unusual. I think the length of his tenure also, though, has something to do with his age. I believe he is in his 60's and has already retired from another school district in KY. Last, but not least, it stands to reason that the board brought him in as an outsider (no past, no future) to ride rough shot over everyone in an attempt to manage what remains of this disgraceful referendum/boundary/new school debacle. Dr. Daeschner has brought with him from Kentucky quite a laundry list of lawsuits (it was printed on one of the blogs awhile back and I'm sure it's easy enough to find in the public domain), so maybe the board thought that experience would come in handy....one thing they got right, I guess.

I wonder what the NSFOC would do if the District built on the BB site but kept the new proposed High School Boundaries?

How about we put a sign outside Metea that reads, "Don't eat the dirt"

Would that make the Naperville Schools For Our Children happy?!

I am SO TIRED of Naperville residence calling INDIAN PRAIRIE SCHOOL DISTRICT "NAPERVILLE SCHOOLS"!! Look at the boundarys!! IPSD ARE NOT NAPERVILLE SCHOOLS, they are Aurora, Bolingbrook and Naperville Schools for one! Two - Your property values are NOT going down because your kids will go to WVHS either. I work with property values and several different school districts and in 20 years at my job have never seen property values fall because of school boundaries. All the highschools are good schools. The problem here is that NAPERVILLE people again are looking for status, and they have a problem with "their" school having an Aurora address....well too bad.

Everything that you wanted to know about peaker plants in Illinois is available here.

http://www.compliancepublishers.com/iec/IllinoisPeakers.pdf

By Stop the Scoog Board: If your really slotted for Metea, please state your name - I doubt very mech there is anyone out there who would support the NSFOC unless they are slotted to go to Waubonsie. Remember this is a lawsuit they are filing for boundaries - not a concern to make certain the land is safe - which they are doing due diligence here as any healthy minded adult can see they are doing.

"By Former BP/Amoco Employee"
Todd, stop the role playing again! :)I sense a feeling of desperation among the NSFOC ranks. NSFOC insider, you were right on about these people's motives! You called it from the beginning! The legal fees increase by the hour and now the embarrassing full page ad chock full of inaccurate information! NOone will be sending children to an unsafe school.

Please recognize the NSFOC tactics. The lawsuit states build on BB or don't build a third school at all.

In other words, the whole "it's about the 'walking' distance to NV" at the beginning of their mess( but under BB wasn't Tallgrass going to MV..the new school...they weren't walkers then !?), turned into "It's about the environmental concerns at the new site" ...but.. "we're TOTALLY fine going to WV". "WE are concerned for other people's kids so we're going to file a lawsuit against the School Board, all of you, AND ourselves while we're at it...that'll teach this board about fiscal responsibility!"

Meanwhile BUILD AT BRACH BRODIE OR DON'T BUILD AT ALL!

Fast forward to.....okay the "Walker" method didn't work, the "environmental" method is not working either...let's see...we already tried traintracks...what else.. let's blame it all on the school board!!! We would rather have NO school for everybody (let's join forces with all of the "no" voters and anybody else who will give us money) than to have to send our kids to that other school... "Hey, I know! Let's put it up to a vote. WE can vote NO this time" Our kids will stay at NV and then we're OUTTA here!"

YEAH!!!!....let's focus the attention on "This is all the school board's fault. We had no choice but to SUE."

YEAH....I see your point....hmmmmmm

Again, those of you that try to turn NSFOC into all TG and WE thing are so wrong! Sure it started with a grass-roots effort in TG but trust that it doesn't end there. There are members that have signed up from all over the district. Beliee it or not, there are future MV parents that aren't ok with the Eola site. Do they publish their names for public ridicule? Of course not as they would be ostracized by many. Not everyone that is slated to go to a school at Eola thinks that environmental issues don't matter. That's a very foolish thing to assume. Believe it or not, there are NSFOC members that live in StoneBridge and they are NOT good with a toxic dump for a school site. I think there are many that just want to stay at Waubonsie and who can blame them? I'm with the suggestion of asking any future MVkids/parents to sign on the dotted line relinquishing future litigation. Who's signing up?

I am surprised he entered "0" for the sum of damages, he should of at least entered "5mil" that he has budgeted. And he did not even mention any cost of purchasing 7 acres of wetlands that have to be purchased to replace the purchased wetlands at eola. Those are hard costs that exist and belong added in to the price of the eola final tally. I do not believe his numbers until I see those figures added in.

Actually, about 3 weekends back there were 3 people standing on the shoulder of Eola Road with signs that said

FREE TOXIC DIRT

Maybe the more appropriate question is should we build it at all?

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/opinions/letters/849614,6_4_NA19_LETTERS_S1.article

I have read some excellent comments stating the school board should wait for all the hard numbers (BB) before purchasing the eola property. Or we may end up spending MORE to build a school in a LESS desirable location.

There is no reason this school must be opened by 2009. Please take a few minutes to send your comments directly to the 204 school board at board-members@ipsd.org.