D204 HS site's environmental report released

I am glad the reports were finally released, and am satisfied with what was communicated at the meeting last night.

Looking forward to the new school!

So, what happens if the Brach Brodie judgement comes back to be sizeable and the District owes, for example, $20 million? How does that get paid for?

If they have 5 "HOT SPOTS" with only 96 borings they need to do more testing. Test all the land I am sure there are more HOT SPOTS.

I cannot believe that we are even thinking of taking on the task of cleaning up an area to build a school. Outside of the health issues that may or may not surface many years from now. This will become another one of the endless streams of money to be spent in OUR district.

I think that we ought to get creative and find other ways to deal with the very short term overcrowding issue. There is a building next door to Neuqua for sale. This would be a good start. Better than temporary trailers (portables) but those may also have to be utilized. Life is not perfect not even for those who live in 204.

It has seemed since the 1st time the taxpayers told the district NO...there has been a real surge to prove to the taxpayers that a select few can jam the high school through the district.

We have wasted enough time and energy on this proposal. Let's get back to making do with what we have and educating the kids. Way too much time is being spent on this issue.

Our new superintendent will also probably retire in a very few short years.......and walk away with a lot of taxpayers money....during a difficult time.

Anyone even remotely familiar with environmental regulations knows that there have been a lot of changes in the last twenty years.

It comes as no surprise that all of the reported spills at this site were reported since the mid-90's. All of the spills that occurred in the years prior simply were not reported is why there is no record of them, not that there were not any spills.

And what exactly were those "other transformer oils" that were found? PCB's? The type of large transformers used on a site like this back in the 70's most likely would have contained PCB's so I hope this consulting firm specifically sampled for PCB's.

And D204 thinks this is all no big deal and can be cleaned up in a few months? Go drive down Jefferson Avenue and look at the environmental remediation site that has been operating behind the Kraft plant where the old rail yard used to be. This environmental remediation has been going on for several years and from the looks of it isn't going to be done any time soon.

Do we trust a report from a consultant hand picked by the SD204 board or should we demand a second review of these samples by an independent, out-of-state testing laboratory?

Do we want our children attending school all day every day on a site that is environmentally flawed?

Do we want our children running and sitting and falling and rolling around on athletic fields that are or were contaminated by God knows what?

Are we the taxpayers willing to pay "whatever it costs" to clean up this site so that a school can be built or should we demand that the purchase price include all such costs?

Wow, where was the big turn out from the NSFOC last night?? They seemed to be missing last night or they knew they would have no arguements. Heck, the SB even would have given you 3 minutes to talk. I expected more from your (claimed) huge membership. Hope those donations are still coming in, you'll need them.

Let's see, power lines about 300 yards away (3 football fields), and 5 areas of concern that they will remediate. Which are on the eastern side of the 15 acres so even farther from the school in the NE corner of the property. This areas is close to 25 acres from the school.

The EMF readings on average are consistent with what you would find in every household. The areas of concern that are on the former peaker plant site are on the east side and in order for one to become sick they would have to drill down through 2-3 inches of concrete and then in some cases dig down an additional 2-3 feet of dirt then eat that dirt and they may become sick. Furthermore, they tested all the way down to the water table and no contamination of the water or the well on the site of the peaker plant. They also found that there was no migration of any of the areas of concern. Do I feel safe? Damn right I do with TSC one of the top environmental testing agencies in the country who also said they would send their kids to this school no questions asked!!

So now to the NSFOC who we knew wouldn't be happy no matter what the test results showed. This was discussed in their 3/25 meeting even before they knew what the test results would be. Anyone surprised? Can't really say you're concerned about the kids any more when it will pass IEPA remediation requirements and it is close to 25 acres from the school and the 71.5 acres of the school is safe. I'm sure the NSFOC will still play up the fact they are concerned about the kids of IPSD 204 because if they let go of this they let go of their propaganda campaign through the media. Well NSFOC time to let go!! As Mr. Collins said "long shot at best", well I think that just became no shot at best. Time to focus on your bait and switch arguement, which will also get shot down. However, I wish you luck 8 parents from TG and 1 parent from WE on your lawsuit.

To: Concerned on April 8, 2008 8:04 AM (more like confused)

"there has been a real surge to prove to the taxpayers that a select few can jam the high school through the district."

A select few? More like 58% of the district that voted for a referendum and don't kid yourself if anything that 58% number went up from the 2006 referendum.

Secondly, the SB hasn't tried to prove anything to the taxpayers except for that the land is safe. The did tests that are required for residential areas and found only 5 sites that need minor remediation. For an area that won't even be used for school purposes but for storage. Plus, it is over 20 acres from the school.

Let's be honest the NSFOC won't be happy with anything the SB does at the Eola property. Because it isn't about that is it NSFOC? It's about you getting the new high school at the BB property like your lawsuit says and because you don't want your little angels to go to WVHS. If that is the case then I say move out of this district because there are plent of parents that are proud of WVHS and the education our kids get there. Bye bye!!

Na na na na.
Na na na na.
Hey Hey Hey.
Goodbye.

It only took 5 posts before the testing company was added to the conspiracy against Tall Grass. There's a shocker.

So now I see the NSFOC is trying to claim that they only tested where there were recorded spills. THAT'S WRONG!!!

They tested every where on that 15 acres of land. If tests showed there was no contamination they wouldn't do any further tests in that immediate area. If the test showed concerns then they would do fruther tests. Spin it any way you want but the areas of concern are for the far EAST 7 acres of the 15 acres. Those spills contain diesel fuel and coolant and did not migrate any further then the spills. Plus a kid would have to drill through concrete and eat the dirt to possibly get sick.

Let' face it the NSFOC won't be happy no matter what the SB or TSC or the IEPA says. Because it's not really about safety is it NSFOC?

I should also remind you that 71.5 acres are clean!!

Awwww...no more emotional scare tactics for the NSFOC to use in the media. They can try, but no one will be listening to your babble now!! I think people will choose to trust TSC and the IEPA over a small group of unhappy parents who didn't get their way.

To: Anonymous on April 8, 2008 8:14 AM

You are seriously delusional....

"Do we want our children attending school all day every day on a site that is environmentally flawed?"

A site that is over 20 acres away from the school itself, yes I feel safe. The spills were diesel fuel and coolant and surface spills that are easily remediated. Furthermore, they said that they tested down 5-6 feet and in some areas down to the water table and no migration or additional contamination.

You want contamination go over north of 95th street west of 59 and there were 4 under ground storage tank leaks in the past 10 years. Now that's some scary stuff. Who lives in that areas again?

"Do we want our children running and sitting and falling and rolling around on athletic fields that are or were contaminated by God knows what?"

Nice try. Were you not paying attention the areas of concern were in the farthest 7 acres of the NE corner of the property. Those areas are now concrete and will be concrete. They will also be fenced off and be used for maintenance vehicles. Geez, I hope my kids are rolling around on concrete in a fenced off area!!!

Try to understand this, I know it's hard for you NSFOC people because you just can't come to terms with it. 71.5 acres are safe and were previously used as farmland have been tested and required no Phase II studies because they are SAFE.

NSFOC new angle on April 8, 2008 9:17 AM
I should also remind you that 71.5 acres are clean!!

It is contaminated. You keep saying the land was safe but now the school board says it is contaminated and you still want to send kids there? Are you that desparate that you want to put kids at risk? There are other options and we need to consider them.

Besides you have no idea that the 71.5 Acres are clean. Do a real test and test for ALL checmicals.

Don't put a child on contaminated land for your own selfish reasons.

I don't understand NSFOC. How is it safer for our kids to be in overcroweded schools where pushing and shoving can't help but exist between classes? How is it better for our children to only go to school five hours a day, so they can meet state requirements for graduation, but not take the necessary courses to get into college (U of I for example requires 4 years of language--can't get it in and meet the state requirements in only 20 classes over a four year period). If we add portable buildings, where will all those extra kids take p.e. (state requirement all 4 years) and eat lunch (I think the state mandates that as well)? My guess is that the NSFOC parents not only don't want their kids to go to WVHS, they also have kids old enough not to have to worry about split shifts and mobile classrooms. I wonder how many of them have kids graduating in the next four years before the overcrowding gets bad enough to necessitate the most Draconian of measures. Want to see house values fall--just you wait!

I wonder of those 8 TG and 1 WE parents and residents are suing every major company or threat that happends in their kids life? Oh wait, I forgot it's about everyones safety, right?

How come I didn't see this same group of people before 2 months ago looking at the other elementary and middle schools in IPSD pointing out how they were too close to powerlines, pipelines or railroad tracks? Why now? I think we all know the answer to that question!!

OMG!!! on April 8, 2008 9:28 AM

"Nice try. Were you not paying attention the areas of concern were in the farthest 7 acres of the NE corner of the property."

Are you truly that stupid or just trying to make justification for a reckless and arrogant school board?

Any land that is contaminated from a Peaker Plant is too much land for my child to be near.

I am a proud NSFOC supporter who was at the meeting last night. I unfortunately arrived too late to sign up to speak. Apparently It Is Safe wasn't looking around when about 30 other people didn't stand up to support the D204 Board. I would say both sides were equally represented. So, where does that leave us? No where? Hardly! NSFOC is still strong and growing. If you were listening last night the New High School site is not safe. Remediation is required and dangerous pipelines that are 40+ years old and getting older will always be present. Why does the Board want to open up this pandora's box???? I say, "Choose a site that is safe for our kids!" This is not a hard decision just a potentially embarrasing one because the Board will have to admit that they made some mistakes and wasted some of our money. They might also lose more of their credibility, not that they have much left. But I can forget all about that. Pick a site anywhere you want. Just make it a safe one that won't endanger kids and I think you will satisify both sides of this controversy. A school will be build and kids will be safe. The Board might even gain some crediblity.

I keep hearing the Board is making the decisions it has in the interest of our children. What parent would put his child in harms way when the chance could be "probable" that that child could be hurt as the Board stated not so long ago when they rejected this site the first time? The situation has not changed on that site only the minds of the Board Members. Why? Weren't they elected to represent the whole district in a morally responsible manner? I've yet to see it. So until I do, I will continue to support the NSFOC and Shawn Collins!!!!!!

The Entitled Nine must be ready to give up by now. Money must be getting tight and the earth moving equipment should be on site shortly. Bye Bye Entitled Nine!

So you think it is okay to keep making those mistakes? Please, why didn't you stand up before and say something?

Just because it happened before doesn't make it right. It should have been stopped.

I think we all know the answer to your question, you were too lazy to standup and make a difference. These people are standing up and I for one applaud their efforts.

To: IS IT SAFE??? on April 8, 2008 9:31 AM

How did I know you would never give up, nothing will make you happy will it?

"It is contaminated. You keep saying the land was safe but now the school board says it is contaminated and you still want to send kids there? Are you that desparate that you want to put kids at risk?"

Try and pay attention. 71.5 acres of the land IS safe it was farm land. They did Phase I testing and that 71.5 acres of land did not require Phase II testing. Did you see the requirements of environmental testing?

The 15 acres of the former peaker plant only 7 of those acres are areas of concern with leaks of diesel fuel and coolant. Those will not be used and remediated. Those areas are also under concrete and you'd have to eat the dirt to even possibly get sick.

How do you know my kids will attend MVHS or are you just assuming? I guess then I should assume that you are a TG resident and are listed in the NSFOC amended lawsuit? Why do I have to be a parent of MVHS to believe the school board, the TSC and the IEPA for 7 acres of land that is close to 25 acres away from the school?

"Do a real test and test for ALL checmicals."

Again, they tested for all chemicals on the 15 acres of the former peaker plant. It was not required for the remaining 71.5 acres because of Phase I tests. Why are you not understanding this? I know...because you think I'm a future parent of MVHS you must be one of those NSFOC parents that are afraid to send your little angels to WVHS. Sorry "IS IT SAFE", everyone is seeing through you now.

Okay, I've supported holding the schoolboard accountable. I now would like to hold NSFOC responsible. I would like a detailed listing of how my $204 donated money was spent. Perhaps in a full page ad style in the sun.

Anybody?

By BigMike on April 8, 2008 7:56 AM
So, what happens if the Brach Brodie judgement comes back to be sizeable and the District owes, for example, $20 million? How does that get paid for?

I think they except cash, money order, or credit card.

Has anyone ever thought about what may be under the concrete? Companies have gone to greater lengths to conceal things than a few inches of concrete.

The perceived distance may or may not be sufficient to declare the site safe. One only needs to look at the Lockformer site in Lisle or Kerr McGee in West Chicago to see how far ground contaminants can spread.

From the lack of credibility and honesty demonstrated by the SB in the last few years there is absolutely no compelling reason why anyone should blindly believe anything the SB tells us at this point. It would make a lot more sense if we were all reading a report written by an independent consulting firm hired by the IEPA instead of this SB.

Some sites are safe. Some are not. Some sites can be remediated easily. Others can not. If this site can be remediated safely and easily then two simple questions remain. How long will it take? Who will be responsible for paying for the cost?

Unfortunately it seems like a lot of the tough decisions may be made in a period where the SB lacks trust and confidence from a sizeable section of our community. If these decisions are made now and prior to the next SB election when half of the SB members will be shown the door and we later find out that we have been misled and that the truth has been spin doctored what does that leave us and our children with?

The SB needs to find a way to convince everyone that it is open, honest, and transparent. It needs to stop meeting behind closed doors and hiding from public view. It needs involve citizen groups and committees in every aspect of the new school process. And it needs to go to the IEPA for a second, independent environmental review of this site.

If we needed major surgery for cancer most of us would be prudent enough to get a second medical opinion before going under the knife. So that our kids don't get cancer from this site it is not unreasonable to demand that a second study be performed before we start sticking shovels in the ground.

If you have read the report you will have noticed that it was "prepared for" Indian Prairie School District 204. No where does the report indicate the actual client paying for the report so it may be the SD or it may be the property owner. We should know who paid for this report.

The scope of work for Phase II was limited to areas identified in Phase I and Phase I relied on documented spill reports. There do not seem to be any documented spill reports from 1970 to 1996. That means TSC did not have anyone telling them to go sample here... there may be a problem and the report is blindly ignoring any other potential or unknown sites.

As one way to gain trust and credibility the SB should produce a copy of the initial contract with TSC which will let us all know true scope of the contracted work as well as who actually payed for this report.

If the SB can't or won't be open and transparent with something as sensitive as this topic and produce these documents then we should all be very, very concerned about what is going on.

When did ComEd purchase the property? 1969
When was ComEd required to report PCB spills? AFTER 1976
How many years could spills have occurred without being reported? 7 Years!!
Was the whole site tested for PBC's? NO
Is it safe? Who really knows!!

I understand the feeling of not getting what you want, and doing anything to get it. I admire that. Just yesterday my mommy would not buy me a toy I wanted in a store, so I screamed and then held my breath until she got it for me. She only had enough money for one toy, but I convinced her that the stuffed animal she was getting my sister for her birthday would be too dangerous, so I got my toy instead!! I think someday my sister will learn that what I want is more important.

Keep reaching for you what you and you alone deserve, White Eagle people. I'm with you - do whatever it takes, and add me to your membership list!

I have to go - my diaper needs changing.

I'm wondering. How many of the people who are complaining about the safety of the land would have their kids going to Metea. I would think they could identify themselves without fear - no one would question their right in that regard. I always presume that the anonymous complainers will have their kids going to Waubonsie instead of Neuqua, and their "concern" for the safety of the Metea land is nothing more than crododile tears.

WOW! What a shock...build it at any cost and at any price! Maybe if Dr. D as in "disaster" is so convinced along with the SB that the site is safe they wont be opposed to making a motion at the next board meeting to move the school districts offices there. Hell, we can just "fence em in". May not be a bad idea?

Whether you support the site or not and I for one do not (yet), the REAL ISSUE IS AND CONTINUES TO BE...BRACH BRODIE...once the legal issues (monetary liability) are determined then the SB should move forward. Not one day, one hour, one minute sooner. But again, they will just come back to us foolish taxpayers in 204 and ask for another $10-20,000,000 to cover the suit. Cant wait for that blog!

If the legal liability ends up being zero and the land is proven safe, fine. "Build it and they shall come"!

To: Anonymous on April 8, 2008 10:27 AM

"Has anyone ever thought about what may be under the concrete? Companies have gone to greater lengths to conceal things than a few inches of concrete."

You obviously were not at the meeting last night and/or are just paying attention to what the NSFOC is telling you to say and believe.

They drilled through the concrete and even further down to 5-6 feet and sometimes down to the water table. All water was safe and only 5 areas need remediation because of diesel fuel and/or coolant. In the 5 areas of concern in order for someone to become sick they would have to drill down through the concrete and then eat the dirt under the concrete. However, they plan on digging up that concrete and then relpacing the dirt then replacing the concrete again. That by the way in case you haven't been paying attention is on the 7 East Acres of the former peaker plant. Which is thousands of feek or more then 23 acres from the school. Judging by that calculation 79.5 ACRES THAT ARE SAFE, and 7 acres need remediation and will never see student use but instead house maintenance vehicles.

NSFOC new angle on April 8, 2008 10:06 AM

First of all, I have stated in many blogs that I am a supporter of the NSFOC.

Secondly, Your wrong they did not test for all chemicals and they did not test for any chemicals on the 71.5 Acres.

I guess because the school board said so it must be true!

What about the pipelines? I am sure you have an answer for that too.

By Anonymous on April 8, 2008 10:27 AM
Has anyone ever thought about what may be under the concrete? Companies have gone to greater lengths to conceal things than a few inches of concrete.

I know I posted this on another blog. There should be a sign out that says, "Don't eat the dirt" at MV.

I would like to amend that to, "Don't eat the concrete"

How about I sum up this blog.

One view....see, I told you.

The other view...what if, what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if,what if.....you get the gist.

WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THE (POTENTIALLY ONGOING) REMEDIATION THAT THE BOARD SPEAKS OF? YOU AND ME BABY! WAKE UP PEOPLE, THIS SITE IS WRONG AND THE SB IS TOO ARROGANT TO ADMIT IT'S MADE ANOTHER MISTAKE AT OUR EXPENSE!

They did test for all chemicals if there was a need to test for all chemicals. If a site proved to be above residential standards why should they then test it again. You obviously don't know how environmental studies are conducted or haven't done your research. What TSC has done is by the book and they even went above and beyond for a site that will never have one student walk on it.

I'm sorry, you must not have been at the meeting when they stated that the same studies that were done on the BB property were done on the Eola property. I also encourage you to look at the environmental studies. Better yet look at Slide 13 of the presentation where is states "NO RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE IDENTIFIEDIN ANY PORTIONS OF THE SITE OTHER THAN THE PEAKER STATION".

I know that is hard for you to believe or understand through your NSFOC blindness, however, those are TSC's findings and the IPEA will agree with them as will the courts. I really think it is pointless arguing with you on this issue. I understand that the NSFOC doesn't want the school there because they want it on BB but that is just not a possibility any more. I also understand the NSFOC doesn't want their kids going to WVHS but let me assure you that it is an amazing school and if they have boys, boys actually have higher test scores at WVHS then boys at NVHS.

Sorry NSFOC the school will be built at Eola and all is safe except for if you eat dirt on 7 acres of property on the NE corner after you climb a fence and drill through concrete. You can stop worrying about the safety of kids that aren't yours. Instead you might want to start preparing them for the wonderful experience and education they will receive at WVHS.

Looks like things are safe for the Eola site, but that won't stop the NSFOC. The way I see it, feeding your kids fast food will probably cause them more harm than sending them to MV.

Has either the School board or Midwest Generation entered IEPA’s voluntary Site Remediation program for the contamination problems discovered? When did it occur or when will it occur?

I think it is time for the entitled nine (NSFOC)to drop their suit and save the rest of district taxpayers the cost of defending the suit. If the entitled nine (NSFOC) actually care about the district, it is time to quit requiring the district to put out even more money than it already spent trying to get them their HS where they wanted it. Its time for this frivilous fight to get off the pages of the local papers so our property values have a chance to recover during the spring selling season.

This fight is hurting the image of the quality of education of the district. It is costing all of us tax dollars. It is costing us money in property value. Do these nine people understand they are costing all of us when they pursue this frivilous and selfish suit?

I have been reading, researching, watching, and listening for the last several months now. I do not feel that I learned anything new at last night's meeting, other than there seems to be a confirmed willingness on the part of the SB and on some in the community to accept incredibly low standards for a future school site in our district. So low, in fact, that we may not be eligible for state funding to help with building costs. It was almost surreal to be sitting in a meeting discussing a new school hand in hand with a parcel of land that operated unchecked for many years as a PCB-producing industrial site, that has EMFs at disputed levels, and several ageing, extremely big high pressure gas lines running through the center of it.

While I completely understand that the expert conclusion is that the land contamination can be "mitigated", I also understand what this word means: "to make a situation or the effects of something less bad, harmful, or serious". It does not mean to "go away completely with no further reason for concern". Furthermore, the EMFs and the pipelines cannot truly be mitigated, other than to stay as far away as possible from the power lines and tread lightly directly over the gas lines. Is building a school in these circumstances really exercising good judgment? Is this what we are willing to accept for the district's children? It is scary and disappointing to think so.

It is concerning to me that, as elected officials of the community, the SB would further consider such a sub-standard parcel for a future high school in District 204, especially since they themselves dismissed it in the past for the very reasons we are discussing today. It is even more disturbing that people in any corner of the community would support it. Nothing about the site has changed - it was contaminated two years ago, it still is contaminated today. The SB has just decided to "take on" the issues, risks, and clean up costs and pass them on to the district to meet an artificial deadline for future enrollments that have played out to be totally inflated/incorrect. Since each parcel up for consideration before and after the referendum vote did not seem to be held up consistently against the same criteria, at least not by any documentation that has been provided to the public to date, I suggest this simple litmus test to the community:

Knowing all you know about Eola today, would you personally consider buying the Eola property for your own use, whether it was to build a home or to make a financial investment? Honestly, objectively, would you really do it - especially if you knew you had other options?

If one takes a step back and looks honestly and objectively at this situtation, I don't understand how anyone could or would support such circumstances for their own, or any of the district's children.

"IF" any child were to become sick on this schol site I hope you all are willing to pay BIG!!! I can't understand why a SB would be willing to take any risk be it big or small. I'm sure there will be someone out there who will keep every document, article, interview,blogs, or public statements for future use.

To the SB I hope you never hear the words I TOLD YOU SO.

It is mind boggling that a school district would even consider building a school at this location. Completely irresponsbile to students, faculty and taxpayers.

School board meeting last night was very in depth. Could have done without the "Decontamination Man" out front & the great finish by disruption man. I found the gentleman with a doctorate in chemistry rather interesting maybe he can offer his services / suggestions to the district free of charge. I wonder how many folks communicating on this blog have attended more than 1 school board meeting in the last year. Overall a great educational meeting, environmental folks even checked an older home on the property for asbestos. I am going to assume that home would be slated for the wrecking ball. Seems the board is covering every possible angle. The time line is tight lets hope for outstanding weather.

I went to the meeting last night. Unfortunately, I couldnt make it in time to sign up for my 3 minutes (my fault, I should have skipped an end of day meeting and left work at 4:30 instead of 5...). I will get another chance April 14th at the regular 7pm meeting.

In terms of the testing... I have not had a chance to review the data on IPSD web site (it was very difficult to follow on the projection screen). I would like to see ALL the chemicals that were tested for. Ms. Vickers had a lot of good questions (I commend her for all the research she did in advance of her questions). I got the feeling TSC did not test for everything on their list (again I want to see the chemical list) at all boring locations. Unfortunatly, I am not even remotely close to an expert in this field, so i will leave it to others to comment on the substiences that should be tested for (and where) versus what TSC listed that they did test for (and where). I look forward to reading some of this data on the blogs (Arch... I like your educational posts on this stuff! look forward to seeing some of your posts!)

What I will comment on (in my Looong Blog) is my opinion: that safetey is relative and in the eye of the beholder. Some parents feel it is ok for their kids to ride motorcycles (less gas, more environmentally friendly, cheaper transportation and recrecration aspects etc.) and some parents feel that the risk is too great to take for the percieved benefits and hence do not allow it for "safety reasons".

Problem is: The safety of the Eola site IS EVERYBODIES CONCERN for two reasons: 1. Most of the district is genuenly concerned for ALL kids safety. Even if some of you out there think that this statement is disenginnuous; then comes #2 and the reality of; ALL TAXPAYERS have a stake in their perception of the risk adjusted safety of the site due to any potential liability in the future. WE WOULD ALL be paying for anything "bad" that happened on this site in terms of a lawsuit loss or a settlement. Given #2; we all have a right to be VERY interested in the safety of the site even if we dont have kids attending, or scheduled at this time to attend MVHS at Eola). That could all change in the future with new boundries etc.etc. Boundries can change, but its very difficult to relocate a school that is already built to a new site.

Since (in my opinion) we all have a right to be concerned about the safety for the 2 very important reasons above; We should put this site up for a vote. Treat Eola exactly as we treated BB site. This way, we will know for sure what the majority wants to do regarding the 3rd HS.

Some say we already voted. That is true. The first ref failed. Then the SB marketing the site and paid for flyers with info on site selection and location. With this data, we voted again and with a 33pt durn around ref passed. Therefore we build a new school. Question is where?

I have read the lawsuit. In one of the counts is lists the district is bound by the "Election Interference Act, 10 ILL. Comp. Stat. 5/9-25.1" ; from using public funds (as it did to pay for the ink/print/coping/distribution of the flyers and notices etc.) to encourage or persuade voters to vote FOR or AGAINST the proposition. BY LAW, the District was only allowed to use such funds to disseminate "factual information relative to the proposition". Factual information (site location/boundries) would then be part of the 2nd referendum.

SO (in my opinion), either the district broke this law and their notices that they paid for were "just advertising/campaigning for a yes vote" or they really were factual which would require them to follow through on the BB site/boundries for the 2nd ref in 2006. Obviously a court will decide this at some point in the future; so for now this is only my opinion.

HOWEVER, I think there is a way for the SB to "make moot" the bulk of the NSFOC lawsuit; put Eola site/boundries up for a vote. We voted for BB site. Put eola site up for a vote (print the flyers etc) and link Eola to the 2nd ref money. Then we will all know for sure if the majority of the district wants to move forward with Eola or doesnt. There are pros and cons on both sides. Let the voters decide what they think is best and then lests MOVE ON.

Maybe i should clean this up (typos etc) and forward to the SB? I dont think I can squeexe this in under 3minutes.

Thanks
GF

The Naperville Sun states..."old peaker plant that stands in the shadow of the soon-to-be constructed high school"

I've never seen shadows that extend over 23 acres from the closest point of the high school to the effected area on the former peaker plant? Words say a lot Naperville Sun, chose carefully how you use them.

Like I posted in these blogs over a month ago, we will be breaking ground in the spring.

Bye Bye NSFOC! Your 15 minutes are up!

All of the land and real estate developers in the western suburbs who have made so many hundreds of millions of dollars by developing and building all of our homes from bare land sites are just so stupid, blind, and naive. They just don't know a fantastic land deal when it is staring them right in the face. It makes you wonder; each and every one of them ignored all of the possibilities of this very site for any kind of development... commercial, residential, industrial, etc.

Thank goodness we have our brilliant school board to steal it right out from under them.

Priceless!

I was a supporter of the NSFOC because I was concerne about the safety of the site. I will have a child attend Metea in a couple of years and of course safety is a very big issue. After reviewing the test results, I am convinced there will be no danger for my son. I will have to withdraw my support for the NSFOC if they continue to push the safety issue further. I beleived them when they stated how dangerous the site might have been and was happy to hear the SB was going to extra lengths to assure it was safe. Now that the results are public, and I see the exposure to any toxins is negligible, I am in full support of the SB to begin building on this site.

Here is something for everyone to think of in IPSD 204. If you haven't read the amendment to the NSFOC lawsuit I sugguest you do so. They have added the following:

e) Award Plaintiffs any such other RELIEF as this Court deems just and PROPER

What they are saying is that the court shuold award those named members of the NSFOC money. You heard me right. Parents in our own district are trying to profit from all of us in IPSD. This is more disgusting then hiding behind your smoke screen of environmental concerns and even your not wanting to attend WVHS. You're actually trying to take money from all of us!!!

You try to run the SB out of town and yet these SB members don't receive any money. Yet, the NSFOC wants to be awarded money from all of us in the IPSD.

You should be ashamed of yourselves and run out of town when this frivolous lawsuit is thrown out. I hope you are all exposed for what you're doing to this district. There are many of us that will never forget your selfish actions!!!

NEWS ALERT!!

BRODIE TRUST FILES NEW LAWSUIT AGAINST SCHOOL BOARD APRIL 7TH 2008 16:30PM!!!

QUOTE FROM LAWSUIT:

The district disseminated the following e-mail in response to a concerned resident's suggestion that the district might change the location after the referendum was passed:

"Beyond the practical reality lies the idea of simple fairness. We did the boundaries two years earlier than normal because the voters told us that they needed to know the bousndaries in order to evaluate their votes. To change the boundaries after the vote smacks of bait and switch and is just simply unfair."

This is our school board! Oh and there is a lot more here that our reckless school board NEVER shared with the voters.

Please check the Herald website for today's full story. There is a considerable question mark out there regarding what the district is going to have to pay for walking away from BB. For those who think it they are being "funny" by suggesting that the SB can use check, cash or money order to pay millions of dollars for nothing, then you should be first in line to offer your personal account numbers for the SB to draw from.

Both the Brach and Brodie trusts have their calculators out, and the list of damages in growing. Greedy attorneys, maybe, but I don't think any of us would honestly allow our assets to be tied up for so long, only to have them thrown back at us with a "no thanks, we don't want them" attitude without expectation of some compensation. Also, remember, this land is part of a charitable trust. The SB really needs to let the dust settle on this from a fiduciary standpoint before writing checks on Eola. How can they afford not to?
*****************
Trust wants original Metea site bought
By Melissa Jenco | Daily Herald StaffContact writer

The Brodie trust already said last month it will be asking to be reimbursed about $13 million in legal fees and damages to the remaining property. The Brach estate plans to file for its own fees.

But Helm said Monday the attorney fees and expenses are "insufficient to cover the loss." His new complaint seeks additional damages if a judge does not force the district to purchase the property, though it does not specify a dollar amount.

In the new filing, the Brodie trust says it should be compensated for the reduction in value of the 55-acre parcel and the loss of the $2.5 million in damages to the adjacent land a jury had ordered the district to pay if it purchased the property.

In addition, the trust is asking for damages due to the loss of a $40.2 million contract it had with the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.

That group planned to purchase 71 additional acres at the site with the understanding it would work out issues such as shared storm water detention and sewer and water facilities with District 204, according to Helm.

But due to delays in learning the fate of the adjacent land, he said the Pennsylvania trust has since backed out of the contract.

Violation of School Code:

Section 5/19-3 of Illinois School Code (105 ILCS 5/19-3) provides that school districts:

may borrow money for the purpose of... buildings or purchasing of improving school sites, bu no such bonds shall be issued unliess proposition to issue them is submitted to the voters of the district at a referendum held at a regularly scheduled election after the the board has certified the proposition to the proper election authoirities in accordance with the general election law and a majority of all the votes cas on the proposition is in favor of the propositions, and notices of such bond referendum has been given....

In that the approved referendum was intended to provide funds for the purchase of the Brach-Brodie parcel and for constructing the third high school of the District threreon, the District's conduct in changing the location of high school violates Section 5/19-3 of the Illinois School Code.

WIthout a doubt, NSFOC - you really dug your own grave last night. Beginning with your charade of the man dressed as a ghost (white hood and all) to try and intimidate/scare people going into the meeting. I haven't resorted to name calling at all - but here is the truth - you really looked crazy. Then after the meeting was adjourned, the irrational ranting of the man at the end. Really, not a good representation - if we only had it on film, we could put those pictures in the paper and maybe you could take a good look at yourself - which any healthy adult would not like what they saw.

Hi Jim
Good to hear from you (from the other blog)

Go to Illinois State Board of Education. I looked at the ereport card public site for both Neuqua and Waubonsie. BOTH ARE ON ACADEMIC WATCH STATUS (page 4 at bottom of each of their efile reports) for 2007-2008. That is my understanding from that data; They are on academic watch (but not yet in AYP program as you have to fail for 2 years in a row before that happens). Not sure what data you are looking at, but would love to verify with you. I can email copies of the reports I pulled off the site if you would like. Moderator Jim; I approve you to give my email address to Jim Jandick.

As for the property taxes. my friend at work told me how much he is paying and I told him how much I was. There is some variance in housing price; but I will ask to get his actual tax bill from LY and compare to mine for the calcs. I pay 50% more than he does, but you are probably right (its not a true apples to apples).

As for happier in D203. You might be right, but since I live in D204, I have every right to voice my concerns and my thoughts just as everyonne else has that same right. I know you agree with that based on some of your very thoughtful posts I have seen.

GF

NSFOC new angle on April 8, 2008 12:05 PM

Who is the blind one?

If you looked closely at the reports instead of being blinded by what you were being told, you would have notice that the ground water test had Lead, Chromium, and Arsenic.

They did not test for PCB's.

As I recall, BB was available and under contract to be bought at a reasonable price. However, the original referendum to proceed with the purchase failed. In my opinion, that occurred because some people (prominently WE and TG) vowed to vote against it until they could be sure their kids would not have to go to WV. Soooo, we had the boundary process, with WE and TG getting what they wanted by a 4-3 vote, and then the next referendum passed easily. Unfortunately, in the time delay caused by that process, the contract to buy BB at a reasonable price expired, forcing the SB to try the emminent domain process to get the property, and that had a surprisingly bad outcome.

So I have to say I find it somewhat ironic that people who delayed the process and thereby forced the costs up so much now complain about the SB wasting their money. I also find it amusingly ironic that those people caused a delay in order to ensure that they get what they selfishly wanted, and during that delay circumstances changed in a way which means they cannot get what they selfishly demanded.

Obviously, this is all the fault of the SB, right?

Also, I'd be willing to bet that the polluter will have to pay for the remediation, not 204. But why find out the truth on that before complaining, right? Because the point on all of these complaints is not that money is being wasted, or that the MV site is unsafe ... the point is that some people do not want their kids to go to WV because they think it is not good enough for their kids.

Just so everyone is clear. The site is safe! All environmental testing has been exhausted and shows the site where the school will be built is clean! The kids can roll around in the dirt, breathe clean air, know that they will be exposed to less electricity than when they are next to their lamps at home. The only thing they can't do is leave school property and walk over 30 acres to the storage area where trucks will be stored and with very sophisticated equipment, drill down through concrete, then dig 5-6 feet more to get to a little dirt that may have anti freeze in it from 6 years ago and EAT it and they might get a tummy ache. Oh, I forgot, they won't even be able to do that - because that dirt will be gone with the thorough job that is being conducted here! Much unlike the floors in most garages that have more chemicals spilt on them. I will feel safer here that I would on any other property bc of the extensive testing and work being done here to ensure this land is safe!

The Sun doesn't have an article on it yet, but the Brodie trust filed a new suit yesterday. The new suit asks a judge to force the district to buy the Brach-Brodie site, just like the NSFOC suit. Like the NSFOC suit, this suit presumably also has a 'proceed at your peril' letter associated with it. That means that if IPSD loses the suit, it will have to purchase the Brach-Brodie land for $31mn no matter what. In addition, this suit asks for unspecified damages because the district's condemnation suit on the school portion of the land caused the buyer of the other portion (rumored to be a company wanting to build a strip mall including a Wal Mart) to walk away in frustration because the district wouldn't give them an easement on the property that the district ended up walking away from. Here's a link:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=168490

If the district doesn't purchase the Brach-Brodie land, it will realistically have to wait a year or so to know what the final damages are that it owes and whether the district's change of site in fact constitutes a 'bait and switch'. It would also take about a year for MidWest to get its portion of the Eola site through the IEPA remediation process.

This new HS is a 50-year decision. For the life of me, I don't understand why the district doesn't do the responsible thing and take a year to resolve those two concerns before moving forward. What makes 2009 so important?

By Jim Jandick on April 8, 2008 9:25 AM
Re: Greg Forrest
Greg you may want to check your info. in 2 areas. 1) taxes for portions of 203 district may be slightly less in the 203 district(but not 50% less). To compare apples to apples check the tax factor regarding the school district area of your property tax bill, seems to me 204 is only a few percentage pts higher. 2) Academic performance of the high schools in 204 district are not under academic watch, you may want to check for yourself.
Greg your input would suggest you may find the 203 district more suited to your needs as that area is built out thus not in need of any additional schools.
I hope you were able to attend last nights school board meeting, for there was much info available
______________________________________________________

Hi Jim
Good to hear from you:

Go to Illinois State Board of Education. I looked at the ereport card public site for both Neuqua and Waubonsie. BOTH ARE ON ACADEMIC WATCH STATUS (page 4 at bottom of each of their efile reports) for 2007-2008. That is my understanding from that data. They are on academic watch (but not yet in AYP program as you have to fail for 2 years in a row) before that happens). Not sure what data you are looking at, but would love to verify with you. I can email copies of the reports I pulled off the site if you would like. Moderator Jim; I approve you to give me email address to Jim Jandick.

As for the property taxes. my friend at work told me how much he is paying and I told him how much I was. There is some variance in housing price; but I will ask to get his actual tax bill from LY and compare to mine for the calcs. I pay 50% more than he does, but you are probably right (its not a true apples to apples).

As for happier in D203. You might be right, but since I live in D204, I have every right to voice my concerns and my thoughts just as everyonne else has that same right. I know you agree with that based on some of your very thoughtful posts I have seen.

Wow, I am having real trouble posting lately. Moderator Jim; I approve you to give Jim Jandick my email address if he requests it for me to send the PDF's of the academic watch for our two HS's I pulled from the Illnois State Board of Education ereport public site.

NSFOC should be run out of town!!! on April 8, 2008 1:38 PM

Please reread: It states 9 named plantiffs and The NSFOC

But of course, troublemakers always make things up.

Did they test the groundwater for TCE? Isn't that the chemical Collins won in a suit against Lockformer in Lisle years ago?

The report states that soil contamination was found in NEARLY HALF (46 of 96) of the locations tested. Huge quantities of chemicals - more than 12,000 gallons were found to have been spilled.

District did not release all reports!

All I have to say is FENCE THAT BABY OFF!!! That just says it all. We will cement over it with tennis courts.. I am so glad my kids will not be going to MV. This is such a joke.

To: big picture issues on April 8, 2008 12:19 PM

"Knowing all you know about Eola today, would you personally consider buying the Eola property for your own use, whether it was to build a home or to make a financial investment? Honestly, objectively, would you really do it - especially if you knew you had other options?"

Let's see, I know that 71.5 acres are safe and 8 of the 15 acres of the former peaker plant are safe. I also know that the EMF levels are very low in the 2.1 range. I also know that when the leaves bloom on those trees on the north side of the property it is quite lovely. So I guess, yes, I would personally buy that property. Heck a church is building there. To be honest I think it is the best site compared to BB (too dangerous with traffic) and Macom (just plain ugly area). I look forward to a HS on that property.

By Long time resident on April 8, 2008 2:25 PM
As I recall, BB was available and under contract to be bought at a reasonable price. However, the original referendum to proceed with the purchase failed. In my opinion, that occurred because some people (prominently WE and TG) vowed to vote against it until they could be sure their kids would not have to go to WV. Soooo, we had the boundary process, with WE and TG getting what they wanted by a 4-3 vote, and then the next referendum passed easily. Unfortunately, in the time delay caused by that process, the contract to buy BB at a reasonable price expired, forcing the SB to try the emminent domain process to get the property, and that had a surprisingly bad outcome.

So I have to say I find it somewhat ironic that people who delayed the process and thereby forced the costs up so much now complain about the SB wasting their money. I also find it amusingly ironic that those people caused a delay in order to ensure that they get what they selfishly wanted, and during that delay circumstances changed in a way which means they cannot get what they selfishly demanded.

Obviously, this is all the fault of the SB, right?

Also, I'd be willing to bet that the polluter will have to pay for the remediation, not 204. But why find out the truth on that before complaining, right? Because the point on all of these complaints is not that money is being wasted, or that the MV site is unsafe ... the point is that some people do not want their kids to go to WV because they think it is not good enough for their kids.

_________________________________________________

Long term resident,

You must have been here so long that you are not paying attention anymore. The Tall Grass subdivision was the ONLY large subdivision to pass the 2005 referendum prior. Get your facts straight before you post garbage.

THIS IS OUR RECKLESS SCHOOL BOARD!

In January 2006, in the District's website entitled "March 21 Referendum, FAQ" the District stated:

"The March 21 Referendum will solve the middle and high school problem by asking the voters to approve building a new high school at the southeast corner of 75th Street and Commons Drive [i.e. Brach-Brodie property]".

Thereafter, and prior to the March 21, 2006 election, the District publicized on its website the PRECISE BOUNDARIES for the three high schools, including the third high school to be built on the Brach-Brodie property.

I find it interesting that our school district is being sued by three or more different attorneys all trying to stiff arm us into purchasing the Brach Brodie property. Any chance Collins (nsfoc),S. Helm (Brach) and J. Simon(Brodie) know each other? They all seem to have the same agenda.....I wonder if there's more incentive than meets the eye.

Re: Greg Forrest
Greg thanks for the info at Illinois board of Education. You are correct, thus I stand corrected. Both 204 high schools are on watch status for the most current testing period. I was commenting on 2005-2006 results that were more favorable. I am in the process of researching other districts because it is my understanding that many districts tested poorly with regard to the most current testing. When that becomes more complete I will post it. Sorry about the comment about moving to district 203, sometimes I take it personally when folks find fault with the our district. As for taxes they are too damn high everywhere. Glad to hear that you were at the meeting last night let me know what you thought.

Congrats NSFOC!! You might just get your way if the IPSD loses in court. The SB fought hard for you and you still sue them and now we're facing even more money. Congrats TG and WE will then be known to have the most expensive HS in the history of the US at over 300 million. If that does happy I hope your happy with yourselves. Then you'll never have to go to WVHS. I can't get over how you've treated everyone in this district with your selfish entitlement attitude. I wish I could tell you where to go on this blog. I can't wait for your next NSFOC meeting!!!

Before you go ASSuming things, you should check facts. As much as many of us appreciated the HazMat Man, he wasn't a NSFOC person. Whoever he was, I say bravo (I thought he looked hilarious and brought some needed attention to the issue at hand) but he didn't represent the NSFOC group. Just who is the mystery man? Guess someone that's just simply had enough of the SB's crazy antics - maybe he's signed up as an NSFOC supporter but he's not one of the main players.

Hopefully others realize that by choosing the Eola site we could as a School District be losing a potential $20-30M in construction grant money from the state. Look at the Build Smart plan from the State and you'll realize that we are taking a serious financial gamble - very simply, we won't qualify for state construction money. Now why would our SB be dumb enough to pass up that?

At what point will the SB realize that there are way too many negatives at the Eola site? Location, environmental issues including pipelines, trains, and remediation costs , lawsuit costs, loss of construction grant money,transportation/transit issues, etc. The Eola site is wrong and it's built on a house of cards waiting to tumble. I personally think that the Eola site will fail and we'll be back at BB. From what I know, I don't think that we'll end up at Eola at all.

After voter approval of said 2006 School Referendum, the District Superintendent issued the following statement:

"The referendum presented to the community was based on the Brach-Brodie land and boundaries [that]were determined. Those boundaries would no longer be in effect if the location of the school changed. In our opinion, the location of the land and boundaries are the contributing factors to why people voted as they did. A promise was made to the community and the community supported the district by passing the referendum."

The district was suppose to Escrow $33,000,000.00 but failed to do so. Jury returned verdict in the amount of $28,503.70 for the 55 acres taken and $2,500,000.00 for damages to the remainder, for a total just compensation of $31,003,750.

STOP THE RUNAWAY SCHOOL BOARD!

To: Coincidental? on April 8, 2008 4:02 PM

"Any chance Collins (nsfoc),S. Helm (Brach) and J. Simon(Brodie) know each other? They all seem to have the same agenda.....I wonder if there's more incentive than meets the eye."

GOOD POINT. I HOPE SOMEONE DIGS INTO THIS. I ALSO THINK IT'S QUIT IRONIC!!

I wonder how soon the countersuit will come against the NSFOC, Brach Trust and Brodie Trust from the residents in the IPSD who have much deeper pockets then the NSFOC. I'll be the first to donate my paycheck!!

FYI: The SBs rush to complete this mess by 2009 is because that's when most of the cu