D204 .. I need some help.

I am trying to compile average raise information in D204 from 1999-2009 similar to what I did for D203.

http://www.mediafire.com/?cr0ae11t12yk175

I am using the data from the Family Taxpayers Foundation

http://www.familytaxpayers.org/salary.php

One snag.

The 2001-2002 raises are almost 23%. Only one year looks anomalous.

I know that cannot be true.

Does anyone know if D204 changed reporting methods in that time frame?

For example, were TRS contributions not included? Were extra-curriculars not included?

Before 2001, the raises look back to normal. That makes me think there was some reporting change between 2001 and 2002 so that a different type of number was reported in 2001 and prior, and things changed starting in 2002.

I doubt this issue carries over to D203 since there was not ONE year where everything changed.

The total number of teachers reported did not change, so I do not think there is a reporting issue by FTF as was posited elsewhere by another frequent poster.

Anyway, if you have any info, please post it with a start "TO -1"...and I'll take a gander.

-1

Comment about this "Anonymous | December 2, 2010 5:20 PM | Reply
Some reasons that private schools can operate on less money:
They do not pay the cost of educating special needs kids." ; the
calculations on cost per student; and teacher salaries.

First, it was D204 who aggressively went after special needs students - whether out of the goodness of their hearts, or as a means to get "free money" from the state - now well over $40 million. D204 is now a special needs magnet. Unfortunately, the state just stopped paying the special needs bill. I heard they started paying again, but are they paying 100% of the commitment, or is the money still going to fund the 2-3 pensions of some retired government workers? The bottom line here is "state" money does not mean "free" money, and we need to get that out of our heads. We need to look at every expenditure, as potentially ours for good. Remember the "free pre-K"? Is that still free? How about "free bus transportation"? Is that still free? Or are we borrowing to cover -- as the state now allows districts to do -- and they are borrowing like there is no tomorrow presently in districts all over the state -- is that "free money" too?

Cost per student should include all costs including capital, borrowing, etc. or have 2 measures: 1) teaching/learning exp per student, and 2) all-in cost per student including all expenses. A third measure might be computed on a 20 year basis - D-204 would be off the charts on that basis (so would many other districts who have borrowed their way into oblivion).

The Catholic school total compensation is well below D203 and D204 - do not even think it is close. Total compensation is salary and benefits. Also, the reason why teachers do not last past five years, is because the young, open, best practice new teachers are used as pawns, to provide low cost service so the tenured teachers can get higher salaries and benefits. That's what its all about - period. When this scam gets figured out, the number of teaching grads will drop - except in the families of existing teachers, because I am sure they will find their way into being kept on after 5 years - some how, some way. Hey, that's da Chicago way. If it were your family, you would do the same ting....right? What's wrong with dat?

Another tax increase coming next year in the amount of 2.7% according to the Sun but our house values are still in the dumper. Go figure.

Hope that all of you people who voted for the third Tahmahal that we didn't need and the current board , and referendums are happier now.

Another day in paradise. I guess that I will just go outside and pull some more money from the money tree.

This is terrible

Mark,

I am curious what your opinion is of Curt Bradshaw's and Mark Metzger's idea to WITHHOLD employee income taxes from the state. Luckily, this idea failed at a recent IASB meeting but I am curious what your take of the idea is. Should Districts be responsible and pay the taxes due as the law requires or should they start withholding the employee income taxes to the state as they suggest?

Mr. 77:

If you've been in Naperville 25 years, you've had plenty of time to see how it was changing; what Naperville is now didn't occur overnight. Yes, you probably are stuck for the time being until housing prices bounce back, but you saw the changes occurring for quite some time before that and still chose to stay--THIS was the choice you made. If you regret that choice now, that's another matter. But to say you never had one to begin with isn't the case.

We moved to Naperville in 1999, at that time Neuqua had only 2 grades attending and there were no plans for another high school. We came from the Houston, TX area where much of the public school system was and still is in shambles. We had our first in a private school and were looking at doubling that cost when the next one started, so I've experienced both private and good/bad public school situations. There was no contest when it came to making the decision to relocate here. The property taxes were a lot higher here than what we were used to in Texas, but the public schools were excellent and we would not have to pay for private school tuition; pretty much a wash. Plus this was a much nicer, safer community. We have never regretted that choice.

Has there been bad decisions by the school board in 204? I would say definitely, I watched the whole Brach/Brodie land mess unfold, the whole if-we-convert-the-middle-schools-to-gold-campuses-we-won't-need-a-third-high-school mess before that. The school board made decisions based on forecasts about the growth of Naperville and future land prices--and were wrong just about every step of the way. That's what's contributed to the fiscal mess 204 finds itself in. But through it all the schools and the education our kids have received has always been excellent. We would make the same choice again despite it.

And I don't see your comment about property taxes having doubled in the last ten years while your income hasn't as having anything to do with it. The cost of LOTS of things have doubled in the past 10 years. When we moved up here, the national average cost of a gallon of gasoline was around $1.52. I filled up yesterday and paid $3.04/gallon. That's double. And in some areas of the U.S. gas is nearly 3 times the 2000 price. Incomes have not kept pace with inflation in many areas, just not taxes.

I always roll my eyes when I see comments insisting that privatization is the magic answer to every problem. Sure, huge bureaucracies are wasteful, and the government is no exception. There's tons of room for improvement. But introducing the profit motive into a service through privatization brings a different set of problems with it and rising prices as well. Our private health care system is the perfect example. Prices of services and insurance is so astronomical that many Americans can't afford to participate in the market at all. The same would happen with education if it were privatized.

Third high school is built and done with. Get over it.

I think over a quarter of a billion dollars in 2011 to educate I believe the number is about 18,000 students in 204 is simply an astounding amount of money. That coupled with incompetent people in charge of spending it is exactly why we have this financial disaster called SD 204.

While I profess not to know much about D204, as co-chair of QE203.org I do an annual analysis of academic performance and costs for the top 7 HS districts and the top 7 Combined Unit Districts such as 204 and 203. If you go to What is the Best Educational Value in Chicagoland? you can get an excellent snap shot of how 204 compares to its peers.

A word of caution; The Operational Expenditures Per Pupil (OEPP) does not included bond debt retired or capital expenditures. If you factor that into the mix, the cost for new schools in districts such as 204, the total cost will be significantly higher. The additional cost for 204 compared to D203 is on the order of $800 per pupil more.

I’ll also mention that a similar discussion regarding public/private school cost is going on in the Report Card thread. I posted some information about the differences here and another poster added to that comment talking about the fact that public school systems are required by law to provide special ed services to private/parochial schools at no cost.

As to salaries, I think you will find that teachers in parochial schools, on average, do make less than public school teachers, however Benet teacher salaries are commensurate with 204-203, and could well have higher average salaries than 204. I do think that for teachers at parochial schools it is a calling to service as much as it is a career. Then again, I remember reading about the Chicago Archdiocese and their desire to raise their teachers salaries because they were so low. I'll have to see if I can find the reference.

I'll also mention that 50% of new teachers never make it past 5 years. If being a teacher is such an easy lucrative gig, I have to believe that figure would be much less.

Thom Higgins

QE203.org

Anonymous is correct that private schools don't have the expense of special needs students,which gives the private schools a cost advantage. Yes, they also get donations, but that isn't as big a factor as is suggested. The major issue is lower salaries, and while many factors contribute to the academic success of private school students, it is clear that high teacher salaries are not a factor in that success . Therefore, I submit that high teacher salaries are not necessary for a successful school. They are necessary for a successful union.

To Anonymous | December 2, 2010 5:20 PM,

Public Schools get funding back from governments to bus their kids and for special needs kids' services. I personally would not go so far as to blame the special needs kids for the bloated budget in district 204. How much is spent compared to the bond and interest payments we spend on brick and mortar? How much is spent on the positions you list (as a percentage) compared to the overall salary budget? If I read your post further, it sounds like you are saying we are overpaying public school teachers and administrators compared to the private sector and are getting lower performance versus their private school counterparts. I can not disagree with that one bit. Thank you for making that point.

Some reasons that private schools can operate on less money:

They do not pay the cost of educating special needs kids. Any special needs kids they may serve are provided services through the local public schools. Local school districts have to provide these services to the private schools. It does cost more to educate a child with special needs due to the additional services, teachers and assistants that they require. The private school does not have to pay the cost of a school psychologist, social worker, learning disabilities specialist that is required of the public schools. Yet the services of those people are supplied by the local public schools to the private schools in their attendance boundaries.

Private schools do not need to accept every student who walks through the door. They can turn families and children away any time, and often do.

Private schools pay far lower salaries to the teachers and administrators they employ than the public school does. While some of this is due to the nonexistence of unions in the private schools, it still means significantly lower costs for operating. (In the case of one local Christian school where a friend of mine teaches, female teachers are paid lower salaries than male teachers who are in similar positions and with similar experience. When she complained, she was told she was welcome to find a teaching job somewhere else.)

Successful private schools often receive a large amount of donations from alumni, and if they are religion based, from local churches too. These donations do impact the cost of tuition for the students.

Comparing the costs of the two is like comparing apples to oranges.

Mr. 77:

Re: this comment:

"And you tell me that "It is the price we pay to live in a communiity" --- Answer me this. Do we have a choice ? No we dont'. We are forced to pay. How much is enough when in comes to Social Responsibility?"

Sure you have a choice. You have the choice to not live in Naperville and live in any other community where the taxes are lower. Naperville is a privileged community, the taxes we pay reflect that. You can pay less in taxes elsewhere, but the community most likely won't be as nice as Naperville or have comparable amenities. That is the choice you make. Sure, you have to pay some taxes no matter where you live. As Mark pointed out, taxes are the price we pay to maintain the infrastructure of society. If you want less taxes, live someplace where there is less infrastructure to support, like a more rural setting. If you decide to stay in Naperville, then stop bitching about it. You've made your choice.

Mr Metzger (Mark), was that you?

To Mark:

I am sorry that you have no patience for people like me who complain about Social Responsbility with respect to taxes. Isn't there some Social Responsibility to the older people who want to retire, and if they do, they have to sell their houses because they can no longer afford the taxes. You tell me that this is right.

And you tell me that "It is the price we pay to live in a communiity" --- Answer me this. Do we have a choice ? No we dont'. We are forced to pay. How much is enough when in comes to Social Responsibility?

Also,can you answer me this? Social Responsibilty or not ,why is it that I can send my children to private schools for 12 years and pay far less in the long run then having to pay these we pay and are stuck with all of our lives. If the private sector can make it on far less money, why can't the public schools ???

And please get off your kick about the decent schools and community and how it benefits. My generation came from plain old brick buildings with tile floors and have gone on to be outstanding family people, and went on to become pretty sucessful. We didn't need Tajmahal schools to get an education. We were told to go to school and learn. We didn't have anything fancy. We didn't have oak trim, 8 panel raised oak door, quarry tile floors, and third bond oversized brick.
You tell me that this is necessary to get an education. I think not. These schools are country clubs and are nicer that the inside of many peoples homes.

With respect to taxes for the police, fire, and roads, your are already paying taxes in one form or another. I have not problem with this, because I contine to uses the services just like you.

In closing, I have paid more that my fair share for over 40 years. And once again ------- have your wages doubled in the last ten years like the taxes ? If so, you are one of the lucky ones and I wish you the best. And in the mean time I will do like I said in the the past, and continue to support the food pantry, donate to the church, BoyScouts and so on. But at least it is my choice and is not ramrodded down my throat as you feel it should be.

Let me and others run our own lives. I hope that you will be one of the lucky ones that will some day be able to afford to pay your taxes when you retire or just become older. Think about your decision today, as there is a large ripple effect that takes place with each and every action.

Mr. 77,

You may not want to hear about "social responsibility," but that's the way it is. Personally, I have no patience for people who repeat that tired old complaint about why they pay taxes when they no longer have children in school. It may be annoying, but it's part of the price we pay to live in a community -- in a nation -- that tries to educate its children. We all benefit when children can go to decent schools, get a decent education, and get started down the road to live better lives.

It is in all of our interests to maintain good schools in our community. Our community remains stronger, our homes maintain more of their value, and the fabric of our community is knit a bit tighter. There are such things as a common good, and we have to pay for them somehow. Or do you not want me to pay taxes for your roads, police, firefighters and Social Security?

Anon:

The courts well as the school district can to go hell as far as I am concerned. You do have a valed point that MM gets re-elected and the rest of the clowns by the tax payers so you are right. I guess the bottom line is that when enough tax payers have had enough, things will change so I guess the only ones who are really the blame is the tax payers.

And please don't tell me it is about the children. I can send my kids to a private school and onlly pay for the 12 years they are there. Can you answer me why we have to pay all of our lives these outrages taxed? The private sector can make it --- why can't the school system make it. And correct me if I am wrong, I have been told that about 50% of the people who pay taxes don't have kids in school. Where doess all of this money go. And, I have been paying taxes for over 40 years and have only used the school systemt for 12 years. Somehow the math just doesnt' work. And don't tell me about social responsibility. I pay my taxes and support charitable organizations as I can. I am just tired of paying, paying, and paying and being forced to pay in school taxes.

Why to people have to sell their homes when they retire because they can't afford the taxes. This is wrong. I just wish that enough tax payers would wake up to what is really going on. My taxes have doubled in the last 10 years yet my wages have not. And I am not the only one. Have your wages doubled in the last ten years. If so, you are one of the lucky ones.

And in closing, what warrants the adminstrators six figure incomes and golden parachute retirement plans. I am sure that most of us would like this sweet deal.

Yeah Mr. 77. Good thinking. Tell the court to go to hell, we are not paying the rich fat cats who are beneficiaries of the Brach-Brody Estate because it is too much of a financial imposition upon the SD 204 and would deprive our children of finances that are needed for education. In reality, all of us who voted for the referendum and the people on the board are responsible the this mess. In other words, the incompetence of the board at the time and the current board are the people we elected to represent us. And may I remind you everytime MM runs we elect him. So how angry is the community at the board? Now the board is going to pay up rather than appeal this appropriate decision. And we are going to pay up as taxpayers and elect more goofs to represent us in what continues as the great chain of life.

If the judge rules that 204 has to pay up what happens if they don't ? Are they going to Foreclose on the schools ?? And take the schools back. I think not, but I think it is a good idea.

Don't pay, let the courts and banks foreclose on the district and take the homes of all the school board member that got us into this mess as well. Maybe the board would finally learn how to handle other peoples money. Metzler house first then tar and feather them all. They could then set up residence with Scott Huber.

Really, think about it. If they don't pay what is due what can really be done.

It's a shame we could not stop paying our taxes as they will come and take your house, but maybe if somehow that could be changed and not pay the taxes for the schools which is about 71% of your tax bill, maybe things would change.

This board should be put in jail for the way they have duped the tax payers.

Have a nice day in paradise!

I stand corrected. All I see out there is 1952 as the age of the current NCHS building, so nearly 60 years old. The 105 years was probably seered into my brain in the buildup to the NC building renovation. Perhaps someone used the age of the high school entity, which moved from building to building, as a spin for the need of a new HS or new renovations. I had no reason to check that fact, because I live in D204. I should have realized that you cannot believe everything you are told or what is written. We found out the hard way in D204.

Naperville has a long history of building really ugly and expensive school buildings... a history and a reality shared by both school districts. Despite all of the wealth, talent, and high taxes in both school districts there isn't a single architecturally significant public school building in Naperville.

Maybe it is a psychological tool being used to keep the pupils from being distracted by a really well designed facility? If the building is so ugly it isn't worth looking at then maybe the pupils will simply pay more attention to the teacher.

Anon on Nov 26:

That sounds right. I heard Naperville Central, the one that is being renovated now, is somewhere around 60 years old, not 105 as previously mentioned.

Voting idiot:

My understanding about the recent judgement is that 204 did expect to have to pay this amount for backing out of the Brach land deal, but they were only required by the court at the time to but 3.5 million of it in escrow. Now they have to cough up the remainder of the judgement, but it is what they had budgeted years ago.

anon at 10:48:

I think you're only half right. I absolutely agree that involved parents make for superior students. But those students also need the curriculum, the teachers and the physical property necessary to promote a quality education. That's where so many inner-city and rural schools fail to match up. They find it tough to recruit quality instructors, and the physical plant isn't there -- no good science labs, no art supplies, no music, no computers. We need all of those to give students a shot at success.

And BTW, don't for a minute think that parents are involved simply because they live in D204. I know far too many parents who don't give a hoot about their students' studies.

Naper School on Eagle was the original high school. Then in the 40's I believe the old Washington Jr. High school on Washington was the second high school. I think the current Naperville Central, whats left of the original building anyway was opened in the late 50's. Finally, lets not be dramatic with SD 204 being one of the top school districts in the state. The fact is they spend a kings fortune and frankly, I suspect they could spend much less because you see, it is my impression highly motivated parents of the students anywhere plays a bigger role in the sucess than the amount spent per student. If it were not for motivated parents and it was just the money spent per student, 204 would be like the D.C. school system where they spend about $15,000 per student per year but none of the students can read their diplomas when they graduate. That is dramatic.

Voting yes for a referendum and then crying after the fact is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer repeatedly then complaining that your head hurts.

London Calling:

Naperville Central HS was built before 1905? Really? I heard it was built sometime in the 1940s or 50s, not at the turn of the century. Are you sure about that?

First of all, if the ruling truly was expected, than District 204 admin and board either lied to us or are practicing invalid (and possibly illegal) accounting practices. They only had expensed about 3.5 of teh 6 million, so their books are mistated by the difference. Hmmmmmm?

Second, we continue to be played as dupes and idiots by teh 204 School Board. Their rationale for building the third school has been shot in the butt (hey, where is all that growth in students, anyway?). and now we find out that they are either incompetent or crooks when reporting their results to us.

Stupid, stupid us!

Anon 9:56,
Don't be dramatic. 204 is one of the top districts in the state. As a taxpayer, you have the right to question it and the funds you give to it. However, use some common sense and intellect.

"A win win for lawyers, a lose lose for taxpayers? "

That is one of the reasons why I absolutely, positively never, ever vote for a lawyer to any serve in any elected position.

If you want to keep screwing it up then keep voting for lawyers who run for public office.

If you actually want to start solving problems then start voting to elect the "Joe six packs of the world... guys and gals like you and me who are sick and tired of overeducated and under experienced lawyers without a lick of common sense screwing up every branch of our government.

What is idiodtic is to spend $150 MIL + for a building that looks like that. They could have spent less and the "kids" could still learn. That is the argument. By the way, I would like to move very much. The small problem is there are many more, hundreds and hundreds of people like me who would love to move but can't because there are not enough stupid home buyers who want to live here and pay the tax nut that goes with it or apprently, settle for SD 204.

Sam, you have a valid point. How can you not pay the piper eventually. The debt for D204 keeps getting refinanced just like mortgages were refinanced, and we all know where that went. The total costs of debt is escalating to the joy of the banks, the Morgan Stanley's, and Ehler's (the district bond broker and sponsor of many area studies by NIU that forcasted huge growth and the need for school buildings - and you guessed it - bond funding). The best investment today is a rich school district that is required by law to pay bond obligations before any other liability.

Last I heard was D204 had $0.5 billion in debt - yes, a shock to me as well. Of course, that is only the principle people, and we all know you pay nearly twice as much over time for a mortgage. This is essentially the same economic impact. So someone has to pay.

So we have 13,400 seat capacity and only 8900 students, and will pay over $300 million in principle, interst and operating costs for this building. Who cares what it looks like, but we should care about what travesty has been dropped on the taxpayers. There is no defense for the light of day on the actual numbers.

Someone should be in jail for this public dupe job. And when WVHS is spun as too old (even though under 40 years old, versus the D203's Naper Central HS over 105 years old and being renovated), and "needs to be closed", we will be back to square one - 8000 high school students and 10,400 seats - as we were before the 2006 referendum to build a thrid high school. How stupid we will look then!

1) You paid Furstenau's and the City's legal fees. Why can't you pay D204's? =)

2) Why is the look of the Metea building so important to you? I can understand the public's outrage over not wanting the building. There's valid arguments there. But arguing that the building is ugly...that's just idiotic.

I believe the building has been a success. The students in that "ugly" building are learning, and that's the important thing.

So lighten up. Get over it. The high school is there to stay. If you don't like it, vote otherwise or move out of District 204.

Why is it that today, the Sun can publish the 2-4 spin that they always expected the $6 million bill and that they actually reduced our taxes, but not run the background for context?

Yes,as I recall, the admin "reduced" our tax payments by refinancing aportion of existing debt for a longer period. This is, in my mind, akin to paying the minimum due on your credit card bill: your monthly payment is less, but over the full term you are going to pay a lot more in total. In the larger sense, it is not exactly true that the administration reduced our taxes. After all, how can spending $150 million reduce taxes? If that is possible, then why not spend enough to reduce our taxes to zero? The district is disingenuos at best and the Sun is aiding them in their spin by only printing what the district issues in a press release/letter to parents.

Finally, if they expected to lose and to pay the legal fees, why did they spend even more money to fight the case? Not only did they spend money for our legal costs, but likely the verdict included the costs Brach -Brodie spent over the past two years, as well. A win win for lawyers, a lose lose for taxpayers?

Anonymous, the post-legal case price was not $38 million, but $31M all-in at Boach Brodie property location.

The "Imperial" Prairie School District 204 paid about $6.5 million (x-legal fees) for the original 25 acres before any legal actions to determine the price on the remaining 55 acres.

Add to that the settlement cost (the subject of this blog) of $6 M to Brach. Add to that the $19 M cost of Eola site of the new school. Add to that about $15 M in contruction speed up and other costs required due to the "bait and switch" move to the north Eola site after the vote for various requirements that would have not been requred at Brach Brodie site. Add about $12 M in additional transportation costs (more students on buses) spread over 15 years. Not to mention parent and student drivers driving their cars from where the most of the population is (60%+) to where most of the population is not (18% -).

That's about ...OK...let me see...add the 2, 5 ....carry the ....$27 million higher cost than the district and it's crazy followers ("the leaders will tell us what to do...then we must destroy all challengers..the leaders....the leaders know all...we must follow the leaders - YOU GET IT RIGHT?).

Hey, those NFCO people knew better - but they lied to us to, because they only said the new site would be $16 M over the old site - not $27 M and counting..noting here that this is not over people of earth. The costs are growing, like a bad idea, or pesky problem about misleading the public with pumped up student population forcasts and shrunken building capacities.

Example: we went from stuffing 11,200 high schoolers into 8000 seats (NIU/Ehlers study), to actually 8900 high schoolers into 10,400 seats (oops - we go to add another 3000 seats don't we, because we built another high school did we not?) . OK, so 8900 actual high schoolers into 13,400 seats. Yeah, I think they will fit.

Don't worry, though people, because we are going to have to take care of a huge massive bubble of students that will balloon our HS population to maybe 9500 students in capacity of 13,400. Yeah, even they might fit.

But don't worry great people of The Imperial Prairie District 204, because the student population will start shrinking right away after that. Now we even have a plan for that. Say the HS students shrink to 8000, then we can close WVHS due to over capacity - you know - just change the spin.

Is this earth? We have a problem Houston? Or do we not?

Bottom line is that the entire school board should be fired. Period !! This whole thing is a disaster.

Then new high school should be changed over to office space or sold. And yes it is ugly on top of it.

What a farce. How can the school board keep making such mistakes and no one gets fired. If you did your job like the school board does, you would have been held responsible and fired as well. Why is the school board allowed to play by different rules. (Maybe they are politicians and we just don't know it) No one is held responsible and I would like someone to tell me why they are "above the law".

This is a travesty ! Are all you people who voted for the referendum happy now ??

Anybody besides me NOT surprised at the judges ruling in the Brach-Brody vs. The Imperial School District 204 land grab case? What does Dorothy French have against children? Or does she not think much of the citizen leadership qualities of the 204 Board? Actually I don't think the ruling is unfair and what is $5mil spread among all the 204 taxpayers anyway? Peanuts. Besides, we have our school. Done. Never mind if it is one of the most hideous buildings in all of 204 land. I cannot believe you could design or select and build a more unappealing building than that place.

Note: This post was copied to this thread by the moderator to be included in the discussion.

Settlements pertaining to legal fees rarely surprise anyone. Judges once upon a time were lawyers and settlements like this are just another example of lawyers looking our for lawyers more than lawyers looking out for justice or fairness. An interesting aspect of this case is if SD 204 was 2 years further behind in their planning and didn't try to ram though the approval process so quickly... (anyone remember all of the other money spent on the "quick take" they tried to get away with?)... and had instead tried to purchase after the bottom dropped out of the market they actually would have been able to purchase the land for less than they had budgeted... Maybe in a future report the Naperville Sun can let us know some more specifics of what is going on and how this settlement really applies to the situation.... Way back when SD204 bought 25 acres with the option to sell it back and or buy additional acreage. In the most recent round of failed negotiations SD 204 tried to buy an additional 55 acres. Is the $6 million for legal fees pertaining to the 55 acres or the entire 80 acre parcel? If the $6 million is for the 55 acres that amounts to almost $110,000 per acre for legal fees alone. If the $6 million is for the entire 80 acres that amounts to almost $75,000 per acre in legal fees. In my opinion either amount is obscene considering this represents the legal fees for only one of the parties. There is something fundamentally wrong with how the legal system operates if a judge can somehow approve approximately 3,000 man days of work by the lawyers just on one side of this dispute. Looking at the jury award of about $38 million for the additional 55 acres... noting the amount of the jury award was never appealed to determine if it was a fair award due to the perceived time urgency... that still means the legal fees represent over 15 percent of the land value. Lawyers are a dime a dozen, especially real estate attorneys. There is no way a business would ever agree to pay attorney fees like this so why should a government entity just because they are forced to use eminent domain considering they still have their land. IF a long, contested fight took place where the SD failed to negotiate a fair price there might be some logic in large legal fees to compensate for having to fight to preserve a fair amount, but that is not what happened. The better questions behind all of this is what ever happened to the original 25 acres? Does SD 204 still own the land or not? If the SD still owns the land what are they going to do with it? If the SD does not still own the land.... when was it sold, who bought it, and for how much money?