Preface: If you were given permission to borrow and spend up to $110,000,000 how much would you spend? Caveat: if you choose to spend it all and you live in the right location at the wrong time, in a $200,000 home, your monthly payments would only be around $280 per year. (first year) The current economy sucks, don’t it. District 428 finally got a referendum approved after a decade of trying. That decade experienced the biggest boom in local new construction ever. As fate would have it, the school district must weigh the impact of borrowing money for building new schools with the inconvenient fact that, as of December 24, 2008, 54 homes within the district’s boundaries are scheduled to be sold via the DeKalb County Sheriff’s auction before the close of the current school year. Thoughts on District 428 Facilities Planning Committee meeting Jan. 13, 2008 Several city administrative staff members were present at the beginning of the meeting but left before it ended. Long meeting. Superintendent James (Jim) Briscoe presented the committee with a proposal to consider hiring the construction firm currently building the new grade school in Cortland as a Construction Manager for the proposed new high school. My initial reaction was to dismiss the idea because the committee already spent a lot of time debating the General Contractor versus Construction Manager arrangement and recommended the former over the latter. But circumstances can change direction. Failure to adapt to changing circumstances can lead to disaster. Briscoe said he was making the recommendation based on on-the-field observations and felt such an arrangement might increase checks and balances on the high school construction. Briscoe was not the superintendent when the referendum was only a ballot measure. He is, for all intent and purposes, the CEO of the school district. So I moved to hold another special meeting, sans the architects and the construction firm, this Thursday (Jan. 16) after the Citizen’s Finance Advisory Committee meeting. More questions can be asked of and answered by Briscoe. Should the District purchase more land for the high school site? It currently owns 79.5 acres for the new high school site. They hold an option to purchase 25 more acres. The District has around $250,000 in impact fees collected from Cortland. No referendum money would be used to purchase the land. Ivan Krpan and I voted against recommending the District purchase the additional 25 acres but the motion to recommend the purchase passed. Shodeen Development may purchase some of the land contained in the Iron Gate proposed residential project. Little details are known at this time but changes to the site plan for the high school are likely. The land of Iron Gate, and the high school for that matter, are not yet annexed into the City of DeKalb. Because District 428 needs to annex before the development (if it does) there are some cart-before-the-horse issues. The main one is that Wildflower Street, or at least the portion of it needed to service the high school, will have to be built and paid for by the District. For the Good of the Order My bruised ego. I don’t really consider myself an important person, heck, aw shucks, I’ve never accepted a VIP pass to the Cornfest tent at the beer garden. But, I think I’ve stepped up to help. Jeesh!!! Slap that ego down, Mac. Any citizen who writes a letter to a local elected official or appointed administrator should at least get an auto-response that says, “I received your letter and will contact you or have my people contact you as soon as possible.” I guess Kris Povlsen could say that he had one of his people contact me, that being Mark Biernacki, who was the only one of four who received my email letter who responded. Mike Verbic and Jim Briscoe didn’t. Not even an acknowledgement and they were both in attendance at the meeting. Heck, I even signed Verbic’s petition to run for re-election to the school board. I’ll sign anyone’s petition willing to step up to an elected office. At least I’m courteous. The FPC addressed “financial concerns” during the For the Good of the Order pre-adjournment session of the agenda. The city administrators in attendance had left by then. I think maybe they wanted to hear and perhaps provide input on any financial concerns regarding the $2-million in TIF funds the City could allocate them if the money is spent on Huntley Middle School or Cheseboro Elementary School by 2010. I’m sure they would have been interested in explaining their side of the coin on the TIF capture of debt-obligation-school-tax-levy that will be used for other purposes issue. But the meeting was long, and there are lots of meetings to attend… and besides, some of us have family issues that are pressing, too. So we (Ivan and I) asked about the $2 million. The District would really like the City to extend the time period, beyond 2010 but they will use it regardless of deadline. Hopefully it will be used to reduce the amount of debt bond obligations from up to $110-million to up to $108-million. Tom Teresinski confirmed that $2-million not borrowed is really worth $4-million in taxpayer dollars. Hypothetical arguments were presented to convince the two winers and naysayers, as Ron Naylor described Ivan and me, that the intergovernmental agreement between the school district and the City of DeKalb, plus combinations of numbers from TIF Districts 1, 2 and 3, made the District whole. That intergovernmental agreement says the District and the City will split the referendum debt bond tax increase levied on homes in the TIF District(s) on a 50-50 basis. Half of their tax increase will go to the City’s TIF projects and half will go to the School District. The half that goes to the school district is unencumbered, meaning the District could apply their share to debt reduction… or not. I asked for hard numbers in a format most of us residents can understand so we don’t have to rely on hypothetical examples and speculation. I think that is a fair request. We’ll see if those facts and numbers are produced. After going round and round the hypothetical circle, Naylor asked what would make me happy and wanted a solution based answer. My response was for the City of DeKalb to exercise their Home Rule Authority (and Illinois courts shall construe that authority liberally) to give 100% of the school district debt bond tax increase to the District for the sole purpose of debt reduction. I tried to talk to the committee and the school board members in attendance (Mike Verbic, Holly Wallace, Michael Lord, Jim Mitchell) about adapting. Adapting to the economy in real time. I passed around a sheet that had the names and addresses of the 54 homes scheduled for Sheriff’s auction foreclosure sale (as of December 24). I pointed out some were teachers, police officers, former NIU basketball standouts — a lot of good people. I pointed out that student enrollment projections were reduced AFTER the referendum passed but no adaptation to downsize building sizes were made. Krpan reinforced the new construction slow down that has occured since the referendum passed. The student enrollment figures, and the debt repayment amounts, are based on the District getting $60 million a year ($20 million EAV) in new construction each year for the next 24 years. The student projections used to justify the high school’s size are based on the District getting 600 new homes built in it for the next 24 consecutive years. It was at that point that Naylor pointed out that the FPC had already discussed and voted to maintain pre-referendum high school size, using the speculation described above. He didn’t understand why the committee was wasting their time listening to the same old complaints from the two complainers. I took that as my cue to shut up, so I did. Teresinski then told the committee perhaps they should have given Krpan and my concerns more consideration. No adaption was made. Next meeting, Thursday Double Header… Citizen Finance Advisory Committee, FPC special meeting. FPC members as identified in the October 8 FPC minutes: (School board members in italics) Ronald Beldon |
Jan 142009
Mac
I am really confused.
My understanding of TIF is that when a property is included in a TIF district, any extra property tax revenue generated by it’s increased value ( because of TIF improvements)is diverted from general revenue and used to pay for public improvements and other development costs in the area.
As an example when the City builds a new parking facility at Second and Locust this project will increase surrounding property values and those increases in EAV and subsequent taxes are diverted to the TIF district for additional improvements.
When TIF proceeds go to the school unemcumbered how can we be sure those funds will be used to increase property values thus meeting the real intention of TIF.
Maybe I am way off base but can see debt reduction as a means of meeting the definition because new schools would increase property values. If these funds are diverted to the operating budget then the whole TIF falls apart as trhere is no increase in property values.
What am I missing
Pevo
add me to confused list. how can 4 of 6 board members be on this committee.
There are officially only 2 board members designated as part of the FPC. They however are not able to vote as any school official is not able to vote also. Unfortunately, this was clarified after the FPC voted to maintain the size of the school to referendum specs (with some minor additions).
The NO’s were overwhelmingly beat and this was primarily due to 7 of those voting being on the school payroll or the school board. Actually, 4 board members voted to maintain the school size. The problem that I see with maintaining this size is the new projected enrollment numbers show a major decrease. 520 student short in just 2012 and no expectation to even break the 2,100 student mark until 2019. We will still have seating space for 400 plus students and a core that is big enough for 900 students. The current demographics do not even show us anywhere near the 2,500 mark and I believe that was a 15 year view.
I tried to get them to design the school smaller but to be able to add on in the future as the demand grows. My feeling is that the core of the school is so much more efficient that we could easily endure a little busting at the seams if we needed to for a couple of years. Either by adding another hour or slightly upping the number of students per class. The numbers used to decide whether eliminating 14 class rooms would be beneficial came up to about $5 to $6 million. This must be weighed with the costs to add the 14 back when truly needed which could easily double if not more. The FPC majority refused to even scale back the “core” where many of the dollars are being spent. Scaling back the “core” along with the 14 classrooms could easily save the district $15 to $20 million dollars.
I would like to note that it was Ron Naylor, who also serves DeKalb as the 5th Ward Alderman, that made the motion to keep the core at the 3,000 mark and the capacity for students at 2,500. He graciously allowed us whiners and naysayers the opportunity to see the savings if the school was built for 2,000 students or 2,250. I will point out again that if you are downsizing the classrooms due to a shortage of students why are we not downsizing the core? The core in this school will be a very big part of the maintainence cost, a cost that keeps on taking and taking every year.
My whole problem with this school and the lack of flexibility with this school is that it is being built by non-builders. Sure, the architects went to all of the educators to see how the building should function and what is demanded in order for our teachers to teach. This school is a major tool in educating the kids today. My contention is that the space that is required by our teachers can also come in a building shaped as a box or it can also be done in a building designed to look like the “taj mahal”. This building is resembling the “taj mahal” unfortunately. I would have been very happy in the middle somewhere. This building is extremely spread out which you can break it down into thirds. One wing for education, one for athletic/sports/p.e., and the last is the cafeteria, offices, and auditorium. NO BASEMENT area for much needed storage but no one is listening on this issue.
I feel the architects have failed but not at their fault. This is the direction they were given and they drew it. With the exception of the classroom area, nothing else can easily be added to thus the “core” for 3,000 must stay. If this building was built at least a little boxier, we could make the “core” a bit smaller in some areas and easily expand if needed if growth does explode here. If growth does explode in the future, we will then know we have the money for the extra space. Less revenue from new EAV, property values dropping, government taking more tax paying properties off the tax rolls, less students will mean less dollars from the state. How will we meet the payments for an oversized school?
The other concern, what and where is the operation funds coming from to maintain these new schools? The high school alone is adding 400,000 square feet to the districts janitorial and groundskeeping crew. I pretty sure the additional 20 acres is not needed. There is plenty of green space around the school. They have made a minor change in Wildflower by straightening it out giving the school district the chance to purchase 5 additional acres. This is actually the right move for it does so much for the upper corner of the new high school site.
Lastly I say to all of those who wish to be or already consider themselves to be whiners and naysayers, stay strong, we need each and every one of you. As to Ron Naylor, I’m sorry to be questioning what I feel are very pertinent concerns with how money is being spent is every taxpayers duty and right. Rubber stamping is a practice that this community needs to be rid of along with the overspending and tunnel vision of boards and councils.
Not only 4 Board members on this committee but also at least 1/2 dozen administrators and two city officials are listed. If they aren’t supposed to vote, then the whole question about the size of the school should be a do-over. The night of that vote it was 13-5, school board + admins + city against the very few “regular” folks (and Fred Davis, who somehow found a way to change his vote after the fact) who still have been attending since the referendum passed.
So Mr. Naylor really did call you whiners?
He sure did. Looked at Mac who was at his 2 o’clock and me at his 11 o’clock and said that this committee had discussed this over and over and that we can’t continue to discuss it everytime the whiners and naysayers start it up again. The interesting thing about the meeting last night and this is the first time that I remember it happening, Tori Addison who takes minutes of the meeting actually recorded the whole meeting last night. Everything said is on tape.
I have also heard today that there is a growing number, whether they are whiners and naysayers also, that are looking for a legal way to revote the referendum due to the erroneous information given prior to the referendum and more importantly, the economic down turn since the referendum. Let’s face it, the state of the City isn’t really healthy at this time. I would think just a simple court injunction could really throw a major monkey wrench into the plans.