On March 2, the District 428 School Board learned from Mike Frances, a senior financial adviser for PMA, Inc. that the district is looking at a $1.5 million deficit heading into the next fiscal year. The District is authorized by referendum to sell up to $110 million in debt obligation bonds to build two new schools and repurpose three existing schools. Yet, at March 18 Candidates Forum at the Egyptian Theatre, not a single direct question about the operating deficit or school construction plans was asked of the five candidates running for three open seats on the District 428 Board of Education. Mike Verbic (President) and Michael Lord are seeking re-election to the Board. Andy Small chose not to run for another term. Charles Hiller, Jessica Lyons and Mellodie Howard-Powell are the challengers in the school board race. The top three vote-getters of the five will fill the open seats. The candidates generally agreed on most of the questions asked. Most of the questions were related to curriculum, diversity and the District’s Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) reports required by the No Child Left Behind Act. Verbic and Lord cited improved student test scores as among their top priorities. Lyons and Powell have both expressed concerns about lower test scores among the District’s minorities. Lyons promotes more parental involvement and input on their children’s education. The candidates did discuss school construction in their opening or closing statements. Verbic and Lord emphasized their desire to see the referendum passed last year through. Hiller and Lyons noted the disparities between schools in the district. Hillier referred to the new high school, soon to be under construction, as a Taj Mahal in expressing his desire to serve on the board. The budget deficit was also acknowledged. In response to a question asking what the candidates’ top three priorities are, finances were cited among all candidates. Hillier cited the low CPI factor used to determine a portion of the District’s revenue stream as a challenge. Powell believes increasing accountability and openness is needed to rebuild the community’s trust in the district. Transparency and accountability was an area of contrast among the candidates. Lord and Verbic believe they will continue the District’s transparency and accountability. Hillier said that citizens only need to attend school board meetings to learn about the District. Lyons and Powell said those areas are of concern to them and will work to improve both. |
Mar 252009
I told a group of administrators and school board members, especially Mike Verbic and Andy Small, the evening that the school referendum passed that the community is trusting them to do right with the construction referendum. I also told them that many of us who supported this referendum did so because of the needs of the students. “You have one great opportunity here to show the good people of DeKalb that the school board can be trusted, you mess up, never again will this or any other board pass a referendum”.
I received back many I know, we know, this is great comments but all of that has seemed to fall to the wayside. We now know that much of the information given to us voters concerning the numbers and projections basing the size of the new high school are and were at fault prior to the referendum. Thus, many of us voted yes based on this misinformation. The school board seems to be arguing that they are authorized by mandate of the voters to build this school. Unfortuately, it is not the same school proposed for the referendum. It has taken on a life of its own.
400,000 square ft. of building. You will be very hard pressed to find another community with this size of a building. You can say whatever you wish to about the building being some monument to the “board” but it is way over what is expected in this community. The inefficiency in the design has made it a very costly building to construct and alternatives were not seriously considered as may be reported as much as cleverly pushed to the side based on architects recommendations and warnings. Although, the more the building costs, the percentage they receive for pay escalates, imagine that.
There are many buildings in the area designed to handle DeKalb’s target point for capacity and many of these same buildings are actually smaller in square footage and much more economical to heat and cool then this school will be. I am predicting now that the costs to operate this school alone will become the issue of another tax increase. DeKalb School District just does not have the current means to handle it infrastructure, current or future.
Let’s forget all of the above and just concentrate on enrollment projections though. It will be 12 years before we actually break 2,100 students depending how the administration classifies students at the high school (trades programs at other buildings are now counted at the current high school as enrolled numbers but not there). Wouldn’t it be better to downsize this new high school by actually designing it properly for future expansion and utilize the $20,000,000.00 plus that would be saved at this school and actually use it to improve the facilities at several grade schools that are desperate for help? Now, this is my opinion and you have to weigh this yourselves. I ask however, why does this school board refuse to bring it up at least for discussion to see what you may feel? This is why I insist that our current school board has dropped the ball here. They refuse to adjust for today’s economy and that concerns me to where else this attitude may be prevalent.
Please think about this vote as you enter the voters booth. Are you confident with the direction the school board is on with the money they were given and trusted with?
Thank you Mr.Krpan!
I ask this question alot, how about you? If you are not, then why?
Why is the school board refusing to demand all the referendum tax dollars from the city? Why is President Mike Verbic allowing the City of DeKalb to lose the dollars that the voters intended for the school referendum to be dumped into the city’s TIF District? Is this fair to the many taxpayers in this community who are now having to extend the bond years? Extending the bond years means each and everyone of us pays longer (just like going from a 20 year mortage to a 30 year mortgage). This also means that the city will get the “windfall” for the same extended time.
Everyone who agrees that Home Rule is such a great thing should tell the mayor and council that the voters demand the city to give the school district 100% of those dollars to PAY DOWN THE SCHOOL REFERENDUM BOND, NOTHING ELSE! That’s what the voters intended and that’s what should be done.
Where are you school board? Why are you not fighting to get the school childrens money back? And now you ask to be reelected? Right!
Hello Ivan and DeKalb County Online Reader,
We are right here and working for every dollar, on your behalf, to help our effort! I have left you voice messages but have not received your call. I am one of 7. I cannot perform any duty individually!
The $2M in TIF monies owed to the school district will be used for the re-purposing of Chesebro Elementary and Huntley Middle Schools, as discussed and supported by the FPC and City of DeKalb. This will cover the $2M budgeted referendum commitment for those two buildings, eliminating the need for $2M in taxpayer debt. We expect this to be on our agenda for School Board approval once our legal counsel has finalized documents with the City.
Please Ivan, for everyone’s sake that respects your opinion, don’t hesitate to pick up the phone and call me at 815-508-1154. I am happy to discuss any topic with you for which I am permitted. My schedule does not permit me to read every electronic posting. I can serve you better if you give me a call.
Additionally, please vote Verbic for Schools on April 7!
Best Regards,
Mike Verbic
Ivan Krpan, you are shining light on some pretty dark places. Thank you! Your experienced and well reasoned questions and perspective are essential to any hope of ever getting this right. Voters, we have one chance to determine a new direction of sensibility. Call NOW and insist your school board redirect the Architect. Modify this excessively large energy and tax wasting new high school design before it is too late! Speak, listen, then go vote your choice on April 7th.
Mr Krpan is dead on correct regarding operations costs. In a climate of expanding energy and maintenance costs, with declining source revenues, we will all suffer. That includes the students, the teachers, administration, the board, and most especially, taxpayers. Some may be fiscally forced to leave their homes. Clearly, the “leadership” sold the citizens a bill of goods based on speculative and even inaccurate information. Now, we ALL know better.
But is our current board ready to admit their mistakes and make the necessary adjustments? Will they apply the brakes in time? Or will they choose more “tax and spend”? We now know a somewhat smaller and less “showy” project will suffice and can be accomplished at lower cost. The building can still be presentable, functional, and yet meet our foreseeable needs. Construction costs and future excessive operational costs can be reduced and those funds then applied to other known needs in the district. Present economic conditions mandate this as the only viable way the district will be able to finance the necessary repairs and upgrades to ALL our schools. Consider the EQUITY, voters. Make your vote count!
Thank you Kerry for your support and getting my point. I benefit not one bit in this matter professionally. My genuine concern is that the few making the decisions at the School District, Board and administration do have an agenda of sorts and I really wish the local taxpayers would question themselves this. How many of those who are at the School District will be here 5 if not 10 years for now when this community is still stuck with the problems that WILL result from this mistake?
Everyday this community waits is another day closer to where we cannot stop this mistake. I don’t know what needs to be said or done to make this community wake up. WAKE UP neighbors, this is a call to arms (voter pens). The School Board as done us wrong and once again failed the trust given them with the passing of this referendum. They have not modified their course of direction one iota when presented the new demographics and future enrollment numbers. They have not compensated one bit knowing that the required NEW EAV needed to help us pay this referendum bond down IS NOT going to be there. There WILL NOT be 6,000 to 8,000 new homes and a shiny brand new looking downtown to help that EAV anytime soon and those in this community are running empty in what are considered to be shallow pockets today.
The School Board incumbents do not deserve your vote at all. Mr. Verbic and Mr. Lord have allowed this to continue. The blueprints are out to bid. Go to the School District Office and ask to view the blueprints. Just don’t believe me, look for yourself to what a DeKalb School District Taj Mahal will look like. This community said they DID NOT want a Taj Mahal but you are getting it.
A local developer (now deceased) once told me this, “Ivan, sometimes it’s just easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission”, I wonder if our School Board is now operating under this premise.
A little history lesson. Back a few years ago, in fact it would be the last time a DeKalb School Board went nuts on construction in the District. A local builder warned this community until he was blue in the face and so frustrated that even his children knew he was disappointed with many in our community. He warned that the proposed building to replace the old Clinton Rosette High School/Jr. High was all wrong. That this communty will end up spending endless dollars to keep the building in useable conditions. Many, many of thousands and thousands of dollars have been needlessly wasted on the current Clinton Rosette building all because the School Board decided to listen to a local architect and not this local builder. That builder was my father Milan Krpan and I’m sorry to say pops, they are doing it again!
The old adage, “Its easier to get forgiveness than permission” has another mechanism usually unmentioned: forgiveness, compassionate when extended, often cannot erase severe consequences connected to the original inappropriate act. In the case of the District 428 fiasco, the consequences for uncorrected behavior will be many and severe. They will include the loss of jobs, homes, and harmony throughout the community. A long time will be spent trying to recover, and the community will struggle.
BUT IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY IF WE HOLD OUR LEADERS’ FEET TO THE FIRE!
As you say, this has happened before…I also am familiar with a similar case. Prior to 1996 I lived in Wheaton, IL. Wheaton is a community with much deeper pockets. Nonetheless, when District 200 felt it necessary to build a new high school (the third) to accommodate projected growth in the 70s, it was pushed through over an enormous uproar from many in the community. So severe was this crisis, that a large group of district residents attempted to legally secede and form their own district. The cost to the taxpayers (and students) in both dollars and good will was significant. In the end, the school was built as planned, the secessionists lost, and for a short time the school was opened. Then the economy tanked, development did not happen, new district leadership was installed, and the new school was closed. It became a boarded up monument to the foolishness of “leadership” following their own agenda rather than adjusting their actions to suit the economics of the community.
WILL THIS MISTAKE BE REPEATED YET AGAIN? THIS TIME IN DEKALB?
The following are minutes from the Dist 428 Facilities Planning Committee Meeting, at which the TIF and intergovernmental agreement with the City of DeKalb was discussed. Hopefully it will provide some clarification.
DeKalb Committee Unit School District 428
Facilities Planning Committee (FPC) Meeting
Minutes of January 13, 2009
Education Center Board Room
901 South Fourth Street
DeKalb, Illinois
Committee Members Present:
Cohen Barnes, Ronald Beldon, Don Biggs, James Briscoe, Roger Chilton, Scott Cochrane, Russ Farnum, Andrea Gorla, Gary Gustafson, Lindsey Hall, Ivan Krpan, Michael Lord, Kim Lyle, Mac McIntyre, Ron Naylor, Tom Teresinski, Mike Verbic, Holly Wallace
Guests Present:
Amanda Christensen, Brian Tobin
Committee Members Not Present:
Chris Brady, Fred Davis, Russ Fletcher, Dan Kenny, Becky McCabe, Bill, McGuire, Roger Scott, Brian Schrader, Bill McGuire
Representatives from ATS&R:
Rich Koechlein, Tammy Magney, David Maroney
Attendance & Agenda Review
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Cochrane at 6:37 p.m. in the Education Center Board Room.
Sign-in sheets were available for attendance purposes. The agenda for the meeting was reviewed.
Mr. Cochrane shared that if time permits he would like to discuss the financial concerns of the committee members after all other agenda items are discussed. Dr. Briscoe shared that he added the Construction Manager Reconsideration agenda item and would like to briefly discuss the topic with the group.
Review of Minutes – January 13, 2009
Mr. Barnes made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Krpan seconded the motion.
Construction Manager Reconsideration
Mr. McIntyre is not quite sure why we are reconsidering this item. Mr. Krpan wanted to clarity that the decision was made that we go ahead with a General Contractor for the elementary project and then revisit the high school project to make a decision which model to use. Mr. Cochrane wanted to know when we would be ready to go out to bid. Ms. Magney responded tentatively in March. Dr. Briscoe said that based on the work done so far by Nicholas & Associates he is very pleased. Mr. Nicholas added that in the past those organizations that they have done work for have retained their organization for other projects because they had a prior working relationship. Most construction companies have the ability to perform as either General Contractor or Construction Manager. Mr. Krpan asked if a Construction Manager will work at a flat price. Mr. Nicholas responded that there are several delivery models that would be available to the district. Mr. Krpan asked Mr. Nicholas how many local contractors are working on the elementary project. Off the top of his head he knows that DeKalb Mechanical, and Cardinal Glass are involved. Mr. Nicholas wanted to let the committee know that his organization is relationship driven. Since they were awarded the contract they have acted only in the best interest of the district. His intentions are if the district decides to go with a General Contractor for the high school project Nicholas & Associates would bid the project. Mr. McIntyre said that the driving force when the committee made its decision regarding the elementary project was the economic environment. Ms. Magney said when we first had this discussion there were no prior relationships established. Pieces of the project would still need to be bid out. We need to be careful we are not just accepting local contractors. Mr. Maroney said the group needs to think about what they would consider as a local contractor (DeKalb County, 20 to 30 mile radius, etc…).
Mr. Nicholas pointed out that under the Construction Manager model you are only paying actual cost. He gave an example using dumpsters. Under the General Contractor model if the bid was for 50 dumpsters and they only use 30, the client still pays for 50 dumpsters. Under the Construction Manager model if the bid was for 50 dumpsters and they only use 30, the client only pays for 30 dumpsters. He proceeded to speak in great detail regarding the Construction Manager model. Nicholas & Associates estimated as a Construction Manager for the DHS project would be 1.5% of the total project. Mr. McIntyre asked when the committee would need to make a recommendation to the School Board regarding the high school project. Mr. Maroney responded, soon. Mr. Naylor asked for further clarification regarding how a Construction Manager would work with the district. A typical Construction Manager contractor would submit a RFP. Mr. Krpan asked if the school district would carry all those contracts. Yes, but Nicholas & Associates would be willing to take the risk if preferred by the district. Mr. McIntyre asked Dr. Briscoe why he is advocating for the Construction Manager model. Dr. Briscoe responded that based on what he knows now, if the district had went with the lowest responsible bid on the elementary project then with the delays and weather he feels that they may have not been able to handle the project. We now have the experience with Nicholas & Associates and we know that they do good work, why not retain them to tackle our next project that is coming up soon. Mr. Verbic asked why the police station decided to go with a General Contractor versus a Construction Manager. Mr. Teresenski said that their architects were advocating for a General Contractor. Open discussion among group. Mr. Naylor wanted to know what exactly the local participation on the site is. Mr. Nicholas said that the best way to answer that is to look at it in terms of a dollar amount. He is confident that the local participation on the Cortland Elementary project is at least 3 out of 12 million dollars.
Mr. Krpan asked if we chose a Construction Manager then would we still need to retain Gary Gustafson. The School Board has not decided that yet. Mr. Lord feels that it would be advantageous to keep Mr. Gustafson because he has prior knowledge of these types of projects and has been a great asset on the Cortland project. Ms. Gorla wanted to remind the group that other projects simultaneously will be going on in the district. While the high school is being completed the middle school will need to be prepared to become an elementary building and the old high school building will be renovated in order to prepare it to become a large middle school. Mr. Nicholas stated that they have always delivered a building project on time. Mr. Cochrane wanted to make sure that it is legal to choose Nicholas & Associates for the high school project before the committee moves forward with the recommendation to the School Board. Dr. Briscoe said that our legal team would be brought in to review and advise the district in this matter. Ms. Gorla advised that the architects’ contract would have to be amended to reflect the change from General Contractor to Construction Manager.
Ms. Magney added that in their (ATS&R) experience, on a project this size, the district would get good bids. With the current state of the economy there are people who might bid nationally and internationally on the high school project. Open discussion among group. Mr. McIntyre would like to have the group have a serious discussion or appoint a subcommittee to make the final decision which model to recommend to the School Board. Ms. Wallace requested clarification that we would have to bid if we stay with the General Contractor model, but if the committee decides on the Construction Manger model then we would just entertain an RFP for Construction Management services of Nicholas & Associates for the future projects. Ms. Wallace feels that realistically the committee does not have the time to create a subcommittee, discuss the options, bring a recommendation to the School Board and have the School Board take action. Mr. McIntyre said that he would like to have a meeting with Mr. Ficcarelli, District legal counsel, to get his input. Mr. McIntyre requested that neither the architect nor Nicholas & Associates be present at that meeting. Mr. McIntyre made the motion that a separate meeting be scheduled as soon as possible to discuss the Construction Manger and General Contractor models. Mr. Krpan seconded the motion. It was requested that Tony Ficcarelli, Mike Wood and Steve Irving be present at the meeting. The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 15, 2009 at 6pm at the Education Center in the Board Room.
High School project update: Possibility of the district acquiring new land, finalize water, sewage and traffic
Ms. Gorla shared that the district still needs to complete the annexation process. The city has been working with the district and the developer as a mediator. Mr. Maroney began the presentation. He stated that there is a tentative bid date of March 26th. He presented the site plan to the committee. On the north end of the site there have been some concerns. Minor changes have been made to the site design. The new design gives the building a better buffer from the road. Ms. Magney wanted to point out that the Chilton’s and William’s do not want to be adjacent to a loading dock or the buses. Shodeen is also considering selling additional land to the school district and/or slightly moving Wildflower. It gives the site a little more flexibility and more room for our ponds. The city has been real helpful in regards to making the project as favorable as possible for the district. Ms. Gorla said that our attorney is involved and is working to get a deal for those additional acreages. Dr. Briscoe stated that there have been many meetings with the city to ensure the best outcome. Mr. Chilton would like to comment that he approached the School Board and the FPC early on in regards to moving the road over. He feels that the new high school is land locked and we don’t have enough land. He wants to make sure that we make the right decisions the first time and not have regrets in the future. Mr. Chilton does not want Dresser Road overloaded with excessive entrance and exit roads. He would prefer more access on Wildflower to control the traffic. He wanted to know what has been done to deal with the drainage issue on the southeast corner of the Williams property. Mr. Koechlein, (ATS&R) explained the set up for the drain tiles. We are required to pipe those on our site and it will tie into the city’s pipes. A small catch basin is being considered in order to avoid the William’s property. Mr. Chilton would like to see the drainage plan for the site.
How would the district pay for the additional land? Ms. Wallace stated that we cannot use referendum dollars to buy land. Mr. McIntyre restated that the district should not be dependent on any developer for the project. He asked that with the adjustments to the roads does the traffic study still apply. Ms. Magney advised yes. Mr. Chilton said that we should fight for the road to be moved in order for us to get the best outcome on the site. The School Board wants to know how much additional land we need and how much is it going to cost the district. The committee wanted to know how much we can afford. There is $280,000 in impact fees from Cortland. Open discussion among group. The timeframe for when they have to do the annexation and our time frame may not mesh, we have this unknown. Ms. Gorla said that they are trying to firm up a date and the developers have stated that they are still doing their due diligence. Dr. Hall said that there was a lot of input from her staff regarding the layout of the athletic fields and she would not feel comfortable, if we purchased additional land, moving fields around without the input from her athletic staff. This project is scheduled to go to the planning commission on February 28, 2009. The committee discussed different options if the district was to acquire more land adjacent to the site. Mr. Farnum made the motion that the committee purchase the additional land discussed. The motioned was denied by Mr. Krpan and Mr. McIntyre. Mr. Krpan said that it is easy to say that we want more land, but how are we going to maintain it? Mr. Verbic wanted to know the cost of the field house to dispel some of the rumors in the community that the field house is costing 20 million dollars. The field house is 32,000 square feet and it is approximately 8 million dollars.
Potential new developer of the Irongate subdivision
Ms. Gorla said that Macom is in the midst of selling the property to Shodeen. The district has been working with both developers. She will provide an update to the committee at a later date.
Phase II
Mr. Cochrane shared that with the current economic climate he feels that it would be pretty difficult to accomplish what we wanted in Phase II via a referendum. He feels we need to explore other options to meet those goals. He is not sure when the next appropriate time is to discuss a referendum to accomplish the goals of Phase II. Ms. Gorla shared that we are still looking for space in our elementary buildings. We have to discuss the need for classroom spaces for programs we did not have years ago. Dr. Briscoe said that we will need to look at where costs can be cut. Also, we will have to have the redistricting conversation at some point, sooner than later. A list of mechanical issues that are pressing the district right now needs to be presented to the committee. Mr. Farnum said that the nice thing is that the dates that we have plotted out for Phase II can be tweaked until we can get the funds to carry out the plan. Also, FPC should realistically look at the lifespan of some of our older buildings. Ms. Gorla said that initially we can use the old Cortland Elementary building for storage until we cement a plan for the building’s usage in the future. For Phase II, Ms. Wallace said the first conversation should be regarding what programs we put in each building and then start the redistricting conversation from there. Dr. Briscoe wants the group to look at what major items need to happen now. Mr. McIntyre said that he would like to see a maintenance plan for the district. He says the buzz phrase for Phase II should be “shelf ready”, so when funds present themselves then we are ready to go with a project.
Financial Discussion
Ms. Gorla discussed the TIF. There is a formula that is used to calculate intergovernmental agreements on TIF reimbursements. There is an agreement from 2003 with the city. When Linda Wiggins, former Assistant City Manager, left the ball was kind of dropped. Mark Bernancki and Rudy Espirta agree that the amount that the district has is 2 million dollars. This was also discussed with PMA. We may be able to use the two million dollars to repurpose Huntley and Chesesbro. The city is requiring the money be spent by the end of 2010. The agreement does not specifically state that the funds need to used by a certain date. Ms. Gorla said the issue is with the assessment; we would not know the full value until 2011. She has to prepare a letter requesting an extension to use the funds. The district has asked the architects if it is possible to accelerate the projects in order to use the funds before the end of 2010. If needed we can get legal involved and lobby certain people to advocate on behalf of the District. The reason it was not obligated initially is because we were also examining the possibility of an increase in our operational rate. All avenues are being explored and looked at as the economic environment continues to change. Mr. Terensinski says that CFAC has been looking at all of this as well. Mr. Krpan said that the city really received a windfall when we passed the referendum. He feels that the city should be more receptive and give the district 50% versus 100% in surplus. (Note: Typo, Krpan said 100% versus 50%) The TIF 1, 2 and 3 are a part of an intergovernmental agreement that is still in effect. Open discussion among group. Ms. Gorla stated that TIFs are extremely hard to negotiate. She has worked with schools where they have TIFed and have not seen any funds. The more revenue that we raise locally, the less money that we get from the state due to the way the state of Illinois funds school districts. She has voiced her concerns to the city in regards to TIFs and its impact on EAV. It is leveling out instead of growing. The thing we need to be advocating for with the city is that they release the 2 million dollars so that we can issue 2 million less in bonds. Mr. Maroney said that if the committee is truly committed to pursuing repurposing projects then ATS&R can tweak the schedule to do some work on Chesebro this summer. Even a million dollars delay to 2011 would be helpful. Mr. McIntyre wanted to know how that impacts a homeowner whose property is $200,000. Mr. McIntyre said that the plan that we are going with is dishonest based on the information that was presented at the time of the referendum. He feels that we are diverting taxpayer funds to do other things and not pay down the debt that we took on with the referendum. He knows that during a city meeting where there was a vote for a residential TIF the district was the only taxing body that voted no. The goal with these agreements is to make the district “whole”. Mr. Naylor said that he understands Mr. McIntyre’s concerns, but he disagrees with his statement. Mr. Krpan said that he thinks that the city took advantage of the district in regards to the passing of the referendum. Mr. McIntrye said that he does not think that they took advantage but was at the right place at the right time. Mr. Farnum said that there is no need to debate the numbers. Mr. Krpan and Mr. McIntyre said that they want to see the numbers. Mr. Krpan feels that the district is being shafted. Ms. Gorla said that until the numbers come from the city the district has to do a best estimate. The residential TIF recently approved was not a part of the conversation during referendum because the District was not aware the city was discussing a residential TIF at the time. Mr. McIntyre responded that we are being shorted even more because we never accounted for it in the beginning. Mr. McIntyre recommends that the city of DeKalb be upped to 100% and use it to pay down the dept. Mr. McIntyre said that this committee promised that the taxpayers would have a voice in the decision making process. He shared a recent list of those who have lost their homes. He wants to make sure that we can hold that $280 increase in taxes (for a taxpayer with a $200,000 home).
Ms. Gorla said that we will be able to hold that number initially. The district will be exploring all the numbers with CFAC. Ms. Gorla said there was no way to predict on the day we passed the referendum that our economy would have changed so dramatically. No one knows what the future will hold. For the high school project there is no football stadium being built. A local group of people are trying to raise the money for a stadium. There has been a suggestion to change the field to synthetic to negate the dollars we pay on an ongoing basis for upkeep on a regular grass field. The field is being bid as an alternative. There is going to be a CFAC meeting later on in the week.
Good of the Order
Ms. Gorla will look at possible dates for future meetings. An email will be sent to the group.
Mr. Cochrane adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Thank you Mac!
Ivan has yet to return my call but thought your reader deserves some fact rather than fiction. Community members (not including Board Members and District Staff) voted by majority to maintain the referendum approved plan for the new high school. You and Ivan voted “No” but the majority of community members voted “Yes” and the recommendation was made to the School Board. Ivan speaks as if this community vote should not count or is irrelevant. Does Ivan Krpan support community input or not? Mac, those meeting minutes are available and should be displayed on this site for those that may be interested.
Ivan, we have 2010 kids enrolled currently in 1st through 4th Grades. These kids represent the enrollment that will be in our new high school in 8 years. Our average annual enrollment growth over the last 40 years is about 2%. The result of our current enrollment plus average growth for the next 8 years is about 2300 kids that will be attending the new high school. The new high school will accommodate 2500 students for classroom space and a core for 3000 students as the building may be expanded. Enrollment projections are just that; projections. The kids are here now and our average growth is known data.
Ivan, are you suggesting we build the high school for 2000 students and do an addition in 8-10 years? You were a part of that discussion and agree to disagree with a community vote. Please let us know what you are trying to accomplish other than political posturing prior to an election. Your opinion is important and I hope you continue to volunteer for our schools. You may not support my candidacy for re-election but I will do everything possible to help your “sour grapes” turn into “sweet solutions”.
Mike
The following is from an earlier discussion string on this matter. Again, it is for clarification purposes:
Letter from me to: Mayor Kris Povlsen, City Manager Mark Biernacki, Dist. 428 President Mike Verbic, Superintendent Dr. James Briscoe
Mark Biernacki was the only one who responded to my email. I know schedules are busy so I appreciate his taking the time to answer my letter. I do think it would have been courteous to at least have received an acknowledgment of receiving my email from the other individuals mentioned.
Mark has sent another email recently to Ivan Krpan, Lynn Fazekas and myself offering a meeting for clarification. I would hope that Mike Verbic and others, like Andrea Gorla, could attend such a meeting, if everyone’s schedule permits.
Mike just got home from being out of town this morning. No phone calls on this matter now. We’ll just conduct this as an open meeting.
Matter on the high school issue:
1. No one at the school district is paying attention to the demographer and her new numbers based on the lack of new housing and the growth associated with it. Taking 6,000 residentail homes out of the pre-referendum numbers makes a substantial difference on enrollment Mike. The FPC committe is an advisory committee that just happened to be stacked with school district employees and school board members the evening of the vote. 4 school board members voted on a citizens advisory group motion. Just wrong. There were 5 NO’s that evening. I wish you would print the exact minutes of the evening discussing the size.
2. On a motion by Ron Naylor to accept the 2,500 seat school with a 3,000 student core, I would like you to run the record of the vote Mike and we’ll see exactly which votes are associated with a school district paycheck.
Discussion was opened for the purpose of considering construction for 2,000, 2,250, and the 2,500. The core was not allowed to be discussed because the majority agreed to leave the core as is when the architect claimed that not much space could be cut as the building was now drawn. KEY WORDS HERE: as the building was drawn. By who? The architect of course. I had to concede because not enough money would be saved by just eliminating the classrooms if we didn’t cut the core proportionately. Both would have to be cut. Why not design both the classroom section and the core areas for future expansion? Why did this design have to look like 3 different buildings joined in the center? The design was also manipulated by the architect to not be able to incorporated panelized construction (Yordon Center at NIU is precast panels) for efficiency and cost savings. This is a very expensive designed building to construct but don’t take my word for it, go to the district offices and ask to see the plans. Look at how it’s spread out and look at all of the in and out corners. The radius walls and the indoor track area.
3. Since the referendum, the school board has decided to purchase an additional 25 acres of land for the future. This land isn’t around the immediate school but North and West of the ball fields. We were told at the last FPC meeting that this will be needed to put the excess dirt spoils from the construction of the school. Or our we now obligated to build a privacy berm for the new residential developer, Shodeen Development? The way to eliminate all of the excess dirt is to calculate the entire project and balance the dirt. Adjust the construction site accordingy. Every inch you raise the school will eliminate X amount of yards of dirt. This also saves many dollars for the project in not having to move this dirt. Or, like I asked, are we now obligated to build a privacy berm for Shodeen?
4. I am not posturing myself politically. Are you? Why has the community not been updated on a regular basis of what is happening within the district and how the projects are moving along? Why is the school board allowing the city to keep as many referendum dollars as they are for their TIF district? This money was voted by taxpayers to go to the school referendum bond, not help the TIF projects. Why will you use the demographers (Hazel) numbers pre-referendum and not her numbers post referendum? Did you all of a sudden lose confidence in her judgement and evaluation? Why are you and the school board agreeing to accept only 50% of the referendum from one of four TIF Districts unencumbered? Why didn’t you make sure that the Agreement made it mandatory for those dollars to be used to pay down the school referendum bond?
5. Mike, you know I fully supported this referendum and did tell you the night of the election that the real work begins now. That you have the trust of the community and not to lose or no board will ever have the confidence vote from the community again. You sir have not been the watchdog that community demanded when they gave the district the $110.0 million. You have a responsibility to make the hard decisions now but more importantly it is your responsibility to educate the children here today, those that are in these schools today. We have at least 4 grade schools that are in desperate need of help. Space issues to numerous to mention and even in some situations, Life Safety issues are coming to light. How and what are you going to do for the children who attend these schools and how to you plan to help the teachers who have been loyal soldiers and kept on with their jobs? There is an equity issue in this district and it is about to get bigger when the high school begins construction. It is the school board’s responsibility to make the right decision here and not shoulder it off to a committee of volunteers when the board was elected.
6. I would also like to know exactly what Russ Fletcher does as a liason for the district? He surely hasn’t been getting the word out about the progress of the new schools. I’ve seen no press releases of the FPC meetings of the CFAC meetings.
7. Mike, how come now as we are in the final stretch to election day are you now becoming vocal. I ask you why you or any other representative from the school district respond to Mac’s letter concerning the TIF dollars in account and the TIF dollars pertaining to the referendum?
8. Why are you and the school board so confident that the community will be able to support this referendum with the economy the way it is? Why aren’t you concerned that the lack of $20.0 million in new EAV for 20 consecutive years is going to put an additional burden on the current property owners within the school district? Why are you not concerned that CFAC is lowering and adjusting numbers by adjusting the EAV for the first several years to $10.0 million instead of $20.0 million? Why are you not concerned that CFAC is having to extend the amount of years to pay the bond debt down? Why are you not concerned that the interest to pay back on the referendum bond is already $16.0 million over the calculations anticipated pre-referendum? Why are you continuing with the project when their are so many unanswered questions and no possible way to anticipate the markets or future development in this community? I’m scared, why aren’t you?
This is a discussion that should have happened several months ago Mike. This is a discussion that the community deserved to be a part of several months ago. A townhall meeting would have been great for this community because the community deserved to have the new numbers and facts, they deserved to be treated with respect by allowing them to review everything including the final drawings for the school. This is what I’m upset about Mike, is the fact that the board as literally forgot about those who entrusted the school board to do what was right. Maybe I’m wrong but I know that the way the economy is today and with so many factors different in the financial equation of this referendum, this community will be hurt severely by this action. I truly hope that I’m wrong.
Thank you ALL for posting facts of this situation. Mac, thank you for managing this site, which is easily available to the community. I am glad to see many actual names rather than avatars. So far, this discussion has been more objective and less emotional than other venues available in this community.
I don’t see any “sour grapes” needing conversion into “sweet solutions”, but I do see a lack of important facts and to some degree, common sense. Following, let me share one pertinent and essential lack of fact.
Prior to the referendum, the “ReNew Our Schools” group held Q&A sessions. I attended one at the Egyptian Theater and asked a question of our previous superintendent, Dr. Beilfuss. My question went something like this:
“What is the collective average income of residents/taxpayers in District 428?”
I asked this question because I wanted to make an informed vote. I figured knowing the answer would help me gauge whether this area could actually support a 110,000,000.00 (million) dollar debt. I had great reservations then, and that was well before the recent economic collapse. (Now comes the interesting part!)
Our highly paid Dr. Beilfuss’ answer was: “I don’t know.”
I noticed several panelists and/or administrators and/or board members (I did not know who was who in those days) quickly talking to each other, but after some moments, Dr. Beilfuss turned back around and the “I don’t know” response stood. I was flabbergasted! I had come prepared with more questions, but without that foundational answer, my other concerns were rather moot. I went away saddened and bewildered.
In my view, the referendum went on to pass based on smoke and mirrors.
I do not doubt there were many with good intentions, but real questions were diminished, unanswered, and swept under the rug. I subsequently spoke to Andrea Gorla and the Blair people about financing details, but in the whole, I failed to clear the smoke or shatter the mirrors regarding my quest for reasonable due diligence and understanding. Could we afford this referendum at $110 million?
I later made a hesitant and uninformed vote. I believe many others did, too.
Now this lack of due diligence bothered me then, as it does still. I wondered. How could these experts, paid with exceptional taxpayer funded salaries, bringing extensive education and experience to the table, somehow forget to ask their expensive hired demographer how much money the taxpayers in the district actually earned? That is a BIG factor as to what can be collected at tax time, is it not?
BUT EITHER THEY DID NOT KNOW, OR WOULD NOT SAY. —NOT GOOD, WHICHEVER WAY.
So today, in the midst of THE most serious economic malaise in our lifetimes, we hear from Mr. Verbic and others while I still wonder why so many are blind to the side of the equation concerned with source revenue. We seem to have collected (and publicized) a great deal of data regarding student populations, both history and projections, yet we ignore discussion regarding lack of funding capability. Does anyone in this district teach math? Finance? Simple budgeting?
HOW CAN IT BE THAT WE ARE SO BLIND? WERE ALL BUT TWO ON THE COMMITTEE UNAWARE?
IS MR.VERBIC RIGHT? DOES THE WHOLE COMMUNITY STILL INSIST ON FULL SPEED AHEAD?
Please, would someone like to post here a more complete and real understanding of where this bond repayment is going to come from? How much will it cost each taxpayer owning a $200,000 home? And please don’t tell me only the first year tax numbers can be known… Not unless you can also say the school building will magically disappear with all remaining debt forgiven after the first year. This is a large project, we’re in it for the long haul. Let’s not fail at this task.
IF NEW REVENUE IS WHAT I EXPECT, THE PROJECT MUST BE SCALED BACK! YESTERDAY!
Kerry Not sure why they could not look this up during the meeting It took me less than 5 minutes after reading your port
2007 Estimated Medium Household Income
all of Illinois 54,124
DeKalb 42,017
Cortland 63,165
Malta 54,402
2000 Estimated Medium Household Income
DeKalb 35,153
Cortland 52,750
Malta 45,417
I am not sure if these incomes can support such a debt. Can you advise or explain further.
P.S. I included all three communities as they all make up the 428 District
Pevo
Thanks Ivan! I tried to continue on the Chronicle but I can’t get back on the site. Open discussion is ideal but I don’t know if I can appropriately keep up with postings. My views on your listed matters are:
1. The enrollment is here. 2010 kids are here from 1st through 4th grade. Our average annual growth over the last 40 years is about 2%. Our known average should result in 2300 students at the new high school in 8 years. As I mentioned previously, projections are just that; projections. Our growth continues but not from new housing starts.
We publicize our FPC and CFAC meetings as much as possible. We need more community members to attend these meetings along with our school board meetings. We do need more support from the Daily Chronicle as they don’t print these meetings even though Russ Fletcher provides them with this timely information. The minutes from every FPC and CFAC meeting are available. Please contact Andrea Gorla’s office for any copies you desire.
2. The record of the vote is available from the minutes. I do not have a copy handy or I would send it immediately. I reviewed the minutes a few months ago. There were 9 people in attendance that night that do not work for the school district nor were board members. 5 voted “yes” to support Naylor’s motion, 4 voted “no”. Everyone in the room is connected to the school district somehow. Our former Supt., Dr. Beilfuss purchased one of your townhomes. Ron Naylor’s wife is a retired school teacher. I believe that everyone voted with the same information and thoughtfulness.
Our architects have completed a large number of successful buildings of all shapes and sizes. They worked very closely with the FPC, staff, administration and board to determine appropriate design. Many of our FPC committee members visited their completed projects in the area. I value your opinion but how many schools have you constructed? I have not built any either. Our FPC interviewed and selected the best architect to do the job. The FPC questioned them on every aspect of construction and materials. Our architect, and now our CM, are very open regarding suggestions of cost-saving materials. I hope you continue to share in the oversight of this project.
3. We have not and will not purchase an additional 25 acres from Shodeen. We will provide a reasonable landscaping buffer between the school site and surrounding neighbors. I am not sure what a privacy berm is but I have not seen any 6′ tall berm included.
4. I believe your political posture stems from your active involvement with Lynn’s campaign and the effort to abolish home rule. I campaign for no one but myself. I agree that more community input is needed in our school district decisions and our city management decisions but I don’t disparage the decisions of others.
I do not support any further incentives to attract new development. We have everything a developer would want in our terrific community and schools. I expect our school district to receive 100% of any TIF proceeds due, including the $2M that the City has agreed to pay from these monies to make us whole. Our legal counsel has forwarded documents to the City for this transaction. I expect it to be before the school board for our approval very soon. If I do not see continued progress as expected, I will be before city council at every meeting until resolved. These monies are essential to ease our burden.
We were not aware of TIF 3 as we approached our referendum. The City came to us in May of ‘08 for our approval. We declined but every other taxing body said yes. We will continue to demand to be made whole from TIF 3, as it includes a number of apartment dwellings which should not be a part of TIF.
5. I am a volunteer. We need community volunteers and their input to make the best decisions. Isn’t this your foundation in your approach to abolish home rule? The school board does make the final decision but only after significant input from all. Facility equity is important for our future. Every student, though, will go through the new high school. What is the future of our district buildings? We expect the FPC, including yourself, to discuss building viability and equity as it relates to re-districting and our strategies for student achievement.
6. Russ Fletcher does an outstanding job of delivering information to the Press. They don’t print it! We have had a number of meetings with the Chronicle to discuss this subject but they’ve not responded as hoped.
7. I am always vocal. I can’t keep up with responses to electronic comments, though. I did not respond immediately to Mac’s letter electronically but have discussed the matter with him personally since. Please contact anyone regarding my participation record in committees and meetings. I will not be vocal to influence any political campaign, though. My voice is directed toward solutions and not buried in hind-sight.
8. We entered a recession in December of 2007. Our referendum vote was in February of 2008. The economy really tanked thereafter. We all know the history. I am very concerned but have made a commitment to the taxpayers of this school district. 64% voted to support our referendum with the information we all had at the time. I will always remember the conversation we had the evening it passed. I will do everything possible to honor our obligation to everyone.
The FPC and the board extensively re-visited the plan and the board voted to honor our referendum commitment. You are not wrong. I share the same concerns. We must responsibly make decisions that support the wishes of our community. I like town hall meetings but people may attend school board meetings to acquire the same information. Our board is very open and transparent. People raise their hands at our meetings and we invite them to participate.
We receive construction and referendum updates at virtually every board meeting. Please contact our district offices for copies of any meeting minutes. You may also join as at future board meetings for these updates.
Would you ever consider running for the school board? You would be a great asset to our efforts if you would consider for 2011.
Mike
Is there any reason you cannot post the minutes on your website for all regular and committee meetings? Why should someone have to contact the district office to get a copy. I am home tonight with some free time and would like to catch up on these FPC issues and have searched your web site and cannot find any minutes of these meetings. Why not? Why should it be up to DeKalb County On Line to be the one responsible to track down and post the minutes?
Pevo
Mike Verbic wrote:
Mike, I appreciate your posting in this forum. I encourage all candidates for office to do so, here and on the Chronicle’s blog.
The enrollment projection table below incorporates the pre-referendum demographic report and the July 08 demographic report presented to the Facilities Planning Committee. This is the first I’ve read or heard of future high school enrollment projections based on current Grades 1-4 enrollment.
2007-2008 1758 1714 -44
2008-2009 1859 1784 -75
2009-2010 1973 1776 -197
2010-2011 2054 1756 -298
2011-2012 2109 1776 -333
2012-2013 2210 1804 -406
2018-2019 2438 1993 -445 TOTALS
Column 1: School Year
Column 2: March 2007 FPC Presentation
Column 3: Projection Fit to Housing Units July 2008
Column 4: Difference (Net gain or loss)
These paid demographic studies indicate less than 2000 students will attend the high school in 2018-2019. These projections are still somewhat based on new construction and housing starts that were lowered from pre-referendum but still did not account for the collapse in the housing market.
Tom Teresinski presented the FPC and CFAC with new construction numbers illustrated by the chart below:
Click for larger view.
The State of Illinois is showing a decline in the overall number of students in the education system, especially high school enrollment.
The conundrum presented here is that many maintain it is the school district’s mandate to build the schools as presented in the referendum despite massive changes in the enrollment projections, new construction projections and the economy. Those who disagree are left with one viable option and that is to unseat the incumbents on the board to gain enough political capital for their concerns to be heard.
For clarification: You said the District did NOT buy the additional land from Shodeen. At the last FPC meeting we were told that the District did purchase the land but did so through an impact fee swap with Shodeen and would not pay any cash. The purchase price was reported to be the same (per acre) as was paid to Macom in the original land purchase. Were we misinformed or did a change in that status occur?
Ed-
Thanks for posting the average income levels in the three communities within District 428. I guess people will have to make of them what they will. I’ll explain a few of my thoughts on district taxpayer income below. But back to the past again for a moment…
I had spent a few minutes on the web (bureau of census) just before I left to attend that referendum Q&A session at the Egyptian. Not being satisfied with the info I had found-too generic-I figured further searching (as you did) would turn up more solid numbers. But then again, why not ask your very own hired demographer? Should not the local information be more precise to our situation? I was at least hoping the superintendent would answer in some form, indicating they were at least considering the income side of the formula, and perhaps even expound a bit on what the administration and board had learned as to the necessary depth in community financial support for a $110 million bond issue. Unfortunately, after asking the question, I got the distinct impression they thought I was from Mars and wanted to move on to the next questioner.
How much debt (or tax burden) to income can the typical family withstand? Well, that’s a difficult question and no doubt varies all over the place in each household. I was hoping the district had done extensive work on this. It certainly would be wise, and even possible with one’s very own demographer. I imagined there had been gathered all sorts of numbers to crunch. That’s why I had many questions. That’s why I thought we had financial specialists at the district offices.
But my overriding concern was initiated by the knowledge that District 428 (at that time) was populated with a very high percentage of “free or reduced price lunch” students, indicating to me that if a family had trouble paying for lunch, they would certainly have trouble affording ever higher tax bills. It seemed to me a good idea to check further into this ‘revenue source side’ problem in the equation before simply deciding to ‘tax and spend’.
Moving ahead to the present, I now have the distinct impression there exist perhaps three groups in this argument. One group is bound and determined to make this new school happen as drawn and planned regardless of the economic fallout. Another group has recognized the danger of our present course and is doing everything possible to turn the ship before it strikes the rocks. And the third group is likely oblivious to the others because they are already working to the utmost just to make ends meet and simply don’t have time left to enter the fray.
The sad fact is that as time moves, and especially if the ship doesn’t turn, many from the first two groups will be joining the third. Some will be forced to leave altogether. I hope that doesn’t happen.
Hi Ed,
No reason that I can think of. Great point! I will forward your suggestion and let you all know. In the meantime, please contact the district office for your requests.
Hi Mac,
I am only stating the known and don’t claim to be a demographer. We have 2010 kids from 1st through 4th grades now. Those four classes, in 8 years, will be the enrollment at the new high school. If our average growth (2%) is factored in that equals about 2300 kids in the new high school in 2017. We also have 2008 kids from Kindergarten through 3rd grades. This results in about 2300 kids in 2018 attending the new high school. It looks like the demographer’s original projections will be more accurate based upon what we know today. Our primary growth does not come from new housing starts. Projections are only projections. We are currently seeking another opinion. I am not sure we should pay for experienced speculation, though. What do you think?
A change in status occurred with Shodeen. I am not able to discuss the matter at this time but will provide the details when appropriate.
Good night.
Asst. Superintendent Andrea Gorla surely did tell us at the last FPC meeting that the additional land was being acquired by the School District using a fee swap for land/cash money and impact fee credits from Shodeen Development. Now, Mac and I voted NO for FPC recommendation to purchase the land. We of course are asking how the School District plans on mowing and maintaining 70 additional acres grass and ball fields. Ms. Gorla also stated that the land deeds would be shortly on their way for the School District. Mac also issued a warning that this all sounded just a little too good to be true.
I wish to point out that any impact fees or land/cash that would have normally been used to pay down the bond debt is now being used to purchase (in essence, trade, barter ?)25 more acres of land at the new high school site. Now if School Board President Mike Verbic is correct in that we are not acquiring the additional acreage, then why do the plans submitted in front of the planning commission recently and now in front of the City Council show the additional land as school property?
Point, some may have noticed a change in direction with the economy as you state above Mike but for many the recession started in and around the middle to late summer of 2008 into the fall. Who would have guessed that we would see what we are seeing today?
Mike, it’s good to hear the news concerning the School Districts new stance on the referendum dollars within the TIF Districts. I’m also glad to hear that the School Board is now going to direct the initial Agreement TIF (50%)to go towards paying down the school referedum bond. This is recent news and welcomed. I’m sure CFAC will appreciate this new revenue stream if it is implemented. Of course 100% from all of the TIF District instead of 50% from one is great news. Too bad it took this format for us to hear it.
Not sure what Dr. Beifuss’ purchase of one of my townhomes has to do with the vote concerning the size of the new high school or Ron Naylor’s wife. I’m at least glad that Dr. Beifuss purchased a home in DeKalb and lived in the city he works in. (Current Supt. Dr. Briscoe is attempting to sell his current home but the market just isn’t allowing for a sale. His intentions are to purchase locally). We do have a fair share of administration that do not live locally and commute to DeKalb everyday.
As for Lynn Fazekas and her bid for Mayor. You know that I have been an advocate for openness, honesty, and accountability in all matters regarding this school referendum. I started posting my feelings about this school size and the enrollment numbers way before I ever met Lynn Fazekas. I have promised to make sure that the community had a source for information with regards to the school construction. My opinions and statements have nothing to do with Lynn Fazekas or her political campaign.
I support Home Rule Mike. I’ve told countless numbers including conversations with Herb Rubin that I would vote for Home Rule. I fully realize that it is being abused by those we have elected and the way to remedy that is to not reelect the abusers. Contrary to what you and some others believe, Mac and I do not necessarily agree on everything. We do have many good debates and discussions ourselves. I did however encourage the question to be on the ballot and for the open discussion that followed. It was good for the community in understanding how their government works.
The architects did everything they could to not design any or incorporate any pre cast or panelized concrete sections into the design of the school. They have completely chopped up the design to make in unafordable to use them.
Precast panels save many dollars when the architect knows how to design for them and how they are used. Our architect openly claimed not having the experience to feel comfortable using the system. The idea is to design the walls using a minimum of precast panels. The more they need to make of course adds price to the cost. If you could design 4 or 5 panels by using a repetitive design for window place etc. Panel construction would have saved the taxpayers many dollars. That is why NIU Athletics brought the Yordon Center at the NIU stadium on time, in fact finished earlier, and under budget. Plus, the Yordon Center is a great looking building. I have never seen so many in and out corners in a building design. Every corner adds labor costs. The straighter the wall the less expensive the building will cost. Those added expenses do not contribute one bit in helping to educate the children within that school building.
To all, I’ve contacted Mr. Verbic via email.
At the last council meeting/public hearing I attended (3/23/09), the attorney for District 428 assured the mayor and council everything was proceeding smoothly regarding land and the site plan, while moments later the Shodeen rep testified to numerous concerns, particularly that the process was moving quickly and he was concerned a contractor might end up with incorrect or incomplete construction drawings. Now Mike Verbic, school board president, hints that the land in question (for drainage?) hasn’t been acquired, that things may not be OK as their attorney indicated to the hearing officers (mayor and city council), but Mike can’t talk about it?
What is going on? Is the architect falling down, or are they getting poor direction from the school board and/or staff? Both?
This entire process appears to be more and more haphazard. Clearly, it needs to be slowed down until there is consensus, clarity, and cost control. It seems to me the District should hold some public meetings to revisit just what the people want and expected from this $110 million referendum. I imagine the original intent of the people to build a new high school and bring the rest of our schools up to par still stands. Let’s find out.
Aside from the land issues and site plan problems, the inefficiency in construction for this new school design leaves a lot to be desired and creates additional costs. Does not this then drive up the total finished cost and thereby increase the architect’s fee? More cost! When I first saw the drawings and layout, my mind immediately went to the air volume of the building and the complexity of the HVAC system. All those angles to run pipe and duct around! Not only will labor costs to install be expensive, but ongoing operational costs will also escalate compared against a more straightforward floor plan and HVAC design. I guess I could go into technical detail, but that would not be appropriate for this forum.
Ivan’s point about precast panel construction and cost saving is also well put. I begin to wonder more and more about this architect. Where did their orders come from? Why did we pick this particular firm? Are they right for District 428?
I would like to see the contract between District 428 and the Architect. Does anyone know if it is available for public viewing? Is there some reason why it cannot be modified? Is the architect not under the direction of the board?
So many questions so late in the game!
The architects are based out of Minnesota. They had performed the design services for Dr. Beifuss when he was Superintendent for a school district there. He had high praises for them. These architects were also the ones that did the most recent grade school and high school in Belvidere. I really feel that we need to put architects through the same process as the contractors. They need to show concepts using variety of materials and designs that incorporate energy savings and also construction savings (Value engineering).
Huntley and Woodstock both just recently had new high schools built and went the precast route. Yorkville and Plainfield swear up and down for the precast design method. Naperville’s newest high school is incorporating precast. Downtown Naperville recently allowed the college their to do a complete dorm, classroom, and gymnasium build using all precast which the City of Naperville had to OK due to building design ordinances. It’s like we are going to be one of the last districts to build the “old fashioned” way, block and brick. Are we missing something here.
Minnesota, a factory owner working out of an older 4,000 square foot building built a new factory with close to 16,000 square ft. (may have been 12,000 but I think 16,000 is right), using the panels that are built right here in Sycamore’s Duplex Industrial Park. His heating bill last winter for the older factory averaged $1,200.00 per month, the newer and much bigger building averaged $600.00. Now, why are we not looking into this a little bit more?
One other interesting bit, the lead architect for the MTS&R met with the FPC one evening to discuss block and brick (masonry) vs. precast and to sum it up gave pros and cons for both. He finished by saying that precast can be very expensive the fancier the building is drawn. There can be cost savings incurred if the building is designed to incorporate precast. Why didn’t we direct the architects to design the building for precast? We could have easily incorporated both methods to break up the look. No matter how much time was spent on discussion, there was a preset agenda and our wheels just keep spinning.
I hope that working with the School Board and the School District administration has at least helped with some cost savings. We worked with Dr. Briscoe when he suggested using a Construction Manager for the High School vs. a General Contractor. That will allow the opportunity for more locals to get involved with the building of the new school keeping dollars within the community. Also, and I haven’t seen the Agreements, but you have to trust somebody during this process, that “Valued Engineering” is now a key part of the bids and materials for the new high school and that now the architects have a Disclosure clause explaining essentially why they picked certain materials and if they are receiving any compensation or rewards for making these picks. This in the long run could save the district and taxpayer into the millions but we won’t really know until the bids are opened in mid April.
You see here. This is exactly why good people like Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Krpan do not run for offices. Right here, what is Mr. Verbic insinuating to Mr. Krpan? Brings up that a former superintendent purchased a townhome from Mr. Krpan. What Mr. Verbic are you saying? Are you telling Mr. Krpan that no more of his homes will be bought if he doesn’t play on your side? Are you threatening Mr. Krpan or his business? What are you grasping at? It looks to me that Dr. Beifuss’s buying a home didn’t buy Mr. Krpan’s opinion and sway his judgment. I can’t seem to dispute any of Mr. Krpan’s or Mr. McIntyre’s information. Until just yesterday, all they’ve said has happened or documented. Their concerns are legitimate, I’m concerned also as all should be right now. You with your comments now scare me more that now after both of these gentlemen have been talking about some major issues for many months just seem to right before your re election bid for President of school board announce that your attorney is going after the city for all the money from the referendum. This tells me that Mr. Krpan and Mr. McIntyre have been honest and forthright, not Mr. Povlsen or the scholl district. What is it with the extra land, its here one day and gone the next. Citizens getting on your case, thought you had a mandate?
I agree with Kerry Mellott. Too, too many questions here to proceed with this high school. I now have to put my trust in Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Krpan and thank them from my heart for their time and their tenesity to put up with slurs, threats, and accusations from those that seem to have some agenda in this community. What is it with that? Vote the bums out.
I just wanted to post this letter on this site. It was a letter printed in the Daily Chronicle and the Northern Star. Midweek’s Diane Strand did an entire story on this and it still didn’t stir interest. The election has seemed to do that however. My mission if you might call it is not to bash incumbents or the building a a high school. My intentions are to put the facts out for the community and for the community to know and realize what is going on. The final decision in my opinion is and should be with the voters. I also fully believe that the voters deserve to have numbers with integrity. Facts with honesty. Disclosure with respect to the voters. Fact: The voters of District 428 voted for a referendum that did not have factual information presented in order for the community to make a informed vote. The community has every right to know what is going on.
January 22, 2009
To the Editor:
I want to start out by saying that I supported the last school referendum. I also felt so strongly about the stand I took that I joined the Facilities Planning Committee (FPC). I also wish to state that the FPC is made up of a very concerned group of citizens who desire the best for the children being educated in District 428. This group has seen some lengthy discussions about enrollments, building sizes, and the future of all the district’s school buildings.
My concern is that we are making a mistake right now. The numbers that were used to promote the school referendum are completely different today then prior to the referendum on Feb. 14th. We all know that our economy has seen better days and no one can predict when we will come out of this. A recent demographic study pertaining to future enrollment numbers was completed by the same demographer that the district used for the referendum. Numbers now show fewer students in the new high school, in fact, 2012 shows 520 less students. This in turn is a result of less construction, families moving away from DeKalb, and an exodus of the Hispanic community due to fewer jobs available locally.
The referendum anticipated 600 new homes for 10 consecutive years (6,000) new homes to be built plus several already completed subdivisions also were wrongly counted for starts. For the referendum numbers to work, $20 million in new construction EAV is needed every year in order to maintain the $280.00 per year for a $200,000.00 home. This is not happening. We are currently $16 million over in anticipated interest repayment and looking to extend the number of years to pay down the bond debt. Also, the City of DeKalb experienced a windfall in that the city gets to keep the money from the referendum increase in all of their TIF District’s. The City of DeKalb is “graciously” giving the school district back 50% of which the district can spend any way they wish, not necessarily for the new schools. I strongly encourage the City Council to give back 100% earmarked for repayment of the $110 million referendum bond.
Our School Board is refusing to downsize the high school even though numbers show fewer students. We must design this school smaller with the ability to easily add on when needed. I would rather err towards a conservative approach. Has this community not learned from its past mistakes?
Ivan Krpan
FPC member
Also, I would like to thank all who have shown that they appreciate the information we are putting out. It’s not easy by any means but it is necessary. Also a thanks to Bob Foulkes. Anyone who is seen to stand up and ask questions risks damage to their livelyhood. It’s probably fair to say that the business can be hurt but I’m not quite sure how to test that during these slow times. I know that I don’t have to remember what I said yesterday of last month because we are dealing with truths and facts here. I sure do see a lot of political dancing going on with many incumbents going into April 7th. Thanks again.
Dear Mr. Foulkes,
Ivan built a house for my father and offers the best quality construction in DeKalb. If I can ever afford a home Ivan builds, he will be the first to know. Ivan said above, “On a motion by Ron Naylor to accept the 2,500 seat school with a 3,000 student core, I would like you to run the record of the vote Mike and we’ll see exactly which votes are associated with a school district paycheck.”
My point was that everyone in the room was somehow connected to the school district at one time or another. 5 community members voted “Yes”, 4 voted “No” in support of the original high school plan. Ivan voted no but I have never disparaged or threatened anyone because of their opinion and do not speak untruths. Please check my record and talk with those I serve with.
I appreciate your comment about the land. The Board intended to trade future land obligations from the developer for more land at the high school site today. The developer is involved in other possible projects which will be obligated to donate land or cash to the school district. Once the annexation is final for the new high school, and no other land negotiations are in play, I will provide the explanation of why our request was not met.
Best Regards,
Mike Verbic
Kerry Mellot is making an important point about what I’ll call the Resident Affordability Index (RAI). It is imperative that local elected representatives know and fully understand what the RAI is of the people who voted them into office.
Since the school district receives its revenue from residents through property tax, and that is a cost relative to the residents’ homes, then I suggest that those taxes be included in the 30% of gross income factor used as a guideline for mortgage lending.
The mortgage industry and its consumers either ignored the 30$ affordability index, or they artificially inflated reported income earnings, or they “banked” on unrealistic future projections. Local governments nationwide, dependent upon property tax, also ignored the 30% rule. The current pre-Depression is the result.
School board members, who I believe are the most taken advantage of volunteers on the planet, must now-more-than-ever adhere to the RAI. The system used to elect school board members demands they represent the residents (all inclusive) of their community — or — demands they become snake oil salesmen every election season.
The populists line of thinking is that school board members represent Education in their elected duties. The naked truth is that they are elected as checks and balance to the spending required for our children’s education. They’re the only checks and balance we have. This places the school board member at odds (at times) with the very people they spend the most time with, after their election, the administrators.
If we grant that all motivations are pure we must also acknowledge that the administrators of District 428 are duly rewarded for executing their responsibilities. Regardless of their residence their compensation, on average, far exceed that of the median household income of DeKalb. If administrators are to remain duly rewarded then it should be expected of them to factor RAI into costs versus revenues.
An unintended consequence of practicing populism over naked truth is community gentrification aka suburban sprawl. Multi-generational resident families are forced to move from their hometowns because the RAI is increased beyond their capacity. Hardest hit are the lower middle income earners who must financially fend for themselves in their struggle to make ends meet.
Bringing it all home.
The school board, administrators and consumers of District 428 ignored the RAI in the $110 million referendum. No further proof of this needs to be presented than Paul Beilfuss’ answer to Kerry Mellot’s question pertaining to Dist 428’s median income, “I don’t know.” Further proof is Mike Verbic’s current position that the Board and Administration is trying to employ the $2 million TIF arrangement with the City to reduce the bond to $108 million. All things, like TIF is derived from property taxes, must be considered if RAI is adhered to and not ignored.
There now is, as described by Mike Verbic, a “mandate” to “fulfill” the referendum. It appears to be taking the form of a mandate to spend $110 million. The objective now appears to be to figure out how to borrow less than the approved maximum. Any notion of spending less than $110 million is defied by the very presence of add on options. There is absolutely no consideration of “subtract from” options.
Voters did approve the referendum, overwhelmingly. Is that not a statement of this community’s commitment to our children and our future? Is it not also a statement in trust that the Board and Administration not spend or borrow beyond those voters’ financial capacity?
The long and short of this long-winded comment is this: I know that Dist 428 board members, candidates and administrators are reading this discussion. I hope they share it with those among them who are not. I ask them to determine what this community’s RAI is and to factor that strongly into their decisions.
Trading future development fees for land is a BAD Idea.
I thought the idea of impact fees and annexation fees were to offset the costs of the development has on schools, etc. If the school board is considering trading future fees for land for current land pirchases where will the money come from for the future additions that will be needed because of the development.
In other words trading future fees for current needs is nothing more than borrowing against future income. More debt more debt and when that money is needed in the future it is not there and already spent.
Pevo