Alternative Plans - Comments
Comments in this area should focus on any Alternative Plans (i.e build now or build later) that should be explored. We want creative ideas to address the needs of the community. Please keep comments to the topic.
posted by Candidate at
3:04 PM
22 Comments:
Why does district 46 have to build yet another new junior high? A state of the art junior high was built about 6 years ago.
Why not put an addition on that facility to handle the anticipated junior high growth and build a new grade school instead?
I am all for quality schools, but it seems that the district wants to spend the most money possible to house these students.
By
Anonymous, at 2:04 PM
I'd like to question this Blog and the inspiration behind it, but I was once told, "Never argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able tell the difference!"
By
Anonymous, at 2:15 PM
Given that you've been using the blog it must be serving its purpose. Now, if you could try authoring something with substance along with your name we can debate your previous statement. Remember the topic was Alternative Plans.
By
Candidate, at 11:11 AM
Seems like there is a panic to build big and fast.
Why not take time to come up with a cost effective plan? Work with the developers and village to get realistic projections.
Build in smaller steps that the community can afford.
The flyer that came home with the children on Friday, March 3rd, already talks about another construction referendum in 2011.
The facts from the school are changing rather quickly. I'm no longer sure building big and fast is the right approach.
By
Anonymous, at 11:50 AM
As a resident, I want to see slow high quality growth in Prairie Grove. I don't want to see my tax bill rise. If this referendum passes, we will be praying for rapid buildout to offset the growth in their tax bill.
Let's put the brakes on this referendum. Let's send a clear message to our school board that we want open, honest and responsible stewartship of our tax dollars.
By
Anonymous, at 1:49 PM
It does not appear that we'll receive 141 students in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, etc. It seems that the developer's projected timeline opens up alternate plans to deal with the slower influx of students.
Here's an idea:
1. Expand the existing Junior High building. (This is what most residents surveyed by the school favored first to deal with overcrowding.)
2. Fix up the elementary school as proposed.
3. Build out some classrooms on the existing elementary school once the septic field is moved.
Taking incremental steps to handle the growth will allow us to maintain reasonable class sizes and maintain a reasonable financial position.
Worst case: even if we wait a year to vote "YES", the developer's projected buildout leaves us time to change our minds next year and get a new school ready for 2009.
Let's do only what we can now afford to do.
By
Anonymous, at 6:49 PM
Has anyone considered the cost to wait?
A 1/2 point interest rate increase?
Cost of construction increase?
Mobile class rooms?
These 3 things could cost $15 million in a blink.
By
Anonymous, at 8:20 PM
There definitely could be a cost to wait to build the big building in terms of interest rates and construction costs. Talk of more mobile classrooms is an extreme option. There are other options to absorb the kids for a year or two depending upon the actual enrollment increases.
I doubt that a one year delay will result in a $15 million difference, but you raise a good point. I understand the district is going to expand the current facilities anyway so it is just a matter of doing what we can afford.
However, the cost of going forward too quickly could result in immediate increased taxes and potentially more than $15 million in the long term because the district needs to take more expensive bonds. Even D46's plan is to come back for another building referendum in 2011 because we cannot afford to build the new school completely right now.
It is easy to spend now and worry about paying for it later, but take a look at neighboring districts. Once you get in financial trouble, it is the kids who suffer. Let's do this in affordable stages.
By
Anonymous, at 6:03 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 8:39 PM
I guess I will need to repost this again, since Mr. Dalton deleted it……….
Mr. Breseman, you are consistent.
First it was your illegal threats to the school to hold impact fees hostage if they did not give up the right of way on Rt.176 which YOU demanded. Then you illegally threaten to hold the land hostage. Why all the abuse and destruction when you could simply grab the right of away on the north side of 176 as it goes commercial?
What is your problem? Why the arrogance? Why the ongoing, unrelenting ax to grind with our schools? Will you stop at anything to get your way? The school had to spend countless, unnecessary hours in meetings, hire consultants and spend thousands of dollars defending your personal attack. I’m tired of your arrogance and spending my tax dollars on your personal agenda!
Now you have the audacity to host a public meeting last Monday stating the purpose “is to allow the greater community to plan for the impact of these developments over the coming years.” What nonsense! The bottom line is the letter the schools sent out on Friday quoting Rick Swanson caught you off guard. The letter created a hurdle in your plan to kill the referendum. So you immediately called and asked Swanson to rescind the letter, which he declined. Then Duda threatens Rick Swanson with “read between the lines” emails to be in our village hall on Monday with virtually no notice. Now you have the consultants, Swanson and the NW Herald as your captive audience. Then you carry on with your political game of “catch” with Rick Swanson….I’ll ask the questions Rick, you just answer them. Swanson is a smart man and did a great job being your pawn because he had no choice. He has millions of dollars at stake and needs to maintain positive relationships with our village officials to keep his developments on track. Regardless of your personal agenda, he needs to side with you because his personal agenda is to sell land to developers as quickly as possible.
I want to see the agenda that was published for this meeting. I want to see the prior meeting minutes showing that “exaggerated growth” has ever been a topic of a village meeting. I know there isn’t any because you took your personal agenda to the village hall. Your self-serving, unethical leadership, abuse of power and illegal use of taxpayer’s money to fulfill your personal agenda is going to stop. I am not going to allow my tax dollars pay for professional consultants to support your personal agenda to bury our schools. The States Attorney has been contacted and investigations on your ethics will follow. Enough is enough.
By
Anonymous, at 7:54 AM
The previous message was deleted because it was deemed to be redundant. The purpose of having individual threads is to keep the comments on a particular topic. Because you've chosen to repost the comment and because we believe in equal time to both sides of the discussion I'm going to leave your post. However, if you continue to post each of your comments in every thread, I will begin to moderate the comments prior to them posting to the site. We’ve created a platform for you to voice your opinion, try to do it respectfully.
By
Candidate, at 9:12 AM
Dear Mr. Steve Todd:
My small neighborhood is becoming very interested in this bond referendum. We are all pro-school; however, we are starting to ask questions. The reason I am addressing this to you, is that we cannot seem to get adequate answers. Based on the information we have been able to get, it seems that you are the most knowledgeable individual about the referendum and all of the supporting assumptions that went into building the plan. In other words, all roads lead to you. As a school board representative, elected by the citizens, I hope you can find a way to provide information to the public, in an open forum where it can be discussed and rationalized, to help us understand why you, the school board and administration believe that the immediate build–out of a new school is preferred to a staged investment that more closely tracks to the influx of new population.
I am very concerned that the referendum is creating such a divisive situation within our community. The issue has evolved from a decision about whether we should build a new school, now or later, into a question of trust of the current school board and administration. The following questions, in my humble view, need to be answered to unite the community:
Why did the school board elect not to disclose to the community that the revenue collected from the last referendum exceeded what was approved by taxpayers? Defending her position, Dr. Fasbender stated publicly that the decision not to disclose the unapproved tax windfall to District 46 taxpayers was based on advice she received from her consultants. The question has been posed to Dr. Fasbender, and so far has not been adequately answered. Of more importance to me is the action and support of you and the school board. Why/how did the school board rationalize non-disclsure of this material information? Are you and the school board still supporting Dr. Fasbender on this action?
Why has the school board not acted when false information has been circulated to the citizens? Is the school board going to continue to tolerate this behavior? Here are a few examples:
1. The land the new school is to be built on was donated by the builder (An obviously misleading statement based on recent disclosures. Taxpayers are paying dearly for this land)
2. Passing the referendum will be tax neutral to residents. (An obviously misleading statement based on recent disclosures. If the build-out is in line with the developer’s recent projections, it is highly possible that the school will not have the funds to operate. Per the schools financial consultants, taxes will go up in this scenario)
3. At recent board meetings information has been requested by participants (board members) and ignored. Is their a reason for this action? What is it?
Steve, I am sure that this misinformation and poor judgment has not gone unnoticed by you and the school board. What do you and the board plan to do about it? Do you personally recommend that we should look the other way and trust the administration, the board and yourself and vote yes to the referendum?
Finally, during my investigation in this matter, I have discovered that several ex-members of the finance committee resigned from their position. My neighbors and I are curious about this situation. Why have they resigned?
I look forward to your public response. Hopefully, it will be the first step in uniting a divided community.
By
Anonymous, at 11:40 AM
Dear Mr. Steve Todd:
My small neighborhood is becoming very interested in this bond referendum. We are all pro-school; however, we are starting to ask questions. The reason I am addressing this to you, is that we cannot seem to get adequate answers. Based on the information we have been able to get, it seems that you are the most knowledgeable individual about the referendum and all of the supporting assumptions that went into building the plan. In other words, all roads lead to you. As a school board representative, elected by the citizens, I hope you can find a way to provide information to the public, in an open forum where it can be discussed and rationalized, to help us understand why you, the school board and administration believe that the immediate build–out of a new school is preferred to a staged investment that more closely tracks to the influx of new population.
I am very concerned that the referendum is creating such a divisive situation within our community. The issue has evolved from a decision about whether we should build a new school, now or later, into a question of trust of the current school board and administration. The following questions, in my humble view, need to be answered to unite the community:
Why did the school board elect not to disclose to the community that the revenue collected from the last referendum exceeded what was approved by taxpayers? Defending her position, Dr. Fasbender stated publicly that the decision not to disclose the unapproved tax windfall to District 46 taxpayers was based on advice she received from her consultants. The question has been posed to Dr. Fasbender, and so far has not been adequately answered. Of more importance to me is the action and support of you and the school board. Why/how did the school board rationalize non-disclsure of this material information? Are you and the school board still supporting Dr. Fasbender on this action?
Why has the school board not acted when false information has been circulated to the citizens? Is the school board going to continue to tolerate this behavior? Here are a few examples:
1. The land the new school is to be built on was donated by the builder (An obviously misleading statement based on recent disclosures. Taxpayers are paying dearly for this land)
2. Passing the referendum will be tax neutral to residents. (An obviously misleading statement based on recent disclosures. If the build-out is in line with the developer’s recent projections, it is highly possible that the school will not have the funds to operate. Per the schools financial consultants, taxes will go up in this scenario)
3. At recent board meetings information has been requested by participants (board members) and ignored. Is their a reason for this action? What is it?
Steve, I am sure that this misinformation and poor judgment has not gone unnoticed by you and the school board. What do you and the board plan to do about it? Do you personally recommend that we should look the other way and trust the administration, the board and yourself and vote yes to the referendum?
Finally, during my investigation in this matter, I have discovered that several ex-members of the finance committee resigned from their position. My neighbors and I are curious about this situation. Why have they resigned?
I look forward to your public response. Hopefully, it will be the first step in uniting a divided community.
By
Anonymous, at 11:40 AM
The bonds neing used for this referendum are actually more expensive than if the schools were to wait. They are premium bonds.
By
Anonymous, at 6:24 PM
sorry typo above
It was to be...
The bonds being used...
By
Anonymous, at 6:25 PM
“Plan B”
Issue Summary
The upcoming referendum asks for approval to immediately build a new school. Due to the current debt position of District 46, the construction of the school must be financed partly by higher interest rate premium bonds. The immediate need to assume this incremental debt is based on the belief that the new population influx will generate students immediately, driving the need for a new building along with some improvements to the two buildings that already exist.
Do we need a Plan B?
The answer to this question, of course, is “NO” provided that the assumptions used to build the plan supporting the referendum are reasonable. District 46 school administration positions their referendum as a tax neutral proposal. Is this true? Dr. Fasbender claims that impact fees from new home construction combined with tax dollars (EAV) generated from the new developments and appreciating homes of the existing residents will provide the funds necessary to pay down the debt over the next few decades. This assumption is not supported by anyone other than the school administration. Answers to the following questions provide insights about the need for a Plan B:
•Are the District’s assumptions consistent with the actual property developers? Not even the developers, which benefit financially from a rapid build-out, think the assumptions used by school administration are close to reasonable. In a recent public meeting hosted by the village, developers provided insights and projections that the influx of new residents generated by their developments may not have much impact in the next few years on new students for District 46. This is based on the developer’s plan to focus their early stage build-out on property that is actually located in District 47 or is “age restricted”.
•Despite Dr. Fasbender’s claims, is a tax increase a possible outcome of passing the referendum? The schools bond counsel clarified this at the schools recent information forum. The answer is yes, despite the claims that have been made by Dr. Fasbender, Steve Todd and the administration. If we pass the referendum and experience an actual build-out that is more in line with the developer’s views outlined at the March 6 public hearing, then the tax revenues and impact fees will fall short of debt obligations. If this happens, the citizens must pay off the debt. Existing taxes can and will go up for every citizen in that scenario. It is irresponsible to claim that this referendum is tax neutral.
Time for Plan B
Is it possible to build additional capacity to the school at a pace more in-line with actual incoming new students and with the long-term financial stability of the district in mind? The existing junior high was built to be added on to and offers incremental capacity at a cost significantly lower than the new school proposed by Dr. Fasbender, Steve Todd and the administration.
Furthermore, doing this smaller project first might even allow the district to stay within the current debt limit (or bonding authority). This means financing through more costly premium bonds could be avoided and valuable tax dollars conserved. In the meantime incoming EAV and student enrollment can be closely monitored to determine the right time, demographically and financially, to either further expand or to construct the new building.
Why is Plan B not being proposed? This question is not being answered. Of course, the leaders that should be answering this question (the School Board and Dr. Fasbender) also choose not to disclose to the community that the revenue collected from the last referendum exceeded what was approved by taxpayers? Defending her position, Dr. Fasbender stated publicly that the decision not to disclose the unapproved tax windfall to District 46 taxpayers was based on advice she received from her consultants. Are Dr. Fasbender and the school board exercising good judgment relating to the use of public taxes? Do our leaders need to demonstrate a higher level of accountability? Do we need a Plan B proposal from Dr. Fasbender and the school board?
By
Anonymous, at 9:27 AM
I'M PANICKED...SUE FRIEDMAN, WHERE ARE YOU????
By
Anonymous, at 6:04 AM
The only way to make an assessment on this issue is based on the past actions and behaviors of school leadership. Here are examples of some actions and behaviors that seem relevant to predict how Dr. Fasbender and the school board might handle the responsibility for $18 million loan they are seeking:
• The last referendum passed by the tax payers generated an unexpected excess in tax revenues which was much more than the school anticipated in its request. Dr. Fasbender and school leaders chose not to disclose this windfall to the community. Note that the revenue collected from the last referendum exceeded what was approved by taxpayers. Ask yourself, is this trustworthy behavior? In reference to Dr. Fasbender’s decision to not disclose to the community the unauthorized tax windfall, the Northwest Herald stated on November 18, 2005, “Since 2000, taxpayers in District 46 have been gouged.”
• The school year ending in 1998, operating cost per student was $4,743. In 2005, the operating cost was $8024. Is the typical inflation rate for most businesses and individuals? What is this additional money used for?
• In the school’s plan, despite their estimate that 1/7th of all the new students will be enrolling in the fall of 2007, they actually have budgeted $250,000 for a “temporary” septic field because they do not anticipate the water and sewer will be available by the opening of the planned school in the fall of 2007. Why would the school need to build a temporary sewer system? Will people really build and move into homes when the toilets do not flush? Dr. Fasbender has steadfastly maintained that the school will be overflowing with students from the new developments…and, yet, Dr. Fasbender is budgeting to provide “temporary” septic fields because the infrastructure will not be there. Is Dr. Fasbender really being open with information and assumptions? Is this trustworthy?
I don't know about you; but, I am very concerned about the integrity and competency of school leadership. It is difficult for me to support and trust people that have increased spending by nearly 70% in 6 years, and refuse to upate assumptions on the build-out of new homes based on expert projections. I think we need a new school board at District 46...so they can replace the Superintendent!
By
Anonymous, at 8:06 PM
I don't understand why D46 continues to talk about mobile classrooms as the only alternative.
The alternative is build 9 classrooms on the elementary school behind the library going eastward. The alternative is to build 3 classrooms on each of the 3 pods of the junior high. That is (9+9)*25 kids = 450 kids. Those classroooms are permanent, not temporary. Also, their own plans call for many of these classrooms to be built during a second phase of construction. Why not build these classrooms first? We can afford these now and absorb the development when it actually arrives. Also, these classrooms can be built with the current plumbing so they save the cost of a temporary septic field ($250K).
If safety is such an issue as D46 claims, why don't the get a traffic light installed on Rt. 176 right away? A traffic light is a much faster solution and a bit cheaper. They should not use safety as an issue unless they are serious about solving the problem right away. Why wait 2 years, purchase 25 acres of land, and build a $18MM when they can address that issues now? Are they really looking out for the kids with this kind of thinking?
By
Anonymous, at 12:56 PM
Mr. Legare, I do not understand your point. Eventually we will need a new school...so why not now? I am sorry, but I do not believe you understand what you are talking about.
The exisiting schools were built to be added onto...it was the original plan. The cost of adding on will be minimal compared to a new building and would allow the community to not rely on high interest rate bonds. Please understand, that adding on to the existing structures is part of the school boards referendum plan....the problem is that school board is building a new school for 700 students concurrently. We should stage our investment in new student capacity within our financial credit limits. Taking the plunge and building a new school for the fall of 2007 is reckless spending and may create a financial crisis. We will not have 700 new students in the fall of 2007 by any estimate or projection...and we do not need to exceed our credit limits and potentially create a financial crisis for the community. Also, it is possible to immediately add classrooms to accomodate over 400 new students within our credit limits.
The best example of the insanity of Dr. Fasbender's referendum is her refusal to consider alternatives or the input from experts. Think about it, property developers are motivated to build out quickly and increase the rate of return for their investment. Further, property developers also benefit from a showcase school building since educational opportunities are a key factor for many home buyers. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that a developer’s projected build out would be aggressive. However, in this situation the developer is much less aggressive on the build-out rate than Dr. Fasbender and school administration. So much so, that Rick Swanson, the developer of Tall Grass and Terra Cotta, stated publicly that it may take 10-15 years to fully build out the the developments. Compare this to the Dr. Fasbender’s assumption of a 7 year build-out. Despite information available from the actual developer, Dr. Fasbender has elected to not consider this in the schools official projections. Do we need to add capacity for 700 immediately and take on high risk debt now? Or, should we eliminate overcrowding within our credit limits and add 9 classrooms before building a new school? Furthermore, Rick Swanson stated that he does not now have a buyer for the properties. Westminster Swanson business is securing entitlements. He sells property to other developers, who in turn pay to build roads, water, sewer etc. Mr. Swanson will not build anything without buyers. Simply, “No buyer - no roads”….”no homes – no students”.
Vote No...and get rid of the school board and Dr. Fasbender.
By
Anonymous, at 6:44 PM
Tom,
I'm assuming you were not at the last two info sessions or you would have learned that the school does plan to add classrooms to both the current Elementary and Jr. High.
I know this is confusing because even at the school's info sessions--
Mr. Steve Todd said they will not expand the current buildings. Although, at the same time--
Dr. Fasbender is handing out plans showing the proposed expansion of the current buildings.
I wish more people came to the info sessions to hear the contradictions for themselves. I know this is very hard to believe. That's why it's so important to SEE the plans and SEE all the financial information supporting what is being said.
The school is planning to expand both buildings anyway, so why not expand first and limit the financial risk?
Everyone agrees there needs to be a new school building. Expand first, build when we can afford it. Expanding the current buildings will accommodate the gradual influx of children.
Tom, ask to SEE J.P. Morgan's forcast for the EAVs and J.P. Morgan's bond repayment schedule.
SEE for yourself. This information is no longer confidential. It has been shared with the few people who were at the info sessions.
We're all well meaning and care for the children. On March 22, the people of this community still need to work together.
Please take the time to SEE the information for yourself.
Maybe then you'll understand our frustration.
I would like to believe also, but after seeing the information I believe there still needs to be a great deal of discussion after March 21st.
I will be voting no at this time.
By
Anonymous, at 7:40 AM
I agree completely with the previous poster. The process of change is just begining. We need to take a hard look at D-46 leadership. The misleading and unethical behavior by the superintendent and some of the board members must be addressed. This referendum is not the end of a process; it is the beginning of one. Regardless of the outcome, we need honest discussion based on the facts. We need leadership that will to stand up for high principles and ethical standards. We need to make some changes.
By
Anonymous, at 9:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home