D-46 calls for bond issue
From The Northwest Herald
By KEVIN P. CRAVER
PRAIRIE GROVE – In an age of endless school referendums, District 46 officials believe they have an unbeatable proposition – a referendum that will not raise taxes if approved.
The district will ask voters March 21 to authorize the district to issue $18 million in bonds to build a new junior high school and improve its two existing schools in the wake of rapid home development. But the K-8 district said refinancing existing bonds, and increased developer fees, will keep its tax rate stable.
To read more click here http://www.nwherald.com/CommunitySection/315699373593329.php
By KEVIN P. CRAVER
PRAIRIE GROVE – In an age of endless school referendums, District 46 officials believe they have an unbeatable proposition – a referendum that will not raise taxes if approved.
The district will ask voters March 21 to authorize the district to issue $18 million in bonds to build a new junior high school and improve its two existing schools in the wake of rapid home development. But the K-8 district said refinancing existing bonds, and increased developer fees, will keep its tax rate stable.
To read more click here http://www.nwherald.com/CommunitySection/315699373593329.php
posted by Candidate at
3:04 PM
7 Comments:
Here is the dirty little secret on that the taxpayer is going to get a new school,land,an addition to the existing building,and renovation of the the classroom off of rt.176
School's budget for new building: $17.8M
School's internal budget for new classrooms:
$2.0M
Cost of Land:
$2.5M (it is not free, credit by the first 50% of impact fees)
Cost of renovation to clasrooms:
?
Total $22.3M and counting
The last secret is by law you can not apply impact fee's to teacher's salaries - Mary should no better.
By
Anonymous, at 6:41 AM
At the information session on Saturday, the district's bond consultant revealed that there is no guarantee the $0.24 bond and interest tax rate will not go up. In fact if the development does not build out as fast as the district projects, the bond and interest fund will have to have a higher tax rate than $0.24 to cover the payments.
They do not say this in their interview with the newspaper or in their brochures. Seems like every time you look into the district's claims, you find they are purposely misleading.
There still are a lot of things that need to happen for the developer not to be delayed so hang onto your wallets!
By
Anonymous, at 6:25 AM
It was also confirmed on Saturday, that the school is taking the more expensive premium bonds because it can only take 10 million in traditonal bonds.
Remember the school's survey asking whether residents wanted a
Community Center?
Community Senior Center?
Joint Public Library?
Community Fitness Center?
I didn't realize we were being asked to finance these community amenities with premium bonds.
Does anyone really want SCHOOL TAX DOLLARS building a public library, park district, or health club?
Why would school officials be willing to finance such expensive community amenities?
Without fully understanding how we arrived at "donated land" which the school is really purchasing with the first 50% of impact fees??? I'll take the risk of sounding cynical by asking--
What is the real deal between the developer and the school?
Donated tennis courts and outdoor basketball courts?
If our gym classes won't be using these courts, why is the school willing to pay for maintaining them?
A baseball field?
Is there a baseball conference the school can join?
We might consider asking the residents of his new development to pay for these walk-to amenities with their own homeowners association fees.
These are sincere questions. If anyone has a good answers, please post a reply.
By
Anonymous, at 12:36 PM
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 8:39 PM
Dear 10:38pm:
I am not only pro-school….I am pro-“great” school; and, I am willing to do my fair share to get one. I want smaller parent-teacher ratios in classrooms, better academics and activities, improved safety and a beautiful campus to demonstrate why our community is a great place to live and work. In order to achieve this vision for a great school, it must not only offer an outstanding environment for learning…but, a great school is also financially sound. Great schools have outstanding leadership and make prudent decisions based on reality. Great schools are wonderful for real estate values and future appreciation. They are wonderful for our children’s future.
Your post above is eerily similar to the post from Mr. Huerth (Steve Todd) last week in another part of this blog. It is filled with accusations, personal attacks and misleading information. After reading your statements carefully, I believe you are suggesting that the community should blindly “trust” school leadership. You seem to be highly offended that an elected official is seeking reality based information to help citizens make an informed choice. Do I have this correct?
You also seem to accuse the developer, Rick Swanson, as being a mindless “pawn” that is being forced to answer questions in a manner that is inconsistent with his expert opinion. Take a deep breath “Dear 10:38pm - Mr. Huerth (Steve Todd)”…do you really think Mr. Swanson would provide misleading information that might slow down the development of a village “show-piece” and benefit the value of our homes (and his new home development). Mr. Swanson is a businessman with a large vested stake in our community and understands that a bankrupt school is bad business for everyone.
“Dear 10:38pm Mr. Huerth (Steve Todd)” lets get to the real truth so we can make the best decisions for our community. Help me, and the rest of District 46 answer the following questions:
Why has District 46 school leadership misled the public by deciding 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?
Whose assumptions are the school leaders using to support their current referendum plan? How old are the assumptions? The developer seems like the most knowledgeable source for the build-out…why would you attack the developer’s information as of Monday this week? Why attack his personal and business competence? Do you believe that the developer does not want a prosperous community with outstanding schools to support his investment?
Why have school officials not been open and forthcoming with all of their assumptions and information? Do they believe that the community is not capable of understanding? Or, would the information used to support the referendum, if fully exposed, explained and reconciled with the experts possibly highlight that the referendum plan is not a prudent move at this point in time?
Why attack the NW Herald as being in the back pocket of an elected official? It seems that everyone/anyone that simply questions your position is part of an evil conspiracy. I hope this is not the environment that the school board operates in during its closed door meetings.
Why is questioning assumptions and seeking the truth an “unrelenting ax to grind with our schools”? I do not understand why any leader would be opposed to open forums and the opinions of experts with a vested interest in our community.
“Dear 10:38pm Mr. Huerth (Steve Todd)”, I have one more question and an answer:
Q: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
A: Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg…. Abraham Lincoln
By
Anonymous, at 7:51 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Anonymous, at 7:55 AM
The previous message was deleted because it was deemed to be redundant. The original comment remains above.
By
Candidate, at 9:39 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home