District 200 Candidate: Jefferson Numbers are Misleading
District 200 board candidate presents the tax impact of new early childhood center to show the difference residents will see after 11 years. He said after looking closely, he discovered an "inconsistency" in the district's presentation.
Voters in District 200 will decide whether they support the district in bonding $17.6 million to rebuild Jefferson Early Childhood Center, costing them $19 to $50 over the next 10 years, then $224 to $585 in 2023.
The District 200 board of education approved a referendum question on Jefferson for the spring election ballot, with hopes of opening the new school for the 2015-16 school year. The board also approved a financing plan to amortize some of the bond principal annually, with no debt service extension past 2023 and a debt service of about $23.6 million.
Kyle Nenninger, one of nine candidates in this year's school board election, said last week that after looking closely at the numbers presented for Jefferson, he discovered an "inconsistency" between the annual tax impact reported and the actual average tax impact.
"The average annual tax impact of the Jefferson referendum is almost double the annual amounts CUSD 200 has stated in emails, on their website, and consequently reported in articles."
The annual tax impact numbers provided by the district only include the first 10 years of the debt, and not the impact of the $12.7 million balloon payment due in 2023, he said.
"When the 2023 Jefferson debt payment is included, as it must be for an accurate representation, the average annual tax impact almost doubles over the annual amounts previously provided by CUSD 200."
Let Patch save you time. Get stories delivered to your inbox—sign up for our email newsletter. Fast signup here. You can also like us on Facebook.
The district would pay off its debt service with a major payment of $12.7 million in 2023, resulting in less of a tax decrease than what residents would see without the project.
With Jefferson, the district's total debt service (see bar graph for Option 2) would be about $23.6 million. The district would make gradual payments on the project until the $12.7 million payment in 2023, when most of the existing debt service is paid off.
Without Jefferson, the total debt service would gradually increase to about until 2022. In 2023, it would drop to about $5 million, cutting tax bills for residents in $200,000 to $500,000 homes by $461 to $1,202, respectively.
Taxpayers would still see a drop in their taxes in 2023 with the Jefferson project, but by $237 to $617 for residents in $200,000 to $500,000 homes.
| Home Value | Decrease in debt payment | Decrease in debt payment including Jefferson debt |
| $200,000 | -$461 | -$237 |
| $300,000 | -$708 | -$364 |
| $400,000 | -$955 | $491 |
| $500,000 | -$1,202 | -$617 |
Using the difference in the 2023 tax reduction of $224 to $585, Nenninger said over 11 years, the average annual tax impact is $37 to $95, not $19 to $50.
District 200 Board President Rosemary Swanson wrote in a comment on a My Suburban Life report:
"All residents are expected to see a decrease in tax for district debt in levy year 2023. There will be less of a decrease if voters approve the Jefferson project, but their tax would still be lower than the previous year."
She wrote in an email Monday, "An average can be an inaccurate statistic when there are significant variations across numbers, such as the large drop in debt service in the 11th year of the proposed bond issue. An average also would not be an accurate description of tax impact for those who move in or out of the district during that period. Most taxpayers want to know the effect each year on their tax bill, and those are the numbers presented at the January 9 meeting and on the district website. I am confident the district has been transparent and that our community members are capable of analyzing them properly."
District 200 officials at the Jan. 9 board meeting presented the numbers related to debt service with and without Jefferson. The financing information is also available on the District 200 website.
Swanson said Saturday that District 200 will be scheduling community-wide informational meetings on the project, and she encourages residents to take advantage of them, or contact the district with questions.
"We want to provide voters with the information they need to make whatever choice best fits their needs and values," she said.
Nenninger said his statement is not an issue of support or opposition to the proposed Jefferson project, but about making sure residents have a "clear understanding of the facts" when asked to vote on a financial matter.
"When I decided to run for the Board of Education I hoped to focus on technology, curriculum, middle school B sports, etc. I never expected to be put in the position of having to inform voters that the information being provided on the referendum is misleading."
The 2013 election will be April 9, 2013. The referendum question will read:
"Shall the Board of Education of Community Unit School District Number 200, DuPage County, Illinois, build and equip a new early childhood center to replace the existing Jefferson Early Childhood Center, improve the site thereof and issue bonds of said School District to the amount of $17,600,000 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof?"
In This article
-
-
-
-
Jefferson Preschool Center
130 N Hazelton Ave, Wheaton, IL -
Community Unit School District 200, Administration and School Services Center
130 W Park Ave, Wheaton, IL
Daniel M. Vallo
7:10 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Seems like the same old shenanigans from school board. Hood wink the public into voting YES for a new school and the cost be damned. Maybe it is time to replace the board members who use slight of hand to achieve their goals. Best example was build new jr. high and the sale of old Whaeton Central would provide big money to off set costs. What a "bust out" that turned out for taxpayers. Dist #200 better start living within the budget like we all have to do, No more smoke & mirrors.
lori
9:58 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
I agree with you Daniel and Brian, having lived in Wheaton for 25 years I have seen a lot of changes some for the better but not all. Our real estate taxes are high enough. I am sick and tired of being asked to pay more. Our home has lost over 100,000 in value but our taxes continue to increase. This district needs to live within their means, just like our family has had to. My husband is earning less money than a decade ago, but EVERYTHING costs way more. We have cut back as much as possible, but government still is trying to squeeze every last cent out of us taxpayers. New faces in April for sure
MJ
7:43 pm on Monday, April 1, 2013
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.......DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY/ALL SCHOOL BOARD INCUMBENTS, THEY SIMPLY CANNOT MANAGE MONEY, CREATE/FOLLOW GOOD FISCAL POLICIES, NOT TRANSPARENT.......THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!!!
jewelia
10:20 am on Tuesday, April 9, 2013
I agree with you Daniel.. Everyone needs to go out and vote NO.. I feel like the School Board is taking my hard earned money and burning it.
Gregg Slapak
9:31 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
So exactly, what is your proposal, Mr. Vallo?
Tony Blake
6:48 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
How about forget about building a 17.6 million dollar palace to house more overpaid and underperforming public employees and simply follow the system that private schools employ; remodel, simple expansions for classroom space, and no $250,000 front circular drives at the school building.
Brian Wells
9:47 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
I agree, Daniel. My gut reaction is to trust Kyle first and CUSD200 not so much, having lost count of the dubious claims they used to justify splitting up graduating Washington elementary kids between two different middle schools.
At that time CUSD200 was so impoverished that administrators initially tried said they couldn't afford the price of an extra bus. But that was easily ten months ago and CUSD200 finances have clearly improved in the intervening days. I am now asked to endorse a new $17.6M building project.
Really? Will that project come with fries? With a bus?
I’m not educated enough on the details to offer an informed opinion as to whether this Jefferson project is a good idea or not. I do know something about the transparency and trustworthiness of the administrators who have proposed it, however, and on that basis I advise extreme caution.
I’ll be curious to see what response (if any) is offered to Nenninger's concerns laid out here.
And I’ll be looking (and voting) for new faces on the board this April.
ag
10:02 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Well said Brian and Daniel. There's a long undistinguished track record to consider here with CUSD200. Everyone seems to want to change the subject and move on from past decisions where the community was simply fleeced. From Catalini to Wheaton Central we'd all like to move on. Hopefuly will some new members of the board whose first instincts solving issues aren't to spend taxpayers monies.
I'm glad to know there's at least two informed members of the community.
Hank Beckman
11:42 am on Monday, January 28, 2013
Haven't studied the proposal personally, but if Mr. Nenninger's figures turn out to be accurate, color me less than surprised. I covered the school board when they let citizens believe they would get $20 million for the old Hubble property and finally solve the flooding problem in the area. We see how that worked out.
JanS
2:04 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
I am also a candidate - check janshaw200.com for details... as I dig and find more I will post there. Did you know that CUSD200 received a $14.46 million capital improvement grant in may 2012 that has yet to be allocated? Did you know that in 2007 the estimate to replace Jefferson was only $13.5 million? Did you know that total district enrollment has dropped by 8% from 2001 to 2012? And that comparing census numbers for 2000 vs 2010, that the number of children 9 and under has dropped by 15.4%? The district already has enough money in the capital improvement fund to fix or replace Jefferson with an appropriate preschool. Please vote NO on the referendum. Vote for Jan Shaw for school board.
lori
2:30 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Thanks for this info Jan, I don't know anyone that thinks this referendum should go through. Everyone I know wants new faces, as well. Good Luck!
Lee
8:54 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Jan, the statistics you state are irrelevant in the Jefferson issue. The number of children with special needs requiring ECC services is GROWING. According to the CDC: from 1997-2008, the prevalence of *any* childhood developmental disorder increased by 17.1%. This is in great part due to the increase in prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) with a 289.5% increase over the last decade. In 2002, 1 in 150 children had an ASD diagnosis. Today, 1 in 88 children have an ASD diagnosis, a 78% increase. Enrollment at Jefferson is now at 100% capacity, with an additional two classrooms offsite. Duplication of buildings, staff, and all materials/tools required to teach our special need children is a waste.
You’ve previously objected to the referendum due to your outrage over the Board’s handling of Hubble…which has nothing to do with the issue that must be solved at Jefferson. This time you are implying that a bigger Jefferson facility is not necessary, which could not be farther from the truth.
There are two distinct issues: (1) Jefferson ECC no longer meets the needs of our community, and (2) people are angry about previous financial decisions made by the Board. Luckily, these are separate issues on the April ballot! Vote in new Board Members who bring a new fiscal philosophy. But that still doesn’t solve the problem at Jefferson–there are more students than Jefferson currently has room, while the number of incoming students continues to grow, year-over-year.
Brian Wells
10:01 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Points taken, Lee - but the two issues you note are not quite so distinct as you make them out to be. If we don't trust CUSD leadership (and I don't), then we cannot trust their recommendations. Which is too bad, really. It makes the process harder for taxpayers and administrators alike. Even good ideas and good plans made for good reasons get dragged through the mud. I wish I knew if this was one of them.
MJ
7:34 pm on Monday, April 1, 2013
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.......DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY/ALL SCHOOL BOARD INCUMBENTS, THEY SIMPLY CANNOT MANAGE MONEY, CREATE/FOLLOW GOOD FISCAL POLICIES, NOT TRANSPARENT.......THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!!!
jewelia
10:22 am on Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Jan, I will be voting for you today. Best of luck to you.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
2:54 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
These things are very confusing for people who keep close track let alone people who just periodically pay attention. I don't know any history with the School Board, but I do understand the challenges facing many districts with regard to providing education to special ed children. School boards, libraries, towns, etc. use their bonding authority regularly to anticipate future costs and needs and regulate their capital expenses. Few people build a house and pay cash for it. Most mortgage it over a period of time. Schools regularly issue bonds and retire them to their best advantage. House values differ, so tax bills will differ, but you've got a general idea of what the increase will be to replace an outdated school building and build one that has capacity to deal with a specific category of children and all of the updated needs any other school would require. I'd ask these school board candidates to tell me in great detail how they propose to educate the special ed population in the same facilities you have now. Are blind children, deaf children, autistic children, physically handicapped children in wheel chairs all the same? You've got a solution for this, let's hear it. Instead of muddying the waters by throwing all kinds of numbers out there, not taking into account the retirement of other bonds in 13 years and deliberately confusing people. Great strategy. I think your community is smart enough to get past it. I hope and pray so. Let's hear your special ed plan here.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
2:59 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Provide your plan in the public square here. How you treat this particular population will give people a firm glimpse at how you'll treat the rest of the students. I'm as conservative as the next guy on fiscal issues. I'd even like to see school choice enacted. Public schools have an important responsibility. Many people (not just Special Ed families) move to communities because of their schools. WN and WWS are amazing places, so are the feeder schools. Some are old and need replacement. it's an ongoing expense that won't go away, but will continue to enhance property value where it's done right. And that goes for every kid. Time to knock off the confusion and run in the best interest of the mission you're saying you're suited to carry out.
Brian Wells
3:46 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
-- "Few people build a house and pay cash for it."
True, but fewer people still build a house, keep piles of cash and convince strangers to carry the mortgage.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
4:05 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
And by strangers, you're referring to the other members of the community who directly or indirectly benefit from a great school district? Explain the whole plan smarty pants. Do those piles of cash have any other obligations to cover? Are they available for capital expense (building) vs. use for labor or materials for students. What's the whole plan look like.
JanS
5:26 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Overall district enrollment is down. The $14.46 million Capital Grant that the district received last May will pay to refurbish Jefferson or build a new one that will hold the existing preschool population. There is no reason to build a large, deluxe building for $16.7 million more in debt. I also propose that the school district set money aside every year for improvements to existing schools. Jefferson is the only district school that has not been refurbished or built new in the last twenty years. It is the only one that needs to be addressed now.
Brian Wells
6:54 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
First, Kevin, an apology. I jumped on one thing you said out of a long stream of serious commentary. I didn’t at all mean to put everything you had to share in a negative light. I’m sorry.
That said, I was trying to point out humorously that what we have here is what economists call an agency problem. Given the checkered and blotched history of CUSD200 spending decisions, we taxpayers (the principals) are better served by not giving CUSD200 administrators (the agents) money to buy something they can already afford to pay for in cash.
Why? Mark Stern explains eloquently in the following link:
http://wheaton.patch.com/articles/transparency-issues-in-district-200-a-brief-history
A few snippets from Mark’s editorial bear repeating here:
Superintendent Catalani, Mark notes, “had retired in 2007 with $380,000 in total compensation. He was then the highest paid school employee in Illinois… he’d received three years of guaranteed 20-percent annual raises, a full school year’s worth of paid sick days, nine additional weeks of paid time off per year and district-paid health insurance with no deductibles through 2021…. Catalani’s compensation had jumped from $232,000 in 2004 to $306,000 in 2005 – a 32-percent increase in one year. Then it hit $380,000 in 2006.”
Kevin, one of these days our current superintendent will move on. Between now and then, taxpayers like ourselves would be best served if CUSD200 administrators did not feel too flush.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
9:08 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Thank you for the clarification of your comments Mr.Wells. Apology wasn't sought, but certainly accepted in good spirit. I share your concerns about the spiking going on with administrators in school districts. Boards do need to get the message that this practice is imprudent and should not be tolerated. The example Mr. Stern (who I know and respect) lays out is an example of a complete loss of sanity. Unfortunately there are many others around the region and state that have been as sickening or nearly as sickening. That being said, the issue of this particular school and the needs of this particular school population of special ed students is separate from this poor practice in administrator compensation in the past. There are reasonable solutions to both issues and best practices that can be followed to ensure better future results. I always worried about board members who consistently gave away the farm. The only thing more scary to me are candidates who would deny any kids let alone special ed kids an appropriate education. There's a vast ocean of reasonableness between these 2 extremes. Here's to hoping the good folks of that district find that important balance with the candidates available. Thank you for the kind response, Brian.
JanS
5:45 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
p.s. Anyone willing to help with my campaign (send emails to friends, hand flyers out in your neighborhood) contact me at janshaw200@yahoo.com
Kevin Fitzpatrick
8:57 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Anyone even contemplating helping your campaign ought to review the video clip on Fox Chicago and view your remarks concerning the Special Ed population in your district. I had no idea about any details of this building or issue until I saw that interview on television. You don't seem to represent the views of the people I know in that district.
Lee
10:08 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
I must agree with Kevin. Jan Shaw is overwhelmingly unqualified for a School Board position. Just over 6 weeks ago she said, “I was actually surprised to find out we had a preschool. WHY is preschool in school districts?” Since then, there have been multiple responses (including comments from the School Administration) providing the answer of every school district’s Federal obligation to provide an education to children with disabilities, beginning at age 3.
Jan’s outright discriminatory statements against families/children with special needs have completely alienated the Wheaton-Warrenville Special Needs community. (I won’t repeat it; you can Google her+Fox News.) And based upon her misleading comments about general population statistics, it’s clear she still doesn’t understand the situation at hand: the number of children requiring Early Childhood education WITHIN our community is growing. She continues to state irrelevant and/or inaccurate information. This is not someone I want representing me or my family.
There are multiple other candidates running for School Board who will reverse the financial irresponsibility of the past. (I believe most, if not all, are against the referendum as well, if this is important to you.) However, these other candidates are well-spoken and educated people who will thoroughly do their research before addressing an issue, and can represent the community without resorting to insulting statements and inaccurate information.
Northside Debbie
10:25 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Jan,
Your reference to the 14.6 million is misleading. That was a payment that the state owed CUSD 200 from 2007. That money was already appropriated to other matters. I take great offense to your comments about Jefferson being a magnet for mentally disabled persons. I have a mentally disabled child and I pay 10K I property taxes each year. I will hand out flyers against bigots like you. Perhaps a mental health center should be built in Eastern DuPage so you can gravitate to the magnetic force of Mark Stern. Take Harold Lonks with you!!!
Brian Wells
11:20 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
At Kevin's suggestion, I did watch that Fox interview, Jan.
I was troubled.
To be sure I am all for fiscal responsibility — but my desire for CUSD200 is not that they spend less, per se, so much as spend better. The Catalani affair is and was an absolute disgrace, but dollars directed to the benefit of children with special needs are not the dollars I'd seek to economize on.
In the Fox interview I heard you taking a stand against the prospect of CUSD200 becoming "a magnet" for children for special needs. To the contrary, if our community became well-known for its care "for the least of these", I'd count it as a sign of health and proper priorities.
Don't look for my vote, Jan.
MJ
7:33 pm on Monday, April 1, 2013
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.......DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY/ALL SCHOOL BOARD INCUMBENTS, THEY SIMPLY CANNOT MANAGE MONEY, CREATE/FOLLOW GOOD FISCAL POLICIES, NOT TRANSPARENT.......THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!!!
JanS
11:58 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Northside Debbie, What has the money been allocated for? I have not found that. I also see in the monthly fund balances that I requested... that there was still $13,583,329 in the Capital fund as of 11/30/2012 (the last date they provided).
Kevin Fitzpatrick, Do you live in district?
Kevin Fitzpatrick
12:58 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Ms. Shaw, I do not live in the district. I do come from a large family and two of my sisters and their husbands are raising families in the district. I have many friends there as I live close. The schools there are certainly a draw for any family. I would suppose your question and my subsequent answer would provide you the chance to state that "Since it isn't my district, my opinion shouldn't or doesn't matter". It does matter to friends and family of mine. It also matters that you were interviewed on a major news station and didn't do your neighbors or your city any favors demonstrating a level of intolerance directed at a population of children whose needs are greater than most. Your grasp of the financial practices and procedures of school districts and general and yours in particular shows you are not yet ready for this responsibility. I trust that you're a decent person and a very good mother to your own children. This position calls for you to be an advocate for every child in the system there. You're not there.
Brian Wells
12:18 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
An open question to Kyle and/or any other candidate, be they incumbent or not...
I received the below text in an email. What would your response to the below be?
At the same time the new Hubble plans were prepared, the District’s architects, Legat, prepared plans either to renovate and expand Jefferson, or to build new. Renovation/expansion was about $1 million cheaper than building a new school, but either option only cost about 2/3 as much as what they now want (construction costs have actually declined since then due to the decrease in building activity). The District chose not to take any action.. Now ...even the December 12 “scaled down” version is still between 16% and 56% larger than ANY of the “peer” facilities Legat reviewed, and it is 20% bigger than what Legat previously said was needed. The total cost is 43% higher than what it would be if we built the new building proposed at the time of the Hubble design, despite the drop in construction prices. Hubble itself was overbuilt; it is twice the size of Franklin yet Franklin actually has more students!
... In addition, we need to question why the district isn't using a state grant that it received last year in excess of $14.4 million to pay cash to build a new Jefferson. We the taxpayers should not be asked to pay more in taxes when we already have the money to fully fund the building of a new school.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
1:11 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Brian, you ask a good question. The text (from wherever it came from) succeeds in adding more confusing numbers to an already confusing situation. Let me ask this. What was the State grant for? The state doesn't just grant money to be spent at the discretion of people. Someone identified a specific grant, did the research, filled in out, met the myriad of requirements to have the grant request accepted in the first place, and sent it in for review along with other "qualified" applicants. The simple question is What was the grant for? It could be technology, ESL, after school programs, At Risk preschool, or any number of things. It could even be an energy grant to change to more efficient light bulbs. My point is that whatever the grant was for is what the money must be spent on. The state does audit these grants and there have been incidences where money had to be paid back because it was spent on unqualified projects. $14M is a pretty good size grant these days. What was it applied for and subsequently awarded to accomplish?
Brian Wells
2:11 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
I didn't know, Kevin. But Google is our friend. Here's what I found. Sure looks like it could be used for Jefferson. If not, I'd like to know why. Read on...
February 16, 2012- CUSD 200 was informed today that the State of Illinois Capital Development Board (CDB) will award a school construction grant to our District in the amount of $14,462,317. CUSD 200 applied for this construction grant in 2003 for classroom additions to Wheaton North and Wheaton Warrenville South
High Schools. CUSD 200 was given approval from the State of Illinois to move forward with the project in 2003.
Upon receipt of the grant award, CUSD 200 will place the funds in the Operations & Maintenance fund as this money was originally earmarked for construction. Eventually, the Board of Education could decide to use the funding towards the long-term capital development plan that the Board is in the process of creating. For the 2011-12 School Year, the Board of Education set a goal to establish a long-range capital project plan for the District, including but not limited to a plan for renovation/renewal/replacement of Jefferson as dictated by program needs.
For questions, please contact Erica Loiacono, Director of Public Relations at 630-327-6059 or Bill Farley, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services at 630-682-2005
Kevin Fitzpatrick
2:39 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Therein lies how these things become convoluted Brian. The grant was requested in 2003 to add classrooms at each High School. They got approval for the grant and the go-ahead to do the construction with an IOU from the state. I'm not sure how SD200 handled this, but they very likely used their bonding authority to raise capital to do this job (backed by the State's commitment to fulfill the grant) and/or they used money from other funds active or reserve to go forward and complete the construction. Fast forward 9 years later...the state finally appropriates the money (the Governor's office is the official place for funds to be released) and the district gets it. Technically they spent the grant money on what it was awarded for, but because the money took so long to get to them, they borrowed with bonds or from other funds to pay for the construction at the time they needed the classroom space. Now they've received this money, they need to pay back the funds from where they were borrowed (long term capital, or other categories including reserve) or retire the bonds if the money was borrowed on the open market. What I'm sure of is it's not $14.5M of "found money" with no obligations staked to it. School Districts rely on prompt property tax settlements from the county too. Often they are flush in September (after the August installment) and broke in April (waiting for the June installment). Their reserve is important to keep the credit rating up and their borrowing cost down.
Brian Wells
3:14 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Understood, but per the last sentences in their own announcement, the money was getting plunked into a capital spending fund and could be used for, among other things, the Jefferson project. What of substance has changed in the last 12 months? This shouldn't be a difficult question to answer. We shouldn't have to guess. Yet here we are...
Brian Wells
3:43 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Timing is everything, but Mark Stern, this takes the cake. Thanks for your article!! Kevin, looks like we've got some answers...
http://wheaton.patch.com/blog_posts/district-200-gets-144-million-grant-could-build-new-jefferson-without-tax-hike
Kevin Fitzpatrick
3:44 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Brian, I don't know the particulars on the financials and how much of that money is available to put towards Jefferson vs. other capital expenditures committed to or already spent. What we do know is what the bond amount proposed is, which I would assume is what they need to complete the project beyond cash on hand and other obligations. They could be using that money to help retire existing bonds and issuing new ones with better terms. As painful as it is to say this, it's a good time financially for any entity with a strong credit rating to borrow money. At the very least, I believe you have intellectually weaved yourself into the position to ask the right questions of this board. And they should be responsive as they are accountable to you. I hope the wonderful community of people in Wheaton do what they can to help the Special Ed kids. That will pay dividends forever. In this day and age with great teachers, technology and a responsible community, a good many of these kids will become tax payers down the line. Unfortunately that wasn't always true. Fortunately, now it is. Thank you for the thoughtful dialogue. You're a good guy. K
Brian Wells
4:13 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Yes, the "refi at a lower rate" idea did cross my mind, however that proposition assumes that the money borrowed (at a lower rate) is used wisely. Given that CUSD 200 has a history of spending loose cash like a drunken sailor, I'm thinking the prudent course would be to take the punch bowl away.
Thanks for your thoughts, Kevin.
Brad Paulsen
4:46 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
The overall financing plan, and the tax impact for that one year, is pretty well spelled out at www.cusd200.org. Click on the shortcut for Jefferson Referendum, then select Jefferson Project Financing.
Brian Wells
7:40 am on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I followed your instructions yesterday, Brad, and my reaction was the same as M-N-M below. This is classic smoke and mirrors.
Of those motivated enough to find the chart you refer to, everything in it is designed to ease them into the thought that the additional debt incurred will somehow not be felt.
And without the ruckus being raised by people like Mark Stern, even fewer still would know that the district is trying to tease $17M of new money from taxpayer pockets while hiding (for purposes so far unknown) $14M of existing moneys that could easily fund the project on offer.
See this link...
http://wheaton.patch.com/blog_posts/district-200-gets-144-million-grant-could-build-new-jefferson-without-tax-hike
... and see for yourself if Mark has pretty well spelled out the situation. If Mark hasn't got the story right, I'm all ears to hear a different take on the matter.
M-N-M
11:09 pm on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
I'm shocked you find this to be “pretty well spelled out” by the District.
The document you reference demonstrates the confusion. Page 1 discusses the average annual impact of the Jefferson debt alone, with no impact of existing district debt ($19, $30, $40, $50). However as you turn to page 2, which discusses 2023, when over $12 million is due, the amounts no longer only include the Jefferson debt. Now, inconsistent with the methodology in the amounts presented 1 page before, other district debt is now included in the tax impact for the first time. To make matters worse the district emphatically (bold, all caps) tells people their tax impact in this last year will still drop, even with the Jefferson debt. It is classic speak in double negatives. Your taxes will go down, but not as much as before. You call this "clearly spelled out?" Why not simply tell the taxpayers how much the Jefferson debt actually makes their taxes go up in 2023? How hard is it to give an average annual tax impact for all 11 years not just 10? This has never been directly presented to the taxpayers.
The impact of the Jefferson debt alone to taxpayers in 2023 has never been directly stated in any of the District materials. Do you agree with this statement?
Charlotte Eriksen
2:30 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
M-N-M: Here is the link to the District 20 financing information related to Jefferson: http://www.cusd200.org/23531086103337757/lib/23531086103337757/Finance_Talking_Points.pdf. On the second page, you'll see a description of the impact in 2023.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
3:45 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Brian, if memory serves me right (it's been awhile), this financing is done on a line a credit basis, not 30 day loans. Often the shortfall is 90-120 days waiting for the state and the districts use the line of credit to meet obligations during that time. Earlier in the year they tend to stagger short term CDs to earn interest, but maintain a reasonable amount of liquidity. I'm not arguing that the interest rates aren't low; they are (for borrowing or savings). Finance directors have to be very savvy to keep cash flow and still earn some interest when they can and pay as little as possible when they need to. Once more, I'm not defending the board. I don't know them. If there's an argument about competency (and there surely is), the price to be paid stands to be the most vulnerable student population in the district. That's a shame. All your points are well taken, as is the courteous manner in which you make them. Civility will add to a solution here. Yours has been appreciated.
M-N-M
3:53 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Charlotte - thank you. I had reviewed the document before posting and fully understand what the district did, and why they did it. My issue is the District has muddied the waters explaining this issue to the voters. I agree with Brian, this is smoke and mirrors.
The second page you reference deals with the last year of the debt and is a lot of double negatives. They don't clearly spell out the Jefferson impact of the last year to the taxpayers of the Jefferson debt alone as they did for the first 10 years, but only as a reduction of the benefit of the existing debt coming off. That's precisely my issue with their presentation. Either show all years with both pieces of debt (and the first 10 years impact would be significantly different) or show all years with only the Jefferson debt (and clearly state the 2023 impact). The District has never done this. They've only mixed and matched to put it in the light they wish to shine.
I've done the math, read your article and I know the answer. I implore the District for once, to be clear in their communications. I have two simple questions for the district to answer: (1) what is the average annual impact of the Jefferson referendum on a standalone basis for all 11 years? and (2) what is the tax impact of the Jefferson referendum on a standalone basis in 2023?
Bruno Behrend
11:56 am on Friday, February 1, 2013
What does one expect. This is a school board and superintendent who want to build more buildings and/or increase spending.
This is what they do. Lie. They lie on nearly all these issues all over the state, and in the rich suburbs especially.
When caught lying, they whine that "things are complex" or that it was "an honest mistake." They aren't that complex, and they aren't honest mistakes.
Whether cooking bond calculations, misrepresenting student growth figures, hiring architects to say that perfectly good buildings are useless, or lying about janitor closets used as classrooms, the District-Based education system in Illinois (and America frankly) is a never-ending river of lies.
I can back up every bit of this. It goes on everywhere across Illinois.
John J
12:25 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Based on what I’ve read in this forum, I will vote NO. Why?
First, many thanks to Mark Stern & Brian Wells for bringing to light many facts that the Board chose to obscure.
@ Kevin Fitzpatrick, few will argue against our responsibility to help children with special needs. The issue is determining how much must be spent on this entitlement group and how to come up with the funds. CUSD 200s past performance in managing taxpayer’s money is abysmal, if not negligent [“Catalini affair” as just one of many examples (OMG!)].
To the CUSD Board:
1) You mislead the public by showing lower monthly payments based on interest + minimal principal payment for the first 10 years. Then in 2023 you obscure the real tax impact of paying off the Bond.
2) For this and other major projects, why doesn’t the Board “fully amortize” the debt over 10-30 years with a fixed monthly payment? This would give the voters a much better idea re how much the project will cost them over time and better match financing to project life.
3) From what I’ve read I don’t think you are really taking a HARD look getting the job done AND trying to minimize costs.
4) As for funding, have you considered user fees (with subsidies for those in financial need)?
5) What about the $14.4 million you got from the state? Either use it to pay off the existing debt or use it to fund the Jefferson project.
6) I hope any Board member who voted in favor of the “Catalini affair” had the good sense to resign.
Brian Wells
12:03 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Hi John,
You were hoping those responsible for the Catalani affair had stepped down. Not so.
Barbara Intihar * -- elected in 2001
Andrew Johnson * - elected in 1997, Board President from 2001 to 2011
Rosemary Swanson - elected in 1999, Board President in 2011
Ken Knicker * -- elected in 2001
Joann Coghill * - elected (appointed?) in 2004
Jim Gambaiani -- elected in April 2011.
It’s been pretty much the same faces for a decade and more, but that could all change. I put an asterisk next to the seats that are up for grabs in this April’s election.
Andrew Johnson is not running for re-election, but the other three incumbents are. Suffice it to say, I won't be voting for any of the incumbents nor for any anointed successors. All we have to do, folks, is show up on Election Day. This board is hoping you won’t.
By the way, the only newcomer to the board, Jim Gambaiani, is also the only No vote on this latest $17.6M project. If you want more voices like his on the board, you'll need to vote them in.
There are *four* seats up for grabs this April. All we have to do is show up, folks. And vote.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
1:11 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Mr. John J, You honestly lost me when you referred to kids with special needs as an "entitlement group". There part of the same entitlement group as your kids or any others in the district. The state through it's local districts has a covenant with families of Illinois to provide an appropriate public education. It's a shared expense by all of us whether we have children or not, or whether they haven't been in the schools for decades, which is the case for most families in most towns. A good district adds value and desire to your home. I'm sure you didn't mean anything by phrasing it this way, but Special Ed students are not an entitlement group- merely a segment of your student population. Thanks to Charlotte for the link. I went to the website. Here's part of your mystery on the existing (10 later fulfilled) grant. I'm using whole numbers to make it a bit easier. They got $14.4M sent to them in 4/2012 which was promised in 2003. Of that, nearly $3M went to pay off a technology lease. A bit over $11.5 remains now. Rather than using it for capital funding, they transferred it to the fund balance. They anticipate the State will be late with their funding (the State concedes this, as they're always late now). Rather than to start borrowing short term and paying interest starting in April and going through the rest of the school year, they are using the ($11.5M) grant money to pay salaries. This will save some operating cash in this cycle by not paying interest.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
1:18 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
To actually build a new building, no matter where the funding comes from, I read the law to state a referendum is still required. The neighborhood school building that exists would positively cost more to retrofit and expand than building new. It was built in 1958. Most schools that age have been replaced. Special ed is far different today than 10 years ago and didn't even exist in 1958. The population of children in general will vary over time. Many school boards try to look 20 years ahead when dealing with Real Estate. I dated a lovely young lady from Wheaton Warrenville HS in 1977. That school is different than the one you know as WWS today. Things change. What is occurring is the need for more space for Special Ed Children. In Autism alone, 1 in 110 kids are born with it, 1 in 80 boys who are born. That's one category. The best among us are addressing this. I do think Wheaton qualifies as the best among us. I'd be shocked if they weren't.
Brian Wells
1:55 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Given that short-term interest rates are bumping along at a tad above 0%, I'm really curious to know how much CUSD is saving by this strategy. Methinks other motives might be involved in this matter?
Hank Kruse
11:57 am on Friday, February 1, 2013
Kevin, I really have a hard time with you commenting about the tax referendum. You do not reside in CUSD200 (you reside in Lombard) and you have no problem opining on how to spend my property tax dollar. Your statement above is interesting to say the least; it is OK for the school to set aside $11.5 to save possible short-term interest but it is not OK for me to have concerns about a mismanaged school district increasing my property taxes on a diminishing asset (my home).
I have a simple statement: Let's vote no on the referendum, vote in a board that will competently manage the school district and find alternative ways to help those at need
Kevin Fitzpatrick
2:19 pm on Thursday, January 31, 2013
Brian, other motives or not, no institution is loaning money for 90-180 days at 0% or near it. Check the local schools to see what they are currently paying. Borrowing money on a very short term basis provides for higher, not lower rates. Even assuming 2-3% or somewhere in between. That rate on $11-12 Million dollars adds up to an amount that could be better used. Don't get me wrong, borrowing is always going to be part of the picture. If you have a way to avoid it, even in a very short term, it's a lot of money that could make an impact in a school for tech equipment, etc. You may not like this board, I have no comment on them as I can't vote for or against, but their collective prudence on rolling the money to avoid the impending short term borrowing can't be described as bad practice. Most schools invest on the front end (Aug. and Sept) to get interest, and hope it is at least as much as what they must pay in interest on the back end. A shot at avoiding it is worthwhile. I think the point is that there isn't an uncommitted pile of money laying around. There just isn't. I've never seen a district able to build anything or even extensively remodel our of regular cash flow. Capital bonding is always part of it. I know there's a group that says or things "retire the bonds and the taxes can be lowered". That's done at the risk of letting facilities fall into disrepair. It just doesn't work and causes huge problems down the road. Anyone who lives in IL has seen that process.
Brian Wells
12:03 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Point taken, Kevin, and I no doubt was exaggerating (or looking at the interest rate on my bank statements) when I said 0%.
However the money involved originates from (and I quote District 200 verbatim here) a "construction grant".
It takes real gumption to use $14.5M from a "construction grant" to reduce borrowing expenses while at the same time turning to local taxpayers to pony up $17.6M for... wait for it.... a construction project.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
12:35 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Mr. Kruse, you are entitled to your opinion no matter what. I have not, in any instance defended your current school board. I really don't know them. I'd describe the battle shaping up as pro-school board vs. anti-school board. To prove a point, there could be denial of a building replacement that would infinitely help your special ed category of students. That's what I'm opining on. Help them. Their parents won't be on these message boards. Most of them are exhausted from spending a day getting kids from school to therapies to almost always taking a lot longer to get routine things done than your average student. It's a tougher life raising these children. A little relief in not worrying about inappropriate facilities would be a Godsend to these families and a feather in the cap of the community. We're having parallel arguments Hank. I get that you're not happy with this board. I'm not arguing that point with you. Find great candidates to elect. The one on the Fox Chicago segment is not falling into the category of a "great" candidate for me. A kid lucky enough to be born in your community (and mine) is going to receive an outstanding education. Society pays that debt to the next generation if they care enough. Special ed needs are increasing. You've got an old building that probably isn't well suited to regular education. Replacing them comes up. Every district deals with it sooner or later. This one has a chance to help special ed kids do well. They can use the help.
Brian Wells
1:17 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Kevin, just as a for-instance, see
http://hometownsource.com/2012/10/29/school-payment-shifts-budget-balancing-tool-for-decades/
but that's just one hit.
The link I found listed rates as low as 0.3%. You are either off on the rate or off on your assumptions. (Maybe they borrow 30-Day)
So I stand by my former comment. Rates bumping along zero.
CUSD200 is not telling us the whole story.
End of story.
Mark Johnson
11:58 am on Friday, February 1, 2013
Ken Knicker was appointed in 1996, he had worked on a restructuring committee at WWSHS with Marie Slater who was on the Board at the time. The Board could have appointed Betsy Bennett who was the only unsuccessful candidate in the 1995 election losing by an 18% margin, but chose not to. In 1997 Knicker was thrown off the ballot for petition irregularities, ran as a write-in, and lost. He didn't run in 1999, and was elected for the first time in 2001.
Joann Coghill was appointed in 2004 and elected in 2005.
All of the Board members mentioned by the previous poster except Gambiani have in the past been endorsed by the Wheaton Warrenville Education Association (WWEA), the local teacher union affiliate of the Illinois Education Association (IEA) which is the state teacher union affiliate of the National Education Association (NEA), which is one of two national teacher unions and is more loosely affiliated with the international teacher union, Education International.
A main goal of teacher unions is to elect candidates sympathetic to increasing teacher pay, benefits, and working conditions.
One way this is accomplished is through political action committees (PACs).
The PAC for WWEA is Wheaton Warrenville PAC for Education (WWPACE), ISBE committee ID 7484.
The PAC for IEA is the Illinois Political Action Committee for Education (IPACE), ISBE committee ID 1169.
The PAC for NEA is the NEA Fund for Children and Public Education, FEC committee ID C00003251.
Brian Wells
12:11 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Hmmm...
Gambiani... only board member not endorsed by a lot of special interest groups.
Gambiani... only board member to vote No on this Jefferson project.
The math is tough, but I feel like I'm getting somewhere...
Mark Johnson
11:58 am on Friday, February 1, 2013
ISBE in this case is the Illinois State Board of Elections.
To look-up the committee ID's for WWPACE and IPACE, visit www.elections.il.gov, select "Committees" on the top menu bar, then select "Search Options", then "Committee Search", then enter the "Committee ID."
According to the ISBE website, WWPACE has $15,000 in funds available to spend on promoting their position in the upcoming April 9th School Board election and Jefferson referendum. You can monitor the ISBE website to determine receive and expended between now and the election, and additional postings occur after the election.
IPACE has $995,000 funds available according to the ISBE website.
Mark Johnson
11:59 am on Friday, February 1, 2013
Teacher unions are not the only labor unions that will be in favor of a new Jefferson.
Most construction unions that have jurisdiction over the construction site will likely support the measure, such as carpenters (UBC), Bricklayers (BAC), cement masons, laborers (LIUNA), electricians (IBEW), truck drivers (Teamsters), Ironworkers or Steel Workers, Painters, Plumbers and Pipefitters, Roofers, Sheet Metal Workers, Sprinkler Fitters etc., along with their District and Regional Councils, Central Labor Councils (CLC), and Building and Construction Trade Councils (BCTC), such as the DuPage County Building & Construction Trade Council and the North Central Illinois Labor Council, AFL-CIO in Warrenville. All of that labor will be at prevailing wages as per the resolution passed by the CUSD 200 school board. I do not believe Illinois School Code or any other law requires prevailing wages to be used to build a school, rather, school boards have the option to pass a resolution whether or not they wish prevailing wages to be used in new construction. Illinois is big on local control.
What about the bonds? Would the bonds be competitive bid or negotiated?
In almost all cases, competitive bid is the best deal for the taxpayer.
So is CUSD200 school board able to control costs and propose a cost competitive facility?
kitty
11:59 am on Friday, February 1, 2013
I am new to this area and am reading the posts and links as fast as I can, trying to figure out who the players are. For the life of me I can't figure out where Kevin Fitzpatrick fits in since he doesn't live in the district.
Based on prior experience in my old district I would like to point out that often times the board doesn't understand the financial minutiae whatsoever.
If anyone wants to post more links for my background reading edification I would appreciate it.
Kevin Fitzpatrick
12:45 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Here's where I fit Kitty. Special ed kids need all the help they can get. They have promise and potential to live up to too. Because of advancements in treatment and technology, they are becoming more and more productive and tax paying citizens. You might think I am opining because I have special ed kids. I actually don't. My wife taught and tutored special ed kids and I could see the joy or anguish of the parents who were stretched thin by the process of where they had to beg for everything to get their children appropriately educated. It's tough. I was blessed with children who all had the opportunity to take advantage of gifted programs (genetic on their mother's side I'm sure. lol) I was grateful these were available to them. We're all in a position to pay it forward, Kitty, so I choose to. I'm in the discussion to hopefully add some intelligent points and keep it on a civil level. I've tried to. I hope I've succeeded . That's how I fit or don't fit. No comment whatsoever on the school board. Just this special group of special kids.
Mark Johnson
12:00 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
And no I am not anti-union or proposing to hire low quality or unqualified labor. As with any purchase, one should be mindful of cost.
Mark Johnson
1:01 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Kevin wrote he has siblings and friends whom live in the district and he lives close to CUSD200.
I'm not sure this has been discussed, but CUSD200 has a very long detailed laundry list of maintenance required throughout the district categorized by building and ranked by priority. CUSD 200 does not have the funds and won't have the funds to complete reasonable maintenance on that list (some things can be pushed off only so long before they become really expensive to fix or must be replaced) unless they have an operating rate tax increase, bond referendum, or some other influx of money. So if the Jefferson referendum passes, by the time the Jefferson balloon payment comes due, there will likely be additional taxes from an operating rate increase or bond, or the buildings will fall into further disrepair. The district websites states there was a facilities board committee meeting today at 10AM at the SSC (School Service Center/Administration building), which means the results of that meeting will hopefully be discussed at the next board meeting.
The new Hubble Middle School built recently is a very, very nice and spacious $58M (and that's principal only) building. You can see some of it by attending a basketball game or other event. Maybe a more realistic approach would have been a more moderate Hubble and remodel Jefferson, but that's water over the dam. That's just another example of the Board managing the budget and funds.
cw
4:20 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
This is a bit off-topic, but I can't resist. I find it very curious that in today's Focus on Learning email from the district there was no mention of this article under the CUSD200 in the News category. However, when Jan Shaw was interviewed on Fox New there was a link to the story ~ that in fact is how I even heard about it. I wonder why the District doesn't want to publicize this article and ensuing comments? Were they also behind Brian Wells' response to John on the "Catalani Affair" being taken down for awhile?
Brian Wells
4:59 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
CW, I got that same email. I'm glad to see you thought the link selection to be "curious" though I can hardly blame them for doing as they did.
Chalk that problem with my disappearing post to a software glitch. It seems to have worked itself out. Thanks, Charlotte!
JanS
5:06 pm on Friday, February 1, 2013
Not a bad question. Let me fill in a little. I spoke at the Dec. school board meeting and raised the politically incorrect question - why such a big new building? The district was advertising capacity for 50% more students with 2/3 special needs now and in the future. After that I decided to run for school board turning in my petitions a few days prior to Christmas. On Jan 3 Dane Placko called and asked if I would meet him and a parent in front of Jefferson. Notice, I was interviewed by myself outside. The parent was interviewed in doors on a day when the school was closed. There was no controversy prior to that.
T. Weimer
7:14 pm on Monday, April 1, 2013
The numbers just don't jive. I have lived in Wheaton for 24 years. My taxes have tripled and I haven't had a child in Wheaton schools since 1997.
Maybe we could get back some of the pension money we are still paying for the ex-district 200 superintendent to fund this project.
MJ
7:25 pm on Monday, April 1, 2013
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.......DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY/ALL SCHOOL BOARD INCUMBENTS, THEY SIMPLY CANNOT MANAGE MONEY, CREATE/FOLLOW GOOD FISCAL POLICIES, NOT TRANSPARENT.......THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE!!!
JanS
12:45 pm on Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Thank you jewelia and everyone else who gets out to VOTE today.