Any news from the meeting Monday night regarding possible D-41 land acquisition(s)?

Thank you Julie.

Recap of Jan. 25 MFP discussion

Hi MFP Steering Committee members,

Here is a recap of the discussion Monday night (Jan. 25). Several MFP committee members met with the administration to give their perspectives on developing an approach to land acquisition as part of its 15-20-year plan. The Board has just started discussing this issue, and thought some input from MFP members would help it decide if—and how—to take the conversation further. The conversation at this point is exploratory, and the Board has not established a direction or made any decisions regarding a future referendum. Here are highlights of the discussion:


The questions:

1. D41 schools are landlocked. Would it make sense to try to acquire adjacent properties as they become available to increase green/play space, particularly if the BOE wanted to pursue the “A” plan of enlarging existing schools?

2. Spalding, our one buildable site, is under-sized. If the BOE wanted to pursue the “B” plan of building a new school, would Spalding be the right site, or should the BOE look for a better one?

Overall, the group was open to the idea of the district acquiring land, depending on how the acquisition was executed and for what purpose. Among the comments:

· This is a difficult issue and public reaction may not be favorable, especially for those who remember when the district closed schools 30 years ago.

· The district should talk with the village, D89 and the park district. Inter-governmental cooperation might be fruitful and may be more palatable to the community than the district acting alone. There may be opportunities for swaps, long-term leases or other solutions.

· The district would be acquiring an asset that holds value; even so, buying land would be a hard sell in these times.

· Acquiring parcels piecemeal could be problematic and take ages, and there are few large sites suitable for a new school.

· The current buyer’s market won’t last forever, and the district should at least be prepared by establishing criteria for purchase, defining its processes, and gathering information about possible parcels.

Next Steps:
The perspectives of the committee members will be shared with the Board and with the MFP Committee as a whole. The administration will outline a plan for furthering the conversation and bringing in more voices. The administration invited MFP members to stay engaged in the conversation and hopes they are open to further participation.

Attending were: Ann Riebock, Bob Ciserella, Julie Worthen, John Mulherin, Jim Bourke, Debbie Wenta, Liz Hopkins, Rob Herbold, Kevin Fry, and Board members Bob Solak, Jack Kahler and Drew Ellis (Drew was an observer only).

quote:

Spalding, our one buildable site, is under-sized

Love the declaration, as tho it were indisputable fact, that Spalding is "under-sized".

Great point by Dins. I would hope that in an era of McMansions on 50x150 lots someone could get creative and put a new school on the site of an old school. I'm sure it will cost $, but so does land acquisition.

Disclaimer: My opinion, not necessarily that of the BOE

The statement isn't that something cannot be built there - it can. It would have to be multi-level, of course. But even then there will be issues with adequate parking, bus drop-off, and green space. It is possible to do it, but it isn't an ideal piece of property. The BOE hasn't ruled it out or in, we're just looking at all options. Land acquisition increases the number of options.

Thanks for the explanation. I hope we see a meaningful and public comparison between what can be done at that site - and at what cost, compared to a newly acquired site.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ted E.,

It may not be ideal, but if I remember correctly, the Spaulding site (D41 plus PD land) is larger than Forest Glen's site. FG is a single story building with only 2 surrounding streets for school traffic. A school at Spaulding could be multilevel and has the benefit of 4 streets for traffic.

Observer,

One of the streets wouldn't be usable to a school as there is a tributary of the East Branch of the DuPage River flowing west to east on the north end of the (Park District's) property (this also presents floodplain challenges for buildings and reliable green space).

Here's a link to a 5.7MB PDF of the floodplain map that includes that area.

And where do you guys think you're getting the money from. Every other school district is planning on declining enrollment. But somehow we're the only ones who are expected to see increases ?

Don't ask for us anymore because after your last fiasco, and the Library and the PD I don't think there is a lot trust between the taxpayers and the various taxing bodies around here.

quote:

Originally posted by taxpayer:
And where do you guys think you're getting the money from.

They already have it.

$6 million of "disposable" revenue (beyond that which taxpayers approved) that continues to accrue to D41 each and every year from the granddaddy of them all . . . the 2001 referendum.

Our friends at D41 have admittedly performed yeoman service in coming up with innovative ways to spend that little pot of gold every year. At the end of the day, however, and in a period of sluggish enrollment, even D41 is apparently having a devil of a time justifying the acquisition of more administrators or staff . . . or finding sufficient parking lots to blacktop, reconfigure and expand . . . or buildings to air condition . . . or administrative centers to remodel . . . or expensive equipment to purchase . . . or any number of other projects into which they have dumped the money for the past 9 years.

The major building proposal at Hadley was supposed to have provided a permanent sponge a few years back, but the voting public threw a definite monkey wrench into that works . . . so what’s a district to do with all the cash?

Oh yeah . . . how ‘bout land acquisition? That sounds like a promising way to tie up the phase-in windfall, and in so doing, put a kibosh on any foolish notion that the money ever be returned to those from whom it continues to be confiscated each June and September.

Instead of convening yet another well-meaning committee to spend taxpayer dollars . . . how ‘bout the D41 Board finally investigate some viable ways to return the ill-gotten goods?

In this day and age of economic calamity for so many in our community, I don’t know of a single taxpayer who would object to seeing his property tax bill rightfully reduced.

In the process, such courageous leadership by the D41 Board would at long last put an end to the most unprecedented and disgraceful period of distrust between a taxing body and its shareholders in our village history.

OK why did they have another referendum a couple of years ago. Which went down to a massive defeat, losing by 70-30. As we've seen with our PD 6M only goes so far. Also the land may cost roughly 6M add in the building, the staff and that 6M will be gone. With the deep recession and declining home values they are not getting as much tax revenue as they would like. With all the new administrators they hired those costs are going up eating into their taxpayer funded slush fund.

I see them having to ask for more money. And I see them being turned down again.

Hi,
Personally, I think it is in poor taste to even be discussing this right now. I agree wholeheartedly with Melbourne that until the 2001 rip-off is addressed to the full satisfaction of the taxpayers (aka as "stakeholders") there is no way that ANY referendum will pass. In fact, I feel so confident that this is the case, I welcome the opportunity to see another full court press referendum brought the table by D41, only to be humiliatingly shot down once again. Hopefully I still have ny vote "NO" sign in the garage.

I would ask ALL SEVEN of the current school board members, do you really want to be remembered as the board who, during one of the worst economies in history, spent their time and our money, discussing, (planning/ proposing) land acquisition while at the same time NOT adequately addressing the fact that we are in all likelihood going to see a budget shortfall in the next few years if we do not make some serious adjustments.

Month after month, I read the D41 highlites that are sent out after board meetings, and I keep waiting for something to be brought up regarding the 2001 phase in. Or some proactive steps to be taken to address the inevitable cash shortfall. While I applaud the recent cuts that were made (thankfully, coming from our administrative budget) it is only the beginning. The board should consider future negotiattions with the teachers union, and all the ways that we can do more with less. Just like many of us are doing in our own homes.

How about this idea: Table all further discussion about land acquisition and school-building until we figure out where this economy is going. Show some restraint. Tell the architects that are running our focus groups to STAY HOME and save us all some cash.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Solak:
Land acquisition increases the number of options.

Hi Mr. Solak,
I must respectfully disagree. Once land is purchased, it would seem silly to just leave it sitting there. What is the purpose of purchasing land, if not to build on it? D41 is not in the real estate business. Seems to me that the minute we buy one foot of land, we are committing to some form of expansion or building. So much for all the other options.

quote:

Originally posted by CovetedLakeEllyn:
D41 is not in the real estate business.

While I agree with you CLE, I would ask the question, why not? If there was an open parcel of land large enough to sustain a future building, and we had the money in reserves (no ref), why shouldn't we grab it in an economic downturn when we can get it for a song? I believe the Board and Admin are painfully aware that a Referendum request will not pass anytime in the near future. If homes surrounding current schools or a large parcel within our boundary become available, and we have the means to purchase that without going back to the trough, that would be giving back some of the 2001 money in the form of an asset. If that were held onto and not built upon or needed, couldn't the District sell the property at a substantial profit?

Although I am leaning more towards inter governmental swaps of properties to help expansion over outright purchasing, I think it is something that our current Board members should be considering as well as all other options. Be prepared, do your diligence, and if the right situation presents itself, you are ready to move. Someone at the meeting mentioned keeping a properties portfolio with up to date info on hand for any occasion. Seems like a fairly prepared way to approach land acquisition.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bob Solak:
(this also presents floodplain challenges for buildings and reliable green space).QUOTE]

This is not a REAL issue on that site. Many buildings are built on far worse sites.
This site also happens to be right in the middle of the only area of possible growth in the district, as identified by the last two demographic studies. So IF it became necessary to build in the future we just need to hold onto this site.

Land purchase leads to buildings and buildings lead to filling them with more unnecessary help. Not to mention operating capital. In a suburb of Lansing Mi. a middle school was built to the tune of 200m and one year later it was vacant due to no $$$ for operating capital. The taxpayers said NO, just like we have once already.
What makes me sick is that one of the greatest recipients of this kind of "planning" is FGM architects. WE have paid them huge sums of money to draw up dream buildings and this is another one they are licking their chops on.
It has to stop. Again we not only have flat enrollment we have a decline in enrollment and already own land.
My suggestion, similar to Melbourne's, is to return some of the money back to the taxpayers rather than looking for a cash reserve dump it if the state changes the way it funds districts.

Unnecessary, repetitive and redundant quote removed. --Ted E.

Hi Rob,
I have serious concerns about spending our reserve funds on land acquisition, given the fact that we now know there is a good chance we will be running at a deficit within the next five years. We need to deal with that first.
As for a possible referendum, I don't share your confidence there either. One would think that would be the case. But until we stop paying FGM architects to run our focus groups, I will continue to believe that they are predisposed to building something.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ted E.,

I neither expect, nor want, my school districts to dabble in (or be experts in) real estate.

Look at D41’s track record: It sold the Duane Street School, Hawthorn School, Spring Avenue School... and is now wondering why they have no land to develop. As is the case of most “conservative fiscally-responsible” decisions, these sales were made with only short-sighted, short-term profit in mind. Instant gratification won out over long-term, generational consequences.

While not a D41 failure, a recent screwup (in generational terms) occurred when D87 sold the land it owned in Carol Stream (or was it Glendale Heights? Wherever)--land that had been set aside for a future high school. Now, Surprise! They need land in that area for a high school.

In any case, thinking, “Gee, we have some extra money--what can we think of to spend it on?” is irresponsible. It’s not your money, dammit. You stole it from me.

So, as long as I have a vote, you’ll never, ever get another chance to misappropriate and waste one more of my dollars.

I was under the impression that the Master Facilities Committee was working on a long term (generational for Gab's sake) solution to removing the portables from our sites and how to accomplish this. Land acquisition would be just another bullet in the gun aimed at that end.

Again, CLE, I agree with all your points. I especially am nervous about the budget going forward over the next few years without tapping those reserve funds. I would not advocate, nor do I think the board would advocate, wiping out our reserves on a plan that is designed for the next 10-15 years. Yet we (taxpayers) almost always vote for the Forest Preserve to buy vacant land, why not the School District?

Candidate, WADR - If you buy it they will build? How would that be possible in todays economy if we use reserves to buy land? A ref would absolutely be necessary to build a structure on the property and everyone knows that is not possible. I have always and still do agree with you 100% about FGM and their role in shaping our goals. Too much money thrown down that well.

quote:

...for the Forest Preserve to buy vacant land, why not the School District?

Just a guess, but maybe because the Forest Preserve is chartered to, ah, preserve appropriate land? Y'know... like, forests?

I think the School District's charter has something to do with educating children, but I could be wrong. Recent history seems to have proven that view to be charmingly naive and delightfully archaic. It now has something to do with enriching administrators, architects and other contractors--who, with any luck, never even have to see a student.

Nevermind.