The District 87 Board of Education met Monday night at the Glenbard West library, in a meeting that marked the farewell appearance of David Brown, Lorraine Schuller and Kathy Schmidt . . . accompanied by a video homage of encomiums from staff to each departing Board member.

Of note Monday night . . . by a 5-2 margin, with Tom Voltaggio and Steve Sebby casting the dissenting votes, the Board passed an agreement commitment to partner with Gain Ground for the installation of artificial turf at Memorial Park. Under the terms, Gain Ground commits to raise $695,000 in donations, and the time frame for the fund raising effort has been reduced from 3 to 2 years . . . due to “future considerations as they relate to project cost escalation and market conditions.”

However, of more concern for future financial viability, and what it portends for the District’s bottom line, is the fact that against the recommendation of Voltaggio at the April 13 board meeting, the agreement does not “require Gain Ground to fund a portion of the replacement cost of the turf.”

Monday night’s agreement leaves District 87 holding the bag for the whole enchilada when the field wears out in 7 or 8 years. Contrary to the strong language that was hammered out in an earlier agreement with the Carol Stream Park District (obligating the CSPD to at least two replacement cycles), the administration did not feel that Voltaggio’s recommendation “was appropriate due to the fact that this group (GG) is not a user of the facilities.”

(Note: In a January 30, 2009 memo of “Updates and Notes from Meeting Yesterday” between D87 administrators and representatives from Gain Ground, Peg Manion, D87 community relations coordinator, wrote: “Once field is installed. Revenue generated kick back to GG. Does Gain Ground have to pay a rental fee if it wants to host an event? Mike doesn’t want to charge them if it involves our kids.” From time to time, certainly sounds as if Gain Ground may be a “user of the facilities” to me?)

In any event . . . whether various partners are "users" or not misses the point, and Voltaggio stressed his concern that the Board was continuing to violate its own set of parameters on turf. The “one-third, one-third, one-third” financing model fell by the wayside with the January 26 resolution, as the Board obligated the District to $925,000 of the $1.6 million Memorial Park venture.

Now, Monday night’s board action continues to dilute the original safeguards/intent by potentially placing the entire financial burden of replacement (and equally expensive disposal?) on the District in the not-too-distant future when the field wears out.

(Note: Kinda makes one wonder what happened to all the hyped-up advantages of "partnerships" that the superintendent, Mr. Meissen, has been peddling for lo these many months??)

In other business . . . Voltaggio’s financial warnings from earlier meetings are also starting to come home to roost.

To wit: the four music departments at the high schools have submitted an analysis of their needs . . . specifically, $417,000 for 188 instruments which would make their programs current. Not surprisingly, with the expensive spending binges for computers and telephones at the past several meetings, according to Business Manager McClain, “there is no funding for this request at this time.”

However, the District has scrounged around and come up with approximately 50% of the cost of the new instruments by applying $157,000 in TIF proceeds from the Village of Bloomingdale, $34,000 in Workers Compensation Credit, and $17,000 in Activity Fund Reimbursement toward the purchase.

Voltaggio pointed out that this is just the first “living color” example of what happens when the District puts “all its eggs in one basket,” and throws its strategic plan out the window. As he went on to explain . . . one of the reasons there is no money for this request? The discretionary funds that formerly accrued to the individual schools from vending machine and photo sales . . . that in the past were targeted for special purchases, such as new band instruments . . . are now being entirely redirected into plastic grass!

Repeated District assurances that “Taxpayer funds will not be used for turf and lights” are increasingly sounding more and more hollow.

The next Board meeting is Monday, May 4, 7:30 p.m. in the District Administration Center on Crescent Boulevard.

en⋅co⋅mi⋅um [en-koh-mee-uhm]
–noun, a formal expression of high praise; eulogy: An encomium by the President greeted the returning hero.

I can't be the only one who didn't know.

I thought it was a typo.

this is garbage. however, i want to see GG "gain" 650K or so in donations in the next 2 years in this economy. not dime one from me, that's for sure. i suspect that even the very well off will not be contributing big bucks in the near future.

I'm not sure what all the moaning is about. I'm thrilled to hear that our district is so flush with cash that they can take on this additional cost which so many seem to consider a luxury at best. I assume they also greenlighted the postposed scheduled maintenance that had recently been deferred? I mean, I know that infrastructure is not as important as astroturf, but as long as we have all this cash lying around...

It must be an exciting time to be associated with the high schools, knowing that sufficient funding exists to pay for every interest group's wish list.

And the process provides a valuable blueprint for any group desiring costly changes at the schools. Go ahead and say you'll bear the costs up front. When push comes to shove the district will be happy to pick up the tab.

Nice to know the schools have profited so well under the past board such that they are immune to the economic pressures just about everyone else is experiencing these days. A feat truly worthy of encomiums! (You show-off, Mel!)

quote:

Originally posted by Gus:
who in their right mind is going to build a house in this town when they will be staring at a 35K+ Real Estate bill while others sit on a 7-9K taxable parcel???

35K+ RE tax bill? Exactly what kind of house are you thinking of?

Perhaps a signif diff between you and I is that I won't be weeping too many tears for the money woes of the poor joe who is building a multi-million dollar home.

Meanwhile - WTF does any of this have to do with this thread?

increase the tax rate? how do you explain GWBush cutting taxes THEN sending us into an incredibly expensive war on 2 fronts? was THAT responsible? dont blame obama when rates GO BACK to where they should have been the whole time we were fighting gulf war II.
35K real estate bill= $1.5 million plus home (just guessing.) maybe new houses will just get smaller.
i really do think that GG will find fund raising for this is like getting blood from a stone...unless the main movers and shakers for plastic grass are VERY well-heeled.

I certainly agree that majority of the board is out of touch.

Gat a couple of issues with a couple of your assumptions, tho.

- your figure of $300K for a lot is dated. Run a search on Realtor.com and you'll see over 100 houses/lots asking $300K or less, 20-30 under $220K. Hell - a couple are under $130K! And in this economy I suspect at least a couple of those folk might be willing to accept somewhat less than their asking price...

- the other thing that SCREAMS at me from your post is a modest house of say, 3,500-4,000 sq ft

Here is where you and I differ widely. My family has been extremely comfortable in our 5 bedroom of under 2K sq ft. I have a hard time getting my mind around the idea that a house twice the size of mine could be considered "modest" by any definition of the word. And these seems to be some disjunct between someone who considers that a modest home bitching about their taxes however high they might be.

[-you have a tax bill at 21K-]

Wasn't it a 35K bill?

I certainly understand that there are many houses of that size in GE. My sole disagreement was with the description of such homes as "modest."

Of course I am willing to acknowledge that I am the unusual one. I am regularly surprised (to the point that you'd think I would cease being surprised!) when I watch shows on HGTV, and hear what people want in terms of master bed/bath size, number of bedrooms, etc.

And at base I have no objection with someone living in a big-*** house. My confusion comes, however, when they act as though they should enjoy that privilege without paying all of the associated costs - including taxes.

Probably a significant philosophical difference between you and me. Nothing wrong with that.

Anecdotal comparison point - we were recently considering new construction. Our numbers were in the ballpark of $150K for a 1/4+ acre lot, and 2000 sq ft, 3-4 bed, 2.5 bath @ $200-225/sq ft, for a total price around $600k. And we were talking with someone I think many of us would consider an exceptionally quality builder about what would have been (in our opinions) a very nice house.

Dins - where are you considering building? Just curious.

I thought you wanted to "get out of Dodge", Dinsdale? What's changing your mind? Surly not your recent tax bill! Maybe it's the thought of plastic grass. Very sexy.

BB - we've considered several options - including a couple in town. Possibly build from scratch, or a substantial rehab. There are IMO several very nice 3-400K homes in GE on very nice lots that would be exceptional homes with $1-200K improvements/additions. And a couple of houses less than that that could be torn down resulting in nice lots.

Right now we're up in the air regarding my wife's employment situation. Depending on what happens there, GE might suit our bill quite well, OR we might look along another train line.

You know the old saw about how bad you think your home is - until you start looking around and see everywhere else is worse!

And we have no need to move immediately. Inertia can be a mighty powerful force. Given the recent market, we found ourselves not terribly eager to go through a protracted listing/sale process - and aren't in the position to take 10s or 100s or thousands less than we might be able to get should the market revive.

But I suspect when/if things change for my wife's situation, we'll likely make a decision one way or the other quite quickly. Could be a month - could be a couple of years. In the meanwhile, our house is comfortable, and easily accommodates however many kids opt to come home from college at any time. Not quite big enough to host a bunch of BB drunks, tho! )

hey gus..i said "expensive" wars...you can't argue with that. yes, we had to address the taliban and their threats, but how did bush plan to pay to fight these mid-eastern/asian wars and still CUT TAXES?! blaming obama when he's been in office for 100 days? 100 days vs. 8 years...come on!
and gus, in NO WAY is a 3000 sq ft house modest. under any standards.
and if you think these people are so underassesed, then report them! if you're inferring that a departing board member who used to be on D41 is underassessed, i just looked at that assessed value. knowing the neighborhood, that house is right on target (and they also have been in that house for a VERY long time.) and sorry, those of us who STAYED in our "starter" homes (ie, for 20 years or more) DO have lower rates, since the rate has not been reassessed on a new sale price. (but improvements and additions have been added to the assessment.) but believe me, our taxes have gone up the same % as everyone elses. so "fair share"? not sure what you're talking about. my house is not worth 1.5 million...so why should i pay taxes on that?
you know, you would have been an excellent addition to the D87 board, and you would have had alot of support...and then you could get your pay as you use plan off the ground. i think that's called...PRIVATE education!

Please, people — this forum and thread is for an important local D87 issue. Please take your partisan national political opinions elsewhere. Thanks! —Ted E.

sorry gus, Jesus is my messiah, not barack obama. nasty, nasty. and i am completely against plastic grass...i have not forgotten the mess district 87 made a few years ago. but when you start talking about making public schools private (which is what you're doing...) you're really on an unproductive rant. and while your property taxes have gone up, how about your appreciation in the last 12 years? WAY UP!
if it's driving you so nuts go live Carrilon. that's it ted, i promise!

during the last quadrennial assessment (last year) my prop. taxes went up 17%. usually they have gone up 8 or 9% for the last few years. AND values go up for existing houses compared to the new mcmansions that may surround them. so, complain about "ancient valuations" as much as you want, but it's just not the facts. my property taxes reflect the value of my house. it was your choice to live in a new house. my choice to stay put.
jombl hits the nail on the head...it's the overall amounts the schools get, and the shady ways they deal with us that are the real issues.