BREAKING NEWS: Unofficial Results -- The HMS Referendum Fails.

With all precincts reporting as of 11:30 pm., 9878 D181voters have spoken* and the democratic decision was NO to issuing up to $65 million in bonds to build a new Hinsdale Middle School.

We are going to let these unofficial results speak for themselves, and will update later with the official results (which will include absentee ballot totals), but we want to highlight 3 things:

1.  Voter turnout in this election was huge.  43.9% of registered voters in Cook County voted.  55.3% of registered voters in DuPage County voted.  Over both counties, 51.9% of the 18,389 registered voters cast a ballot.*

2.  Total votes in both Cook County and Dupage County:  5352 NO, 4199 YES.*  

3.  Overall,  56% of voters voted NO.  44% voted YES.*


Below are the results by county.

Cook County:  

(Source:  http://electionnight.cookcountyclerk.com)

Dupage County:

(Source:  http://electionresults.dupageco.org)

As always, SOUND OFF!

__________________________________

*  These unofficial results do NOT include late absentee ballots which have not yet been tabulated.

A New Series: The REST of the FACTS on the HMS Referendum. Part 2 -- All It Took Was Researching "Fact #1" to Disclose the Unfinished, Irresponsible Process that has led to the $65 Million HMS Referendum Question

With the election only two days away, we wanted to present you with additional information that was not included in the HMS Mailer (paid for with Taxpayer dollars) that the D181 administration sent to all D181 Postal Patrons last week.  Our original plan was to go Fact by Fact through the district's mailer,  but shortly after we began this exercise, we realized that we don't need to go beyond Fact 1 to establish that this Referendum has been a RUSH to the polls, done in complete disregard of the NEEDS at other schools and the Future Fiscal Health of the entire district.  

We believe that after you have read the additional information we will provide below on Fact 1, you will agree that before the BOE  asks us to approve a $65 million project ($90 million with bond interest) to build ONE school, it must hold additional public meetings to FINISH the Facilities Master Plan.  The BOE must first address the NEEDS at ALL NINE of the district's schools, vet and discuss ALL of the Capital Projects identified (and excluded) in the Facilities Master Plan in the context of discussing the district's fiscal future, and actually VOTE TO APPROVE the Facilities Master Plan.  It has not done so as of today's date.  We believe you will agree with our conclusion that the ONLY responsible vote on March 15, 2016 will be a NO vote!

Fact 1 Presented in the District's HMS Mailer states: "Our Facilities Committee, comprised of parents, residents, staff, and Board members, has worked for more than two years to create a District-wide Facilities Master Plan supported by multiple data points and benchmarked against standards. This work has included special focus on HMS, which stands apart from the other D181 schools in regard to the level of its building challenges."  

As a first step in looking at what Fact 1 really means, we spent hours researching the Facilities Master Plan by reviewing all available online documentation, and then listening to the FULL Board of Education's discussion (or lack thereof) of the plan.  What we discovered was truly enlightening.  Here are KEY ADDITIONAL FACTS you need to know about D181's Fact 1:

1.  While it may be true that the Facilities Committee (which only has 2 board members on it -- Mridu Garg and Gary Clarin) has been in place for more than 2 years, it is NOT TRUE that they have been working for "more than two years" to create a District-wide Facilities Master Plan.  A September 28, 2015 Memo prepared for the BOE by Assistant Superintendent of Business and Operations, Ken Surma, specifically states: "Over the past 12-16 months, the Facilities Committee has been working on gathering resources and data to develop a Facilities Master Plan for District 181." If one is to believe Mr. Surma's BOE report, this means that as of the date of the HMS Mailer, the Facilities Committee had, at most, worked on the Plan for 17 to 21 months. (Source:  http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A2SNYJ554364/$file/BOE%20Report_Facilities%20Master%20Plan%20(Draft)_9_28_15.pdf)

2.  The DRAFT has NEVER been vetted or substantively discussed 
by the FULL BOE, finalized or approved by the BOE. 

• The Title of the Mr. Surma's Memo is "Facilities Master Plan (Draft)."  This Memo and a 780 page long Draft Facilities Master Plan were included on the September 28, 2015 BOE Business Meeting Agenda.  The Plan describes potential capital projects that may need to be completed at each of the districts schools over the next ten years.  The Draft Facilities Plan can be accessed at: http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A2SNAB5719B5/$file/Facilities%20Master%20Plan%20-%209.27.2015%20-%20reduced%20size.pdf.
• The DRAFT Facilities Master Plan is on the 9/28/15 BOE Meeting Agenda under "Informational Items."  This means that the plan was not included on the Agenda for action purposes.  The last line of Mr. Surma's Memo confirms this fact.
• We listened to the Podcast of this meeting to see whether the seven BOE Members had any substantive discussion on the 780 page long DRAFT. They did NOT. The Podcast for this meeting can be accessed at: http://livestream.com/ccsd181/boe/videos/108652985.  The "discussion" - if you want to even call it that -- on the 780 page long DRAFT Facilities Master Plan that covers all NINE schools, lasted a grand total of 3 minutes and 4 seconds between Time Counter 3:04:50 and 3:07:54.  What is fascinating is that the "discussion" on this informational agenda item came after 10 pm and hours into a meeting at which the focus was on selecting the architecture firm to build a new HMS.  Here is the link to the Agenda, so you can check it out for yourself:  http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=9ZXQ5B56F178.  
• We encourage our readers to take the time to listen to the THREE minutes of discussion.  Keep in mind that we have reviewed the AGENDAS for ALL Subsequent Board meetings through the March 14, 2016, and the DRAFT Facilities Master Plan has NOT been on any agendas since September 28, 2015.  Please listen to these THREE minutes,  because they are quite telling of the cavalier approach the D181 Administration has taken.  We highlight the following Quotes from the three minutes:
• Dr. White starts off "joking" about the plan by saying, "I was hoping Ken would do a thousand slide presentation this evening, but I'm going to ask him not to do that."
• He follows up this "funny remark" with "One of our goals was to get you a DRAFT Facilities Master plan, you see that in the board packet. It's not intended to be anything more than a draft.  At this point it has not been vetted by the Facilities Committee. The committee still needs to have that work done so that we can prioritize if you will and provide the board options as you consider that as part of future work. We met the target of at least getting a draft in your hands as a starting place."
• Dr. White then ends his "presentation" by stating "So, as you review it, let us know if you have questions or comments as to how we might be able to restructure it to meet your needs."
• What is clear is that this DRAFT was intended by the Administration to "check the box" so to speak and meet one of the board's goals.   A draft, however, is useless, if it is not substantively reviewed in FULL, which it was not on September 28, 2015, or any date since then by either the BOE or the Facilities Committee.  As Dr. White pointed out, even the Facilities Committee had not "vetted" the Draft before it was shown to the BOE!  Yet despite these FACTS, between 9/28/15 and December 2015, the BOE was asked by the Administration to plow ahead with a decision to go to referendum to build a new HMS, only ONE of the NINE buildings whose needs are addressed in the DRAFT!  
• Following Dr. White's "presentation," the only board member to speak on this Draft was the Board President, who asked Mr. Surma to explain what in the Draft addressed potential expenses that might need to be incurred on Hinsdale Middle School if the BOE decided not to go to referendum.  He highlighted that the report included $50 million to build a new HMS and an additional $3 million to cover identified repairs that HMS would need if a new school wasn't built.  What caught our attention was when he stated that he had "budgeted" or "put in" $50 million to build a new school.  That amount is $15 million LESS than the $65 million referendum amount!
• That was the extent of the FULL BOE and Administrative discussion on the DRAFT Facilities Master Plan in the last 2 1/2 years (to use the date in the HMS Mailer)!  And to repeat, the Plan has NOT BEEN VETTED, FINALIZED OR APPROVED by the FULL BOE!

3.  As interested Taxpayers, who are being asked to approve NOT $50 million (as "budgeted" or "put in"), rather $65 million ($90 million with bond interest), to build ONE school, we decided to keep digging and see what this DRAFT actually provided for the other 8 schools.  A "snapshot" of the amounts the DRAFT Plan included for all nine schools was included at the bottom of Mr. Surma's 9/28/15 Memo to the BOE.  We have copied it for you below:

(Source:  9/28/15 Surma Memo)

4.  You will note several things from Mr. Surma's Snap Shot.

• First, he claims that the "Financial Impact" of all projects were completed in the Draft Facilities Master Plan would be $63,512,851.34.
• His line item for HMS is consistent with what he stated during the 9/28/15 board meeting -- he lists an amount of $53,543,384.24.  The footnote referenced after this amount is included at the end of his memo and states:  "1 This total includes $50,000,000 for the possible construction of a new or renovated Hinsdale Middle School along with the expenditures associated with items identified in the Facility Condition Assessment Report and Life/Safety Survey. "
• So, according to Mr. Surma, the new HMS would cost $50 million.  
• The other 8 schools' identified capital projects totaled nearly $10 million -- to be exact, $9,969,467.10.  

5.  Yet NONE of the capital projects identified in the Draft Plan for the other EIGHT schools were substantively discussed by the BOE before they decided to move forward with a $65 million school.  Of course, this means that the Total Financial Expenditure listed in Mr. Surma's 9/28/15 Memo is no longer accurate.  The total now stands at nearly $75 million (we have not included the +$3 million expenditures Mr. Surma indicated were included in the Draft for work to be done to HMS if there was no referendum).

• You can review the detailed proposed projects for each of the nine schools in the 780 page long Draft Report as well as the following document, which we found on Board Docs on the agenda of the 9/17/15 Facilities Committee meeting held 11 days before the 9/28/15 BOE meeting:  http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A2DNBT549C39/$file/10-Year%20Facility%20Plan%20by%20School%20-%209%2010-Year%20Facility%20Plan%20by%20School.pdf

6.  In further reviewing the materials that the Facilities Committee reviewed the last time they EVER discussed the DRAFT Facilities Master Plan -- September 17, 2015 -- (Click to Open Committee Meeting Agenda) -- we also found a document titled:  Projects Eliminated from Facilities Master Plan.  It can be accessed at: http://www.boarddocs.com/il/hccsdil/Board.nsf/files/A2DNC754A14E/$file/FMP%20-%20Projects%20Eliminated%20from%20Facilites%20Master%20Plan.pdf.

• This document identifies nearly $33.3 million in capital projects for all nine schools that were ELIMINATED from the DRAFT Plan that the BOE was ultimately shown on September 28, 2015.  
• Of the $33.3 million, $15 Million was included for Hinsdale Middle School's NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, leaving $18.3 million in additional capital projects for the other 8 schools.
• We did not listen to the podcast of this meeting, because what was critical to us was that somehow before the BOE ever was shown the DRAFT Plan, the Facilities Committee reduced nearly $28.3 million in capital projects that had been identified for 8 schools, down to under $10 million WITHOUT the FULL BOE ever getting to participate in a substantive discussion on this "winnowing down."
• But of GREATER significance to the current $65 million HMS referendum we are being asked to approve, is the fact that someone -- Mr. Surma or the Facilities committee??? -- decided to reduce the amount to build a new HMS from $65 million to $50 million and only reflect $50 million in the DRAFT Facilities Master Plan.

So there you have it -- ADDITIONAL FACTS -- regarding the work of Dr. White, Mr. Surma, the Facilities Committee and BOE and the District-Wide Facilities Master Plan listed in Fact 1 of the HMS MAILER.  What do these facts reveal?  They reveal that the Plan is still just a draft.  If one is to believe Dr. White, as of 9/28/15, this district wide plan had not been vetted by either the Facilities Committee or the BOE. Since that date, it hasn't been either. There is NO FINAL, BOARD APPROVED Facilities Master Plan. The BOE's last "look see" into the informational material that Dr. White and Mr. Surma presented them to review on 9/28/15 listed the amount budgeted (or to use Mr. Surma's corrected phrase -- "put in") for construction of a new HMS at $50 million, not the $65 million that the board approved in December 2015.  Since deciding to build a new middle school, selecting an architect and allowing the price of the winning architect's proposal to swing wildly from  $46 million to $73 million to $65 million all in the course of two weeks,  Dr. White has NEVER asked the BOE to go back to the DRAFT Facilities Master Plan to see if they were on target.  Nor have they discussed how or when they will finance the $10 million in projects for the other 8 schools.  Nor have they discussed why additional $18.3 million in projects identified for the other 8 schools were eliminated from the Draft Facilities Master Plan.

Shouldn't each of the following steps have been taken BEFORE the Administration asked the BOE to approve going to referendum on HMS?  

• Step 1 -- Discuss the substance of the DRAFT plan -- what is included for each school, what was eliminated for each school and why, what will the plan cost to implement and how will the projects be funded?  
• Step 2 -- Have the BOE Vote to Approve a final Facilities Master Plan.  (Just like D86 did as it final step before now beginning the phase of prioritizing the project in the plan BEFORE deciding when to go to referendum and for what amount.)  
• Step 3 -- Prioritize the projects.  
• Step 4 -- Decide the timeline for when each of the prioritized projects will be undertaken.  
• Step 5 -- Decide how the projects would be funded and if necessary if, when and for what amount to go to referendum.  
• Step 6 -- ESTABLISH a BUDGET in the Facilities Master Plan for each project -- including a new HMS -- that will cap the amount architects are allowed to use in developing their proposals for the project.

NONE of these steps were taken, and yet, in two days, we are being asked to approve a referendum to build a $65 million school, which was supposed to cost (at most) $50 million in the Draft Facilities Master Plan?   We are being asked to approve a referendum for ONE school when the identified needs of the 8 other schools haven't been fully vetted by the BOE?  Well, we are not going to condone the UNFINISHED WORK of Dr. White, Mr. Surma, the Facilities Committee or the FULL Board of Education. It is clear as day that they RUSHED the HMS referendum because they didn't want to put the question on the ballot during a national election -- they refused to slow the train down by a short 8 month period, enough time potentially to complete Steps 1 through 6 above, because they wanted to avoid the November election. They didn't want to risk putting their referendum question on a ballot that might also include a D86 referendum question.  Well, in our opinion, that is simply inappropriate and reckless and irresponsible. The HMS MAILER does a great job obfuscating all of these undisclosed facts by listing 9 additional "facts." We are not going to take the time needed to dissect each of them. We started a list of additional information that is not included in them, but decided that undisclosed information surrounding Fact 1 is so damning that it is not necessary to go beyond it.

On March 15, 2016, we are going to VOTE NO on the HMS Referendum. We hope you will join us.  It is time for all parties involved to FINISH what they started and FIRST finalize the DISTRICT-WIDE Facilities Master Plan. Only then can the BOE make any kind of fiscally responsible decisions that take into consideration the needs at ALL of our schools.  

A New Series: The REST of the FACTS on the HMS Referendum. Part 1 -- Cost and Impact Analysis

Tonight we begin a new Series that deals with the March 15 HMS Referendum.  Five days from now, the polls will be closed and D181 taxpayers will have cast their votes on whether to authorize the building of a new $65 million Hinsdale Middle School ($90 million with bond interest).  We encourage all D181 residents to cast their vote on or before Tuesday and let the democratic process play out.  YES, NO, WIN, LOSE (depending what side of the debate you fall on), come Wednesday morning  a decision on the $65 million referendum question will be made, and we will all have to live with the results.  Voters should take the time to review all of the available information before they make a final decision.  D181 has sent out out many newsletters and posted documents to its website that deal exclusively with the HMS referendum.  This Series will address the information that D181 has highlighted and the information it has chosen to gloss over or simply not present.  We leave it to you to decide the significance of the information, misinformation or lack of information that D181 has been circulating.  

Today D181 Residents received a glossy, color, 2 page flyer in the mail that purports to provide the FACTS on the HMS Referendum.  (The flyer can also be found at the D181 website at: http://www.d181.org/data/files/gallery/ContentGallery/Community_Mailer__FINAL.pdf

This flyer was NOT prepared or paid for by the Vote Yes For HMS citizen's committee. Rather, it clearly states that it is "A Publication from Community Consolidated School District 181." That means that it was most likely created by the very highly paid D181 Communications Director. Since it was delivered through the US mail, in addition to the paper and ink supplies needed for the thousands of flyers printed and mailed to all D181's Postal Patrons, the postage was also paid for with D181 taxpayer dollars.  We'd like to start off by asking, HOW MUCH DID THESE MAILERS COST?  DID THE BOE AUTHORIZE TAXPAYER MONEY TO BE USED FOR THESE FLYERS? 

Now we all know that D181 administrators and BOE members are not allowed, under Illinois law, to advocate or encourage YES votes. To do so is illegal.  They are only allowed to present FACTS regarding the referendum. This creates a lot of gray areas, where one could argue that by not presenting ALL the facts that might lead a taxpayer to vote NO, the D181 administration is in effect encouraging YES votes. We will leave it up to you to decide whether or not this flyer was the "objective"type of brochure that is permissible by law.  

In our opinion, the D181 administration conveniently omitted many FACTS that might lead D181 taxpayers to vote NO.  In the interest of fairness, each part of this Series will copy D181's presentation of facts in BLUE.  Then we will post additional FACTS in RED that we think you should consider before election day.

Part 1 of this Series presents additional FACTS on the Cost and Impact Analysis discussed in the D181 mailer.

The D181 mailer states:  

"Should the referendum be approved, the Board has determined that payment of the new debt would begin in 2018-19, when construction of the HMS building is to be completed. Therefore, homeowners would see an increase in their tax payment in 2019 (estimated at $263 for a $500,000 home and $537 for a $1 million home). However, because the District's existing debt will be paid in full by Fiscal Year 2024, homeowners would see a decrease in their tax payment in 2025 (estimated at $382 for a $500,000 home and $781 for a $1 million home). If the final costs were less than $65 million, the Board of Education would not sell bonds for $65 million, but rather only sell bonds for the actual amount needed.  The Board would not have the option of using remaining funds for another project (i.e. facility work at another school),as the referendum seeks approval to use the funds specifically for the HMS facility project."

Here is information on the Cost and Impact Analysis that the D181 administration didn't highlight:

1.  2025 should be the long awaited year when property tax bills decrease after the bonds that financed the last four referenda are finally paid off with our hard earned tax dollars. According to the information provided on the HMS Referendum Debt Service and Homeowner Impact Analysis prepared by the D181 administration a $500,000 home CURRENTLY pays $563/year and a $1 million home CURRENTLY pays $1147/year in taxes to pay for the bonds used to finance the past referenda. No doubt, many families in D181 would love to have that extra money to spend on their personal "needs," not just their "wants."  Alas, that will not happen if the HMS referendum is approved.

2.  If the HMS referendum is approved, a $500,000 home will pay an ADDITIONAL $263/year for the first six years (2019-2024) after HMS is built. The property tax payment for the HMS referendum bonds will then INCREASE to $444/year for the next 12 years (2025-2036). A $1 million home will pay an ADDITIONAL $537/year for the first six years (2019-2024).  The property tax payment for the HMS referenda bonds will then iINCREASE to $903/year for the next 12 years (2019-2036).

3.  To suggest that a taxpayer's bill will GO DOWN after 2025 is a spin on the truth of the HMS referendum facts. The FACT is that the portion of your tax bill that covers repayment of the HMS referendum bonds will INCREASE in 2025 by 60%.  While you will no longer have to pay for repayment of the bonds that financed the past referenda, in our opinion, it is disingenuous for the D181 administration to not thoroughly explain this fact and spin it as an overall tax decrease starting in 2025.

4.  Here's what taxpayers will actually pay over the life of the bonds on the HMS referendum alone:

• $500,000 home will pay $6906.
• $1 million home will pay $14,058.
• $1.5 million home will pay $20,964.*
• $2 million home will pay $28,116.*  
• $2.5 million home will pay $35,022.* 
• $3 million home will pay $42,174.* 

The amounts listed above are not insignificant. In fact, what D181 taxpayers need to remember is that these amounts are in ADDITION to the rest of the property taxes that they pay to D181 to fund the day to day operations, teacher salaries and programs in all 9 schools, and they pay these taxes whether or not they have a student attending the schools. Each voter will have to make a personal decision on whether they can afford to pay the above amounts to build ONE school. And even if they can afford it, they must decide whether the $65 million project is is the right one, at the right time for a district (as some of our readers have pointed out) that faces future financial uncertainty.  

More on that as the Series continues......

____________________

*  This is an estimate based upon the information provided in the HMS Referendum Debt Service and Homeowner Impact Analysis on the D181 website.

Comment of the Day: The Hinsdalean's Editorial is Indefensible. Vote NO.

Moments ago, we received the following comment, in response to our last Comment of the Day.  We have decided to post it as a new Comment of the Day because we believe that it is a perfect rebuttal to the Hinsdalean's "indefensible" article encouraging voters to vote yes and not worry about the future.

As always, SOUND OFF!

Comment of the Day:

Anonymous said...

Thoughts of the Day--
I don't hold any ill will toward the yes HMS crowd, and as with many who plan to vote no, understand all the arguments for a new HMS, not just this one at this time. The Hinsdalean editorial is indefensible.

To begin with, the Hinsdalean fantasy that we don't know what will happen in the future is without any foundation. We know what will happen, we just don't know how. We are going to get clobbered. See today's article outlining the disparity between rich and poor districts in Illinois. The worst in the nation. At the end of the day, we will lose substantial monies. http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-sta-kadner-sudies-st-0327-20150326-column.html. I guess the Hinsdalean is right, we don't know when. Yet, any logical analysis would say soon. The Illinois financial crisis has been going on for decades as the can is kicked down the road. Will it continue for another ten years without resolution, that seems unlikely. Will it continue for six months, that seems likely. Sometime between six months and ten years we will be clobbered by increased taxes or lost money. And no one is going to tap us on the shoulder and say, "it's coming", it will just come. The signs are sooner rather than later. Our universities are not being funded. CPS teachers are being furloughed. We don't have a budget. Chicago has raised property taxes and will raise them again. Chicago wants our money. The Courts have ordered various payments be made. Vendors are owed billions of dollars. Does this sound like a who knows scenario or more like sooner rather than later scenario. 

As for the idea that curriculum and capital expenditures are entirely "separate" and can be conceptually isolated, that is also indefensible. We have one pot of money, divided up. But the idea that they are separate goes beyond the idea that we are one community with one set of finite resources. Curriculum and capital expenditures also compete for the energy and talent of the administration. We are in the process of trying to fix the curriculum. A big shiny new building will be a lovely thing to work on, instead of digging into the muck of statistics, test results, and unhappy parents. 

Perhaps this provides some insight into why the administration is in love with the new building. It needs a win. A big shiny new win. It needs a legacy. Not only would the building be a big shiny new win, it would be a distraction. Just like a magician distracting the audience with one hand, while it hides the coins with the other, the building will be a positive focal point to distract people. How else to explain the mysterious and illegal release of data and burying the actual price of the building.

Well, I hear angry yesers, crying "what about the benefits." Ok, a new HMS would provide benefits. If you are going to spend 65 million dollars, you should have an upside. This is the cry for support for every government expenditure. Every government program that takes taxpayer money provides some benefit to someone. Couldn't we also provide more teachers, a dedicated language lab committed to teaching mandarin, subsidized travel to academic competition, one on one meetings with STEM professors from area universities, free memberships and travel to lifetime fitness. How about a greenhouse and agriculture lab on the existing bowl. That would be super cool. We could do a lot. The Yes crowd crowing about the benefits doesn't move me. How about this question. Is there anything we could do with 65 million dollars, other than build a new school, that would provide less actual educational benefit to the kids than a vanity project to fit in with downtown Hinsdale style? I am hard pressed to think of anything reasonable.  

The question is always, in a world of finite resources, compared to what? How is this building compared to a more utilitarian structure. How is this building compared to waiting, and focusing financial and administrative resources on existing, overdue, pressing curriculum reforms. How is this building compared to upcoming repairs? My understanding is that the trailers are 50,000 a year and that the building is safe and largely fixed. Is spending 65 million dollars now really the most likely way that all students can benefit academically. It sure seems like a vanity project for the administration and for those residents who love the idea of a fancy new school.

Finally, if I could get over all of that, I can't get over the process. In particular, the last minute 20 million dollar increase in price. How did that happen? In any other organization, it would be cause for self-reflection and apology. Here, the people who wonder about are portrayed as luddites and selfish. Wow. And, what about the price per square foot. All the material posted and circulated lacks any support for over 400 per square foot for a middle school. I looked and cannot find a similar price. And, the comparisons with Hubble have been shown to be baseless, without any serious rebuttal.

HMS is an odd looking building that may well require regular repairs. A new school might well be a worthwhile investment. Moving to 55th and Garfiled seems pointless--the kids benefit from being near downtown and not a busy intersection. The facilities committee worked hard, and must be chagrined to find its work under scrutiny. I don't blame any member that strongly defends its work--the emotional investment must be overwhelming any reason at this time. Yet, in the end, in light of all circumstances, the timing, the safety of the current building, the administration's desperate need for a win at all costs, the shaky financial data, and the state of our state, the answer has to be no.

March 4, 2016 at 10:11 AM

Comment of the Day: Former Board Member to Vote NO on the $65 Million HMS Referendum

Earlier this evening we received the following comment from former BOE member Yvonne Mayer.  It speaks for itself.  

As always, SOUND OFF!

COMMENT OF THE DAY:

Yvonne Mayer said...

Please post the following as a free-standing post. Thank you.

Today, Hinsdale's local newspaper, The Hinsdalean, ran a story endorsing the upcoming $65 million referendum for a new Hinsdale Middle School and urging voters to vote yes. The Vote Yes For HMS pro-referendum group promptly applauded this article and proclaimed their love for the editorial's comment that "Decisions must be based on current conditions rather than fears over future scenarios." 

Pam Lannom, the Hinsdalean's editor, who does NOT live in D181 and therefore won't be contributing her tax dollars to either a new school or any aspect of D181's offerings, made this ludicrous suggestion as a response to concerns citizens, such as myself, have made that the referendum should have been vetted in the broader context of possible legislative proposals. These proposals include shifting millions in pension liabilities to individual school districts, freezing property taxes (and therefore the District's revenue stream) or cutting Special education funding (funding which the district will then need to assume under Federal and State mandates). 

So the following is a comment I posted to the Vote Yes Facebook page's glee over Pam's article: "I completely disagree. Pam Lannom has never served on the D181 BOE and her statement is simply irresponsible. Her failure and YOURS to recognize that the BOE and the Administration need to be planning for the "rainy day" scenario which will come to the State of Illinois and trickle down rapidly to "rich" districts like ours is disappointing. Change is coming and revenues will decline in D181's coffers and the end result will be cutting programs, teachers or asking D181 voters to approve tax increases above the tax cap in order to raise needed funds to maintain existing programs and teacher levels. The needs of one school -- which are real -- should have been discussed in the broader context of the "what if's" that most intelligent Illinois residents realize are going to happen, in one form or another. At the end of the day, voters will decide the future of HMS and most likely, down the road, the future of maintaining what goes on in D181's classrooms. Too bad that the Administration refused to have even ONE SINGLE discussion about the district's future with the BOE (or with the community, for that matter, in the form of a Town Hall Meeting) before rushing to referendum. That's my opinion as a former board member who already had to cut $5 million from the D181 budget less than 8 years ago. We were lucky then, because no teachers had to be fired, but the hopes of better foreign language offerings, smaller class sizes and full day kindergarten were all scrapped. There isn't "fluff" in the budget anymore, so if things need to be cut in the future, our children will lose out -- in ALL buildings."

I will sadly, be voting NO on the upcoming referendum, and if it fails, hope that all parties will return to the drawing board to bring a more fiscally responsible proposal back to the taxpayers that also will protect the existing programs and teacher levels in D181 at ALL schools. No doubt, some D181 taxpayers who support the referendum will attack me (as I've already been attacked on the Vote Yes Page), but as a former elected BOE member in D181, I stand by my concerns over the process, price tag and future financial health of the district.

March 3, 2016 at 6:57 PM

What have the Past D181 Referenda Cost? What have the Past D181 Referenda Paid For?

We have received some comments suggesting that CHMS residents should vote yes for the $65 million referendum to build a new HMS simply because D181 residents supported past referenda that benefited Clarendon Hills.  In the interest of FULL TRANSPARENCY, and to keep the discussion on this important topic going as we approach the March 15 election, we located, and have copied below, a document D181 has on its website that summarizes the past Capital Referenda.  The document can be accessed at:  http://www.d181.org/data/files/gallery/ContentGallery/Past_District_Referenda_160110.pdf

As you review the information contained in the document, keep in mind the following:

• It took three elections to pass a referendum that resulted in building CHMS.  (The D181 document conveniently neglects to disclose this critical information.)
• The four successful referenda were approved in 1997, 2000, 2002 and 2004.
• The grand total for the last FOUR successful referenda was $74.7 million, only $9.7 million more than D181 is asking taxpayers to approve for one SINGLE $65 million referendum.
• Within the last FOUR successful referenda, three NEW schools were built -- CHMS (which was needed as a result of population increases that required not replacing, rather adding an entire new school to house the growing student body), Walker and Prospect.  For these THREE schools, taxpayers were asked to approve $33,034,401, nearly 1/2 of what taxpayers are now being asked to approve to REPLACE one single school.
• Of the remaining $41.67 million in funds raised in the last four referenda, Madison school first received a gym and later a second large addition and renovations (a renovation so large that students were housed for one year at the old Prospect School before it was demolished), The Lane received an addition and renovations, Monroe received an addition and renovations, Oak received an addition and renovations, Elm received an addition and renovations and ALL schools (including HMS) were equipped with a new technology system and equipment.
• Clarendon Hills students ALONG WITH ALL OTHER D181 students received benefits from the past referenda.  
• The $74.7 million in referenda funds approved by D181 taxpayers paid for 3 new schools, additions and renovations to 5 schools and installation of new technology systems and equipment to all 9 schools.
• Bond repayment on the $74.7 million will not be completed until 2025.
• Yet on March 15, D181 taxpayers are being asked to approve a $65 million referendum for construction of ONE SCHOOL?

As always, SOUND OFF!

D181 Document:  

Hinsdale Middle School Referendum • March 2016

Past District 181 Referenda Information / Language
Last Updated: January 10, 2016 • www.d181.org > Our District > HMS Referendum
The following language was used in past ballot measures presented by District 181 for the purpose of facilities / capital projects, each of which was successfully passed by the community between 1997 and 2004.

March 16, 2004 - Madison, Elm, Oak, and Walker, Plus Technology
Shall the Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District Number 181, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois, replace the existing Walker School; repair, renovate and equip and build and equip additions to Madison School, Oak School and Elm School; improve all of the District's school buildings with new technology systems and equipment, and issue bonds of said School District in the amount of $31,000,000.00 for said purposes?
• Within that total, the cost of the Walker School construction was estimated at $8,234,401.

November 2002 - Prospect and Monroe
Shall the Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District Number 181, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois, build and equip a new school building on and adjacent to the existing Prospect School site, acquire additional real property adjacent to the Prospect School site, repair, renovate and equip Monroe School, build and equip an addition to Monroe School, and issue bonds of said School District in the amount of $24,000,000.00 for said purposes?
• Within that total, the cost of Prospect School construction was estimated at $12.5 million.

March 2000 - The Lane
Shall the Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District Number 181, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois, build and equip an addition to and alter, equip and repair The Lane School and issue the bonds of said School District to the amount of $6,300,000.00 for said purposes?

November 1997 - Madison School Gym
Shall the Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District Number 181, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois, build and equip a a gymnasium addition to, the current Madison School, and issue bonds of said School District in the amount of $600,000.00 for said purpose?

November 1997 - New Middle School (CHMS)
Shall the Board of Education of Community Consolidated School District Number 181, DuPage and Cook Counties, Illinois, build and equip a new middle school and acquire additional school grounds for such purpose and issue bonds of said School District in the amount of $12,800,000.00 for said purpose?
• At the time of the election, it was estimated that occupancy would begin in the fall of 1999 for 650 students in 89,000 square feet. Building cost was said to be $137 per square foot, and the cost to a property owner of a $300,000 market value home was said to be $69.38 per year. It was noted at the time: "Final decisions on the school's design and attendance boundaries would be made, with community involvement, following passage of the referendum." And that, "District reserves would be used to fund additional work at the current middle school in the areas of tech wiring, carpet replacement, and electrical, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning upgrades."
(Source:  http://www.d181.org/data/files/gallery/ContentGallery/Past_District_Referenda_160110.pdf)

Full Text from C4CH Newsletter Coverage of D181's $65 Million Referendum

We have now obtained a copy of the actual newsletter that the Citizens for Clarendon Hills mailed to CH residents earlier this week.  Below are images of the pages from the newsletter that contain information and commentary relative to the March 15, 2016 Referendum.

As always, SOUND OFF!

Comment of the Day: Citizens for Clarendon Hills Newsletter Calls for a Strong NO Vote on D181's $65 Million Referendum

This evening we received the following comment from a Clarendon Hills Resident.  It speaks for itself.  We have decided to publish it as a Comment of the Day because we think it is important for the community to hear what other organizations have to say about the upcoming $65 million Hinsdale Middle School referendum on the March 15 ballot.  While not everyone lives in Clarendon Hills, over half of D181's students attend the schools in Clarendon Hills (Prospect, Walker and Clarendon Hills Middle School) and therefore C4CH's opinion on this important issue is relevant and worthy of consideration.**

As always, SOUND OFF!

COMMENT OF THE DAY:

Clarendon Hills Resident said...

Bloggers: I live in Clarendon Hills and received the latest C4CH (Citizens for Clarendon Hills) Newsletter in the mail today. It covers various topics of interest to CH, but also a section on D181's HMS Referendum. I have typed up the text from the newsletter on the referendum and would ask you to publish it as a free standing post. Everyone should read the C4CH perspective on this project. Thanks you.

Text from C4CH Newsletter:
Vote “NO” to the $65 M Hinsdale Middle School Project Press the Reset Button and Start Over with a $30M Project

C4CH would like to see a project at Hinsdale Middle School (HMS) but there is no way to rationalize the massive $65M cost (which will end up being closer to $90M with interest). We recommend a strong “NO” vote. We have much sympathy for the staff, parents and students at HMS due to management mistakes with both the frozen pipes and mold growing unchecked for years. Those issues were fixed at a cost of $3M only one year ago, with taxpayer (your) money. Even though we want the best for our children, it;s hard to justify a $65M project at $400/square foot (with average costs for middle schools less than $250/square foot).

There was NOT an exhaustive approach to reduce the costs and size. Other reasonable scenarios were NOT dutifully considered. Is it unreasonable for taxpayers to ask for a careful, analytic, and financially prudent plan led by parties interested in capping the spending at $30-$35M? It may not be common knowledge, but the architect and others receive a percentage of the project cost as their fee, so it makes sense for them to grow the project spending, not reduce it. These are primary points in which C4CH questions the validity and leadership in the process. Bigger and more spending does not result in smarter students or higher property values.

We have concluded that several reasonable scenarios have NOT been explored that upgrade HMS at a significantly lower cost. The $65M price tag for HMS with 780 students (only 20% more students at HMS than CHMS) is unbalanced relative to the 650 students and $17M spent on the very successful Clarendon Hills Middle School (CHMS). Construction costs have increased, but spending $400 or even $300 per square foot seems unreasonably high when the average is $232/square foot.

On a separate but meaningful note, we feel obligated to mention that Don White, the Superintendent of D181 recently released the seemingly confidential names and contact information of parents and students to a private lobbying group advocating for the $65M project. This maneuver by Superintendent White, without formal Board approval, seems to be unethical. This act alone taints the process and questions the Superintendent’s ethics as well as those involved.

Here are some unanswered questions to explore in depth;

1. Can a new addition be built adjacent to an upgraded HMS structure while utilizing the existing building?

2. The current HMS gym is nearly double the gym at CHMS with only 20% more students so why isn’t the HMS gym good enough?

3. Can’t the existing cafeteria space and most every other space be used?

4. Can the façade of the existing building be improved to fix the cosmetic issues and match a new 50,000 square foot classroom expansion?

5. Wouldn’t moving D181 admin offices to the existing HMS building save $?

6. Could the community privately raise funds for a new HMS auditorium if community demand exists for the auditorium?

7. What is the total financial liability D181 has accumulated for taxpayers? Include debt, interest payments, pension liabilities, health care liabilities, and routine capital repairs.

8. What actions are underway to reduce operating costs and debt levels of D181?

February 29, 2016 at 10:58 PM

 

**  Note:  We will try and obtain a hard copy of the newsletter and then publish an image on the blog, so stay tuned.

Comment of the Day: Past Referenda Supporter Who Will Vote NO This Time

Moments ago we received the following comment which we have decided to publish as the Comment of the Day.  We thank the reader for their past support of D181 referenda and for their willingness to submit this candid comment.  We think it should make each one of us ask the question:   Just how much can a public school district really expect its taxpayers to pay for capital improvements and new construction?  We sincerely hope that the VOTE YES supporters do not tar and feather this parent for putting themselves out there with their personal revelations and conclusions.  As each of us decide how to vote on March 15, we should all remember that everyone's personal financial circumstances justifiably influence how they will vote and past supporters have every right to choose to vote NO this time around without being run out of town.  Out of respect (and to encourage other readers to SOUND OFF) we will NOT publish any comments that attack the anonymous author of this comment. We will publish counter-arguments, but only if they are written in a respectful manner.

So as always, SOUND OFF!

COMMENT OF THE DAY:

Past Referenda Supporter Who Will Vote NO This Time said...

Today I decided to figure out what I've paid to D181 in property taxes over the last 15 years for past approved capital referenda (which I voted YES on), what I've gotten (personally for my kids) out of the past approved referenda and what the new referendum will really mean for my family. I started by looking at the "Debt Service and Homeowner Impact Analysis" that D181 recently published and can be found at: 
http://www.d181.org/data/files/gallery/ContentGallery/Cost_Analysis_160211_to_PMA1.pdf

I am rounding down very slightly, but for purposes of this exercise, I am stating that I live in a $1 million home in Burr Ridge. Most of my children have all graduated from Elm and HMS and Hinsdale Central High School. I will have one more graduating from HMS BEFORE the new school is built (if the referendum passes). I have lived in Elm's boundary area since 2000 and voted YES on the referenda that resulted in the new Prospect, new Walker, large addition to Madison and renovations to the other schools (other than HMS). By the time I moved here, CHMS was already built and the bonds to fund that were built into my property tax bill. For all of the other projects I voted yes on, my tax bill went up after I moved here. In the 16 years I have lived here, the ONLY physical improvement my children personally received as a result of the past referenda passing was a new multi-purpose room at Elm (and I believe air conditioning at Elm), and for a couple of them, the space they gained at Elm with the multi-purpose room addition was eliminated when the administration took over an entire wing of Elm School, leading to over crowding until this fall when the administration finally moved out.

So what did I pay over time? According to the chart on the D181 website, before the March 2016 HMS referendum, I CURRENTLY pay $1147 for the debt service on the previously approved referenda. Between now and 2025, according to the bar graph, that debt service will gradually increase, however, for purposes of this exercise, I will hold the $1147 flat. This means that over 10 years, I will pay $11,470 in property taxes JUST for the capital projects built as a result of the previously approved referenda. And all my kids will have ever benefited from those past YES votes will have been ONE SINGLE MULTIPURPOSE room and perhaps air conditioning at Elm School.

And what about the first 15 years of this debt service? The chart does't show me what I have personally paid, but assuming that the bar graph on the current debt service has gradually increased over time, (although I believe some of the debt service was refinanced and so it was already lowered a couple of times), but even assuming that it has gradually grown, I would bet that over the last 15 years, I have at least paid what I will pay over the next 10 years -- so at least another $11,470. This means that by the time the existing debt service is paid off in 2025 for the past approved capital referenda, I will have personally paid $22,940 in property taxes to fund new schools and improvements to the other D181 schools, and the ONLY physical benefits MY children will have seen was using one single Multipurpose room at Elm School and air conditioning.

Yet now, D181 is asking me to jump on the band wagon again and pay for a brand new middle school that will add $90 million in debt service to the backs of D181's taxpayers? And MY children won't benefit at all? That $90 million additional debt service will add an additional $537 dollars per year to my existing tax bill starting in 2019 -- an additional $3,222 between 2019 and 2024. And then once the OLD debt service is paid down, I will continue to pay $903/year to finish paying off the new HMS for another 12 years, for a total of $10,836. So between 2019 and 2036, I will personally pay $14,058 in property taxes to pay for ONE middle school, that NONE of my kids will ever attend.

Adding it all up, between 2001and 2036, I will have paid $36,998 in property taxes to pay for work done to either build new D181 schools or renovate and put multi-purposes on the elementary schools. And MY children will only have gotten the benefit of one single multi-purpose room and air conditioning?

Well, I have to say, this exercise has reinforced for me the following:
1. I am pro-education and pro-school improvement.
2. I have been a D181 supporter and UNTIL NOW, voted YES on past referendum.
3. I have willingly paid to provide more benefits to all of the other D181 schools and students in the district than the schools my children attended.

Despite this past generosity and support,

4. I AM NOT A DEEP, BOTTOMLESS POCKET! I now have children in college and my children do not qualify for financial aid (we are lucky, I am not complaining, I am grateful for our economic circumstances).
5. There is a LIMIT to how much I am willing to personally fund for construction of schools that will not benefit my children. I can no longer mindlessly support adding $90 million of debt service to my or other D181's taxpayers' backs.
6. This does not make me evil or bad or hateful or stupid or ignorant or naive or a naysayer.
7. Over and above the numbers I have crunched above, I pay over $20,000 a year in property taxes, most of which go to D181 to pay for its operational expenses and pension funds. I will continue to willingly pay those amounts because I know that for the most part, D181 is a school district that has added value to our community and has driven property values up. And I have chosen to live here.
8. However, I do not believe my property value will go up if a new HMS school is built. I agree with others who have posted on this blog, that property values are driven more by the caliber of the teachers and educational programs offered. Therefore, I will not support a $90 million bond issuance to pay for one new school until I am completely convinced that all OTHER options -- such as a renovation of the existing school, or building a less expensive school that isn't inflated with millions of dollars in WANTS -- has been fully vetted.

Now I am sure I will be attacked by the Vote Yes folks for daring to make this comment and people will pick it apart and tell me my numbers are off. This wasn't a scientific exercise and I didn't go back into 15 year old archives to calculate exactly what I have paid in property taxes for the construction projects the past referenda led to. But I think I have sufficiently satisfied myself that while my numbers may not be 100% accurate, I have been MORE THAN GENEROUS with my willingness to pay for D181 schools and improvements. But there comes a time when even I, a past avid supporter, will say its time to SLOW DOWN this runaway train and properly vet ALL options.

I'm ready and bracing myself for the attack of the Vote Yes people. Take your best shot.

One last thing to point out. It is really disingenuous for D181 to suggest in their flyer that once the old referenda are paid off, property taxes for this referenda will go down. In fact, look closely at the chart. TOTAL property taxes to fund the TOTAL capital projects WILL go down starting in 2026 because all of the other projects (besides HMS) will finally have been paid off. HOWEVER, the property taxes each of us pay for the new HMS will GO UP that year. On a $1 million home, the property taxes on HMS project will go up an additional $366 -- from $537 to $903. That is an increase of 68%. You will notice that this "kicker" isn't explained anywhere on the D181 flyer!

February 29, 2016 at 12:33 PM

Comments of the Day: $65 Million Price Tag for a New HMS is Common Core Math at its Worst! We Urge Our Readers to Opt Out!

Wednesday night, we received two comments that merit publication as Comments of the Day.  Both are copied below and directly question the accuracy of the cost comparison information that has been publicly released by the Facilities Committee, D181 Administration, HMS Project Architect and Pro-referendum group.  All of these sources have made a big deal about comparing (or publishing the district's comparisons of) the $65 million proposal for a new HMS to Hubble Middle School or to what CHMS would cost to build today.  Read the two comments below and then ask yourselves why you should trust any of the cost representations that D181 staff/committees/architect/pro-referendum groups are spinning as justification for the ridiculously high cost proposed to build a new HMS.

As always, SOUND OFF!

Comments of the Day:

Jon Clopton said...

I am for a new HMS middle school. The old facility is clearly outdated and a nightmare. However, this extravagance of this administration is compelling me to vote no. The bottom line everything over 35M is crazy. I'll vote yes to anything up to $40, maybe even $45M but this crazy spending needs to be curtailed. 

181 had a crazy piece on explaining how they arrived at $65M comparing to CHMS, but the facts were at best misleading and really fraudulent. They must have been taught Common Core Math. 

Their position was CHMS was cost $17.2M, but the real construction cost was 12.8M (as approved), with the overage being 4-5M for legal costs between the district and the park district (pretty stupid) but clearly not going to happen here. They used an expensive inflation factor AND compared 1998 (when bond was approved) versus 2017 (when HMS would be completed) which still makes is $26M using 12.8M actual cost. With space for 50% more student capacity (at high levels) it would only be $39M (clearly not close 65), and frankly should be less than 50% increase (as an example: a 5th BR to a 4 house doesn't add 25% more space total, but probably 10% or less). Using CPI as inflation the cost would be less than $30M using the same criteria and adding 50%. 

In this article, 181 points to a construction cost of around $400 per square foot (which is what the cost is). How crazy is that? Well taking a look at comparable recently completed middle schools the average is around $200/sq. ft. and here are a few sources for that information:

1. Illinoishttps://www.illinois.gov/cdb/services/Documents/School%20Construction%20Law%20Project%20Standards%20Oct%202010.pdf web site shows $195 sq.ft as standard (which again is $33M at full size, which isn’t needed). 
2. Attached (SPM construction) is all middle schools in 2012, with Middle school for 650 students costing 22M (again multiply by 50%) and you're at $33M.
3. Another Virginia web site http://www.doe.virginia.gov/support/facility_construction/school_construction/costs/ shows average square ft cost as $200/sq ft. AND a average cost of $30ish Million for 2 middle schools completed in 2015 (under $30M for the school approximately the same size). Virginia is pretty expensive, by the way. 
4. Chicago's most recent was $34M for 900 students. 
Dr. Jorge Prieto Math & Science Academy 2009 $36,852,201 105,576 900 $40,947 14 months

More recent conversation has turned to Highland Parks $85M Middle School. First, that includes land acquisition cost. Second, it seats 2000 students (at 90% capacity) so at least should be 2x our cost, and thus Hinsdale should cost $42.5, after backing out land, more towards $40M. In addition, this Middle school is HIGHLY contested because of crazy spending too. I’m sorry, just because someone overspends doesn’t mean we should. 

Thus the range for comparable recent bills is $29M (using Virginia and CPI) to $40M (using Highland park’s high cost, and yet to be approved). We can clearly get a top quality new school for $35M. 

Why is our design so much more? Is it this administration who has stars in their eyes, and a board who seems willing to go along with this unnecessary extravagance? A track, really? An auditioriom because apparently 181 and 86 can’t talk to each (talk about too much government). 

It could be the process? 181 only had three proposals, whereas typically 10-13 firms submit proposals. I was told by one friend, whose firms builds schools in expensive districts that the requirements to submit an initial proposal (before being selected as a finalist) would have cost over $100k, and contained unnecessary provisions. They also weren’t allowed time to discuss with the administration or community to get an idea of what was wanted/required (thus they were shooting at the dark and it was going to cost a lot of money) so they made the good business decision to not submit a proposal. Eliminating options makes projects more expensive.  

February 24, 2016 at 7:33 PM 

Anonymous said...

Ok, so I just did a little research on Hubble Middle school. As you know, this is the main comp that the facilities committee, the architect and the Hinsdalean have been using to justify the $65 million price tag.

The architect stated at the BOE meeting, and again in last week's Hinsdalean, that Hubble cost $58 million to build in 2008 and that equals $75 in 2017 dollars, when the bulk of HMS construction takes place.

Like Jon said, the math used to justify this whole project is common core math. Here is why:

1. Hubble cost $50 million to build not $58 million. A simple google search shows that $8 mil was a land purchase. We are not purchasing land. Therefore, $50 million is our comp number.

2. Hubble middle school is 190,00 square feet. The new HMS is 160,000 square feet - a 30,000 square foot difference. 30,000 square feet at $400/ft (the cost in the current plan per square foot) is $12 million. Therefore, if we are comparing apples to apples, our Hubble comp is actually 38 Million (which ironically aligns to Jon's figures outlined above).

3. $38 million in 2008 does not equal $75 million or even $65 million today. Not even close. Jon is right - it's common core math. I'm opting out of both.

February 24, 2016 at 9:30 PM