|
|
|
|
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
◦ Kindergarten enrollment explodes for the 2007-2008 school year jumping 25% from previous year ◦ Kindergarten class size for the 2007-2008 school year was from 30 to 40+ students with two teachers in classes of 40+ students ◦ At Washington School, 3 mobile classrooms in place for over 38 years were removed due to Regional Office of Education not approving their use for another year due to life safety issues ◦ Originally the 3 mobile classrooms were a short term solution and were suppose to be only a 5-year temporary solution ◦ Removal of 3 mobile classrooms reduces classrooms to 7 at Washington School ◦ With every available space already taken up, there is no room to add extra classes to a grade level in order to maintain moderate class sizes ◦ Demographic projections show continued slow to moderate growth with additional subdivisions already planned and platted ◦ Lack of bonding capacity available – current bonding capacity $38 to $45 million ◦ Evelyn Hereley Trust land donation opportunity (22 acres) large enough for a grade school, but not large enough to support a middle or high school ◦ Need for space is more immediate at lower elementary grades ◦ Previously failed referendums indicate lack of support for a high school
◦ Yes, the Facilities Task Force has been working on this project for more than a year and looked at many other options and found that none of them met our needs as well as a new elementary building. ◦ Most options either did not meet state and federal regulations, required the district to make capital improvements on someone else’s property, or cost too much for short term solutions.
◦ The District took a careful look at the former Motorola property. ◦ Preparing & renovating the building and site to make it appropriate for school would cost $100 million to $120 million. ◦ This is much more than our bonding capacity of $38 to $45 million. ◦ For more detailed information on the Motorola study completed by the District 50, please contact District 50.
◦ For a home with a market value of $180,000 the cost is $6.88 monthly for an annual tax of $82.50. ◦ The Facilities Task Force and the School Board have worked with the architects to keep this a practical, affordable solution to the District’s space needs. ◦ 2005 median home value in Harvard is $163,100 (according to Citydata.com) THE TAX RATE IMPACT OF $20,701,244 BOND SALE
For example, one third of market value on a $180,000 home is $60,000. Subtract the $5,000 homeowner exemption, for which every homeowner qualifies. Multiply the sum, $55,000 in this example, by the increase in the tax rate of fifteen cents (.0015) to arrive at the annual cost of $82.50.
◦ Fair Cash Value is the amount listed on your tax bill and this is what is referred to as the market value of your home.
◦ Bonding capacity is the statutory debt limitation. This means the District 50 cannot have bond debt of more than $35,876,172 based on Equalized Assessed Valuation. Another way to think of bonding capacity is similar to a credit card limit amount. ◦ The proposed elementary school bond issue request would not put us over the Net Bonding Capacity of the District. In District 50’s case, we take 13.80% times the District’s 2007 Equalized Assessed Valuation of $298,271,620. ($298,271,620 X 13.80% = $41,161,484 less $5,285,312 of Outstanding Bonds = $35,876,172 of Net Bonding Capacity.
◦ Financial projections show that D50 will have a positive education fund balance at least through 2012. ◦ Since the new school will be moving grades, there will be minimal new employees needed to operate the new school ◦ There will be some increase in utilities, maintenance & custodial, etc. ◦ The cost for the new building includes everything necessary to open the doors Design and construction
◦ District 50, as all school districts, have no formal input into growth decisions decided by the City of Harvard or McHenry County Board. ◦ We have no formal ability to approve, deny, or control the rate of new developments. ◦ We have no formal input into the nature of new development.
◦ As a public education entity, it is District 50’s responsibility to provide an education for any student living within the school District who presents him or herself, this is mandated by federal law ◦ Issues such as homelessness, immigration, and poverty can only be dealt with at a municipal, state and federal level.
◦ District 50 School Board will have difficult decisions ahead of them ◦ Kindergarten half-day will continue as long as growth doesn’t exceed life safety requirements ◦ Potentially students will continue to go to 3 different schools in their first years of their education ◦ 5th grade remains at Jr. High with no outside recess equipment ◦ No room at the Jr. High for introductory Vocational Programs such as shop or home economics ◦ Class size will continue to rise compromising the quality of education
◦ The proposed school is not in the flight path at Dacy airport. In fact, it is well outside of the acceptable limits the FAA requires for take-off and landing of aircraft.
◦ Strong schools support the entire community by: Improving the community’s appeal to prospective residents and business owners, attracting new residents and new businesses Keeping children on a positive track, in school and off the streets helps to prepare students for life, keeps them out of trouble
◦ 100% of this referendum would go toward the building and preparation of a new K-3 school building.◦ District 50 is prohibited by law from using ANY of the money from a building fund referendum for teacher’s salaries or other education fund related expenditures.
◦ There has been no discussion whatsoever as to what we will call this school.◦ There will be an opportunity for public input on potential names once construction of the school is sufficiently underway.
◦ This is a valuable building to District 50 and the Harvard community. Central School will be a student and or faculty used building in some manner. Some options discussed regarding what to do with the Central School building are: Possible new location for District Administration, special education, an alternative high school and more Decisions on how Central School will be used will be made when District 50 has more information on the costs and timeframes of the various options
◦ Meetings will be held prior to the referendum for local contractors to evaluate their ability and capacity to provide services on the proposed project. It is important to involve as many local trades as possible.
◦ One goal of this school board is to reduce large class sizes at the lower elementary levels. Building a new school presents the opportunity to reduce class size as enrollment increases.
◦ This question often arises in conversations about school referenda and funding. Many people recall that the establishment of the Illinois State Lottery was marketed as a solution to school funding. When the lottery was first implemented, the income from it was, as promised, placed in the states general school fund. HOWEVER, an amount equal to that coming from the lottery is removed from the school fund and allocated to the states general purpose fund. Thus, the net gain for school funding was zero.
◦ Illinois has a revenue problem in its approach to school funding. Education Week is a nationally published and recognized source of information regarding the nation’s schools. When it studied school financing in the 50 states a couple of years ago, it concluded that Illinois is the only state to receive the failing grade of F for school funding fairness in Education Weeks survey. Illinois has a school funding problem because the level of funding from the state is inadequate, forcing school districts into an over reliance on local property taxes to fund education. Compared to other states, the laws of Illinois places a much larger portion of the cost to educate its public school students on property taxation than do most other states.
◦ The school district has no statutory authority to do anything directly about the cost of growth. Rather, the District works closely with municipalities. This is where the legal authority to address these costs resides. The District has worked with the municipalities within the school district to establish land cash and school impact payments. In fact, the municipalities in the district have signed an Intergovernmental Agreement to apply the same payment model to developments throughout the school district.
◦ In the past the State has provided some school construction funds. However, at the time the State does not have such a program in effect. The extent and availability of this program varies with the political process in Springfield and the States fiscal condition.
◦ In general the election law limits what Board members and school district employees can do when they are functioning as representatives of the school district. As private citizens, they can engage in the full-range of campaign activities. However, when in their roles of employees and Board members, they are limited to providing information (i.e., the needs to be addressed by the referendum, cost information, election procedures, etc), as opposed to advocating that citizens vote in favor of the referendum.
◦ Typically, school district bond issues for construction are long-term debt instruments, with annual payments taking place over 15-20 years. This is the school district's mortgage. But unlike the typical residential mortgage where payments remain fixed over the life of the mortgage, as more homes and businesses are built in the school district, these new properties pick up a share of the school district's mortgage. The effect of this is to decrease everyone else's share. The bond issues for the November 4th referendum will have payment schedules in the 18-20 year range.
◦ The City Administration prefers to have two entrances to a facility, in the case of an emergency. Therefore, there will be an emergency access to the property. At the present time, it would be at the southwest corner of the Pasquinelli subdivision – Country Brook Lane. |
|
Copyright © 2008 CCFK
|
