BOE Meeting Notes – 11/14/2005

Here are my notes from the board meeting on 11/14/2005. My comments are in [italics].

Public Comment

  • Gentleman living near Madrona stated there is an outdoor firing range about 1000 feet away from the school and can be heard by the students. He suggested the Board contact the owners and work with them on how to reduce the noise.

Mayor Bill Gentes of Round Lake made a presentation:

  • Hwy 120 bypass
    • He has been working with Mayor Tim Perry [Grayslake] and it appears this will get done
    • Will raise EAV [equalised assessed value] because of the traffic help
    • Trying to partner with Baxter to help increase industrial base in the area
    • Current traffic quantity does not allow products in or out to the area very well
  • Cedar Lake Road Bypass
    • Will be up to Rt 60 this year with stoplight
    • In 2 years it will be done up to 120 and Townline Rd.
    • Police station will be built in that area and near Madrona.
    • Possibly a Fire Station will be built near Madrona as well.
  • Synnesvedt Site (120 & Fairfield)
    • Concord Lanar is the Developer
    • 90 acres of the approximate 300 will be commercial
    • 120 bypass set aside in the development
    • large scale senior portion (250 of the approximate 650 homes)
    • 1 year away from passage
    • 2 years minimun before kids
    • More concept plans in January
    • Annex vote probable late next year
  • Southwest Quadrant
    • 2 – 3 sq miles
    • want it to be mostly commercial
    • Rt 60 to Bacon on the east and Fish Lake on the West that affects D-46
  • Ryland Homes Development
    • Back part in Big Hollow and Grant schools
    • Front part in D46 is commercial
    • Big Hollow did not work with village until negotiations were almost complete
  • How this Works?
    • Work from a PUD (Planned Unit Development) structure
    • Everything is negotiable (density, structure sizes, number of trees and shrubs, etc.)
    • Want all involved taxing bodies present in negotiations (schools, libaries, parkrs, fire, etc..)
    • The land gets annexed at the time the PUD is approved
    • Usually a 12 – 18 month process
    • 99% of the Villages’ development and growth done this way
    • Recent impact fees were $21,000 to $25,000 to all taxing bodies per residence
    • $5,000 – $6,000 to school districts per residence

Ellen presented the Superintendent Committee Descriptions [Thanks for the electronic copies Ellen]:


          

Language Arts-
This committee will review current and future needs for K-8 Language Arts. This committee will analyze student test data and determine best practices in Language Arts. This committee will include a two year commitment, as we will be looking at and possibly piloting texts, the second year. Representation is needed from all levels of instruction. Both vertical and horizontal articulation, as well as alignment with the standards are required.

Madrona Design Team
The purpose of this committee is to develop and recommend the program design of the new Madrona School. This committee will also consider the boundaries and transition planning necessary to open the school. While Madrona does not open until September of 2007, this is a very important committee. How will Madrona be different than the K-4, 5-6. 7-8 buildings and how should it be the same? What are the expectations regarding curriculum? What should the administrative team look like?
This committee will be meeting for at least 2 years.

Gifted Committee
This committee will identify the current and future needs of the gifted students including assessment, programming and identification of best practices. It is imperative that this committee identify at least three possible program options. This committee is a one year commitment..

Staff Development
This committee will look at the staff development needs of the district, as aligned with our identified academic needs. Possible programming for Institute Days as well as year long, should be considered. Costs and assessment should be identified.

Wellness
This is a Federally Mandated committee. A program must be in place by September of 2006. The government mandates specific stakeholders that must participate. This committee will be a one year commitment.

Evaluation
This committee is a direct result of our teacher negotiations. The committee will review the current evaluation document and process, review current best practices and recommend any changes to the document. This will be at least a one year commitment.

Technology
This committee will take a look at the technology needs within the district, as related to teaching and learning. The committee will make some recommendations as to hardware, software and programming and staff development needs. The recommendations will need to be prioritized and potential resource needs identified.

The following are her Committee Guidelines:


          

Committees may be represented by the following groups of stakeholders:
Teachers
Administrators
Support Staff
Parents
Other interested community members
Students (where appropriate)
Board Members (2)

Committees are expected to adhere to the following guidelines:
Board updates will be provided on a bi-monthly basis, notes from committees sent to Superintendent.
As committees are considering plans of action, several options should be identified.
Costs of each option should be included.

The format to be followed is:
Identify the problem – what is the problem or problems related to teaching and learning which your committee is trying to solve?
What data do you have to support the identified need to solve the problem?
What are your goals?
Who is responsible for each of the action steps?
What are your action steps?
What resources will you need for each of your action steps?
What are your priorities?
How will you assess the effectiveness of these strategies?

All members of the committees are equal shareholders

Committee Discussion:

  • Discussed whether or not to post the meeting times so the public can view the meetings but not interact with them
  • Will be discussed at a future meeting once the District Legal staff has given a more thorough opinion, impression was these would not need to be posted since they were Superintendent Committees
  • Committees are starting and do not have to wait for the posting decision.
  • Consensus of the Board that regular updates be given in their weekly updates by Ellen and public updates at the Board meetings given approximately every 2 months as appropriate to the committee.
  • Jill asked that one of the options presented by the committees be the most cost effective method and budget neutral if possible.
  • Keith wanted to make sure that each committee brought options and not just a blanket list with the impression being it’s all or nothing. Without options it would probably be nothing.
  • It was the consensus of the Board that regular updates be given in their weekly updates by Ellen and public updates at the Board meetings given approximately every 2 months.

Dan Aggen, the District Business Manager, presented the proponed levies for the 2005 tax year. You can view his entire presentation here. [Page 3 expels the rumor that property values will fall if a referendum does not pass. There has been a steady increase since 1991.] The basics are as follows:

  • Limiting rate = (3.3% (CPI) * 2004 Extension) / (2005 EAV – New Construction) = 3.1591
  • Final Rates (page 8 )
    • Ed Fund – 2.3984
    • Tort Immunity – 0.0202
    • Special Education – 0.0184
    • Operations & Maintenance – 0.4595
    • Transportation – 0.1103
    • IMRF – 0.0494
    • Social Security – 0.0494
    • Working Cash – 0.0459
    • IMRF (Sedol) – 0.0075
    • TOTAL – LIMITED FUNDS – 3.1590
    • Bond & Interest – 0.5939
    • TOTAL FOR ALL FUNDS – 3.7529
  • Total Tax Rate Increase over 2004 – 2.79%
  • [View 2004 Tax year Levies - actual total rate increase of 0.1019]

Public Comment
Question about Madrona, Cheryl Davis answered and stated that they had no direct answer at this time other than it would open fall of 2007.

Future agenda items:

  • Discussion of the 2007 budget.
  • Staffing Plan
  • Official Levy Action
Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis

7 Responses to “BOE Meeting Notes – 11/14/2005”

  1. You’ve got to be kidding, right? What does the aggregate value of all the district property exhibited on page 3 have to do with the with the fall in individual property values which is not a rumor, but fact?

    Math fact sample

    2003: 3 houses at $200k = $600k assessed valuation
    2004: 4 houses at $155k = $$640k assessed valuation

    Assessed valuation went up, but I would guess you have at least 3 unhappy homeowners.

  2. “Buyers and sellers are the ones who determine the value of real estate. Sales in 2004 continued to show a rapidly increasing market in terms of property values.”

    “Determine the market value of all properties within their jurisdiction.”

    “Utilizes the many sales that occur in a township as a basis for assessed values.”

    See page 10 and 11 of How Property Assessments Work?. EAV is a function of the housing market whether you can find a single example of a decrease or not. It is an average of all home sales during the year and it has been rising at a steady rate of approximately 10%.

  3. Question was simple…

    “What does the aggregate value of all the district property exhibited on page 3 have to do with the with the fall in individual property values which is not a rumor, but fact?”

    Your answer was a dodge. May I ask again?

  4. Sorry, but I already answered your question. I quote from my above answer: “It is an average of all home sales during the year and it has been rising at a steady rate of approximately 10%.” That is what is shown on page 3.

  5. “Big Hollow did not work with village until negotiations were almost complete”

    I’m sure your notes are accurate as to what Mayor Gentes said, but this is a false statement (that Mayor Gentes and several Round Lake trustees have made numerous times). Did he say that the village’s interests in getting the developer-subsidized sewers to the southwest quadrant was more important than supporting the school district? I doubt it. Arbitrary impact fees covering less than 10% of the true impact and absolutely no tranistion fees were determined solely by the mayor. The developer was not required to do any financial analysis on the impact to the schools.

    Here are specific meeting details from the Big Hollow Superintendent in the News Sun, Daily Herald, and Lakeland Media.
    http://www.bighollowcac.org/press/Ryland/NS070905%20Paltry%20impact%20fees.pdf
    http://www.bighollowcac.org/press/Ryland/DH071105%20Emerald%20Bay%20fees%20aren%27t%20enough.pdf
    http://www.bighollowcac.org/press/Ryland/LM071105%20Small%20school%20short-changed%20on%20impact%20fees.pdf

    All of the details of this development can be found on the Big Hollow CAC website on the Home Page, Development Page, and Recent Press page.
    http://www.bighollowcac.org

    Oh, and the commercial portion of the development that falls nicely within Grayslake #46 and not Big Hollow #38…did he tell you that there is talk of it not developing for something like 7 years? Doubt it.

  6. And one more detail.

    “$5,000 – $6,000 to school districts per residence ”

    Did Mayor Gentes tell you that he blessed Big Hollow with between $720 and $900 per unit in impact fees and (again) $0 in tranistion fees? Doubt it.

  7. This is to You have got to be kidding. As a homeowner who plans on staying in my home for a rather long time I do not want my property values to rise quickly. If I were investing in property that would be another story. The only people who really want their property values to go up are those who are selling their home. Property values go up much quicker than income putting a burden on those with limited budgets and retirees.