YES!
building bond referendum Passed
on the November 2006 ballot
DCMHS: Devoted Communities Meet Higher Standards
Mission Statement
Our school district needs to complete the renovation of the physical plant. This proposed project will replace the 1914 building at the high school. The need for this change has been generated by several factors. These factors include the age and code violations of the building, increased maintenance and energy costs, lack of current technology and student growth. The goal of the Steering Committee and the Board of Education is to communicate to, successfully inform, and obtain the communities support to complete this project.
Facts
ü Assure adequate space for projected growth to maintain the present academic standards.
ü Creates a better educational environment (lighting, noise reduction, proximity, environmental controls.
ü Address safety, energy conservation, and maintenance issues of the 92 year old building (including Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] accessibility, health and life safety, student environment, security, and building codes).
Advantages
ü Costs to Taxpayers – Building now saves taxpayers $1.7 million in increased construction costs and short term maintenance.
ü Increased Classroom Space – Not only are we gaining additional classrooms (six presently increased to eleven) but we are building bigger rooms (12,760 sq. ft. presently increased to 34,940 square feet)
ü Improved Learning Areas – Science Labs, Computer Labs, and Library will be rebuilt to reflect current codes and needs.
ü Meets Building and Health Codes – Health Department standards for food preparation, ADA accessible, asbestos removal.
ü Enhanced Security – Offices will be moved to central entrance with secured sign in for all visitors.
ü Upgraded Administrative Offices – Conference room and nurses station/sick bay
ü Improved Mechanical Services – Electrical service upgraded as well as heating, ventilation and air conditioning.
ü Increased Parking – Plan calls for an additional 24 spaces.
Disadvantages
ü Demolition of Community History – 1914 building has house 92 graduating classes.
ü Loss of Grass Area in the Front of the Building – Plan calls for using the space for two story structure.
Costs to Tax Payers
|
Market Value |
$75,000 |
$100,000 |
$125,000 |
$150,000 |
$175,000 |
$200,000 |
$225,000 |
|
Current Tax |
$812.18 |
$1,150.59 |
$1,489.00 |
$1,827.41 |
$2,165.81 |
$2,504.22 |
$2,842.63 |
|
Annual Increase |
$48.00 |
$68.00 |
$88.00 |
$108.00 |
$128.00 |
$148.00 |
$168.00 |
|
Total Tax |
$860.18 |
$1,218.59 |
$1,577.00 |
$1,935.41 |
$2,293.81 |
$2,652.22 |
$3,010.63 |
|
Monthly Increase |
$4.00 |
$5.67 |
$7.33 |
$9.00 |
$10.67 |
$12.33 |
$14.00 |
Alternatives
Option #1
Delay referendum and do nothing.
Advantages
ü Less expensive to tax payers.
ü Minimal disruption for families.
Disadvantages
ü Portable classrooms may need to be leased at a cost of $340,000.
ü Poor use of tax payers’ money.
Each year we delay construction we add 4% to the cost of the renovations.
|
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
Total |
|
Costs |
$5,430,000 |
$5,647,200 |
$5,873,088 |
$6,108,011 |
$6,352,331 |
|
|
Increase |
|
$217,200 |
$225,888 |
$234,924 |
$244,320 |
$922,331 |
ü Does not address Health, Life Safety issues found in current building, which could result in condemning the 1914 structure.
ü Does not address Tazewell County Health Department issues of current kitchen.
ü Does not address safety issues of science labs or unsecured building.
ü Does not address learning environment in 1914 structure.
Option #2
Upgrade Current Facility (which would require a referendum).
Advantages
ü Less expensive to tax payers.
ü Minimal disruption for families.
Disadvantages
ü In addition to the disadvantages listed in Option 1, the following would also apply…
ü Costs – Architects have estimated a cost of $782,000 to repair the current 1914 structure.
ü Total costs to taxpayers to upgrade the facility could be $1,704,331 (or $2,044,331 with portable classrooms).
ü Unknown how long repairs would last; estimates are between 5 and 10 years.
ü Issue would need to go to voters for referendum as the budget does not allow for such expenditures.
Option #3 (Recommended by the Board of Education and DCMHS Committee)
DCMHS: Devoted Communities Meet Higher Standards
Frequently Asked Questions
1. In years past, we had more students and they were educated in the same building. Why do we need to build now?
It true that we have had higher enrollments at the high school in years past (1987 = 319, 1988 = 320, 1997 = 308, and 1998 = 306). The difference today is that the same classroom space is being used to house technology, which is an integral part of the learning in today’s classrooms. Additionally, an increase in academic standards and the way in which we deliver instruction through the 8-block schedule necessitates the use of more space.
2. Where did the money come from to complete the site work at the high school?
The money to complete the site work south of the high school was money that was earned through investments and prudent use of the funds from the 2000 referendum. Prior to the improvements the site was not useable. We anticipate that we will be able to use it for physical education classes and athletic practices. We have no plans to upgrade our athletic facilities with the current referendum.
3. Why didn’t we take care of the 1914 building during the 2000 referendum when we received money from the state?
During the time of the 2000 referendum when we received money from the state for school construction projects, the community task force unanimously agreed that the greatest needs were at the primary and junior high and intermediate buildings. In fact, although enrollments in 1987 were greater at the high school, they are now greater throughout the district (936 students in PreK-12 in 1987, 1041 students currently).
4. Will we receive any money from the state for this project?
Although the state does not currently offer funds for school construction, both gubernatorial candidates are interested in reinstating this program. The Illinois State Board of Education is accepting applications for future funding and the district will submit an application. Based on the feedback that we received in 2000 regarding the high school, we are confident that the building would be approved pending the reinstatement of the grants.
5. What would happen if the district were approved for construction funding after the referendum was passed?
The Board of Education would be in a position to pay the bonds off early, thereby reducing the tax rate and the school taxes for all district tax payers.
6. Why is ADA accessibility an issue?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law to assure students and their families’ equal access to educational opportunities. The district is not currently in compliance with this law at the high school.
7. Why aren’t we building more classrooms?
We are building the number of classrooms that we believe will address our needs for the next twenty years at the high school. The increase in classrooms totals a net gain of five rooms, but the rooms are larger. We are going from 12,670 square feet of space to 34,940 square feet of space.
8. Why do we need to update the science labs?
We have actually had an increase in the number of labs we need due to enrollment and higher learning standards, which require students to take more science. We were able to build a state of the art science lab/lecture area with the 2000 referendum, but due to safety issues, need to renovate the existing lab. The safety issues that we need to address include adequate ventilation, asbestos removal, adequate space for students and storage, and adequate access to shut offs for gas and water.
9. Why do we need to upgrade the kitchen?
Our current kitchen area does not meet standards as established by the Tazewell County Health Department. Storage, serving, food preparation areas are not adequate by these standards. Additionally, with increasing enrollments, more area is needed for the cafeteria, which would be accommodated somewhat by removing the service areas from the cafeteria.
10. What was our recent history been on referendums?
1994 – Voters passed an increase to the education fund, which pays for salaries, supplies and materials, and other costs associated with instruction.
1988 – A building bond referendum for $2,000,000 was passed which allowed the district to remove and encapsulate asbestos in the buildings and construct four classrooms, gymnasium, and cafeteria. The funds were generated with an increase of 87 cents on the tax rate.
2000 – Voters passed (1639-61% yes, 975-36% no) a building bond referendum for major renovations at the primary & junior high and intermediate school, which allowed the district to replace the aging original structure with new modern facilities. The work was completed in two phases with the district taking ownership in 2003. The cost was $6,940,881 with the state paying $2,989,479 and the local share being $3,951,402. The bond and interest rate was reduced from 92.5 cents to 69 cents (decrease of 23.5 cents) per $100 of assessed valuation due to the retirement of the previous issue in 1988.