See these web pages:

Naperville Central Major Renovation and Additions
Ann Reid Early Childhood Center Construction
Naperville North Improvements
Mill Street Renovations and Additions

No. Many school systems have handled building renovation safely while schools are in session. Clearly, our goal is to do as much of the major construction work as possible over the summer and during breaks. All federal laws and OSHA guidelines regarding health and safety issues (e.g., asbestos abatement) will be followed, as the District as done in the past. A phasing plan for this project (and the others) will be developed prior to the start of construction. 

If a referendum is approved, the detailed site and design work will need to be done before any construction begins; this will take several months. With regard to Naperville Central, in particular, the plan is for the new additions to be completed first so students can move into those areas (e.g., new science labs) so other areas of the building can be sealed off and remodeled. Any major renovation creates dust and inconvenience for short periods of time, but student safety and instruction won’t be compromised.

As noted above, all schools were studied at the beginning of the facilities planning process. The draft Master Facilities Plan did address almost all of them; see page 27, on this website: http://www.naperville203.org/assets/MasterFacilitiesPlanWeb.pdf.

Some or all of these projects will be addressed as part of the annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget, e.g., permanent walls at Steeple Run, Scott and Maplebrook Elementary Schools. Other items identified (e.g., a junior high running track and gyms/multipurpose rooms at all elementary schools) did not garner strong support in our recent facilities survey and would require more study and input to determine future direction.

That leaves four projects that required more study and possible funding in the next ten years: LRC and classroom remodeling at Beebe, movement of music classroom upstairs from the basement at Highlands, LRC and PE space remodeling at Lincoln, and LRC remodeling at Jefferson. If the referendum is approved, it is hoped that some or all of these projects could be funded from “freed” annual maintenance funding already allocated within current and future budgets. The District anticipates that substantial funds from that account will not be needed to maintain Naperville Central and Mill Street Schools should the referendum be successful. Such an approach is similar to what the District did in the late 90s in using operating funds to build LRC additions to Naper and Ellsworth, and other additions to Mill, Beebe, Madison, Lincoln, and Jefferson.

The best estimate for when the next comprehensive look at District facilities, with community input, would probably occur is six to ten years from now.

A brand new Naperville Central will not be built for several reasons. First, there is really no viable site for a new high school that could easily be secured in a reasonable amount of time and at a reasonable cost, and there was strong negative community reaction to relocating the high school elsewhere on the Martin Mitchell property. Second, while it is true that the results of informal community feedback during the “Touch the Future” Community Engagement initiative indicated almost 70% preferred a new high school be built in lieu of renovation, an independent random telephone survey of 400 voters indicated that only 31% of residents would support such an option. Third, even if that sentiment might change over time, a new high school would be very costly (over $140 million), with project cost escalation of an additional four to seven percent per year. Finally, and most importantly, delaying renovations of Naperville Central any longer, particularly because of the problems with the science labs, is not in our children’s educational interest. Asking voters to build a new school without having secured a viable site is also problematic.

What is frequently overlooked in discussion of this issue is that the amount of proposed renovations and additions to Naperville Central are extensive. Plans call for renovation of over 75% of the building to make it as "new" as possible.

During the Community Engagement portion of the facilities planning process, Option B was discussed as the one that would be used if a referendum failed. That option includes spending as little as possible on Central now (e.g., fixing the science labs where they are, even though current room size is too small), and re-evaluating a more complete renovation at some later date. Option B also included less money for improvements at Naperville North and Mill Street Elementary.

Naturally, there is always a possibility that if the final vote was “close,” the Board of Education could consider placing a similar question on a future ballot. It would most likely be at a higher cost, with a resulting delay in project completion.

Because Naperville Central had so many additions over so many years, classroom sizes there vary, but regular classrooms in the older section of the building are generally 660 sq. ft. or less. Also, a study of the amount of square footage at Central, compared to its neighbors showed Central to be well below the average of its peers.

While there is no one universally accepted standard size for a regular high school classroom, most architects recommend 800-900 sq. ft. of space per classroom and that has become a general “rule of thumb.” Likewise, the CEFPI (Council of Education Facility Planners International) guideline is 30 square feet per student. So for 30 students that would be 900 square feet. But again, CEFPI describes their guideline as just that – a general guide. 

In the renovated classrooms at Naperville Central, our goal is to provide roughly 775-800 sq. ft. of space for most classrooms; science labs and technology labs, on the other hand, will be in the recommended range of 1100-1200 square feet. These guidelines provide space for students, workspace, storage, and flexible classroom lay-out. The reason that classrooms have become larger relates to the learning activities going on in the room and the use of technology as a teaching/learning tool. Such activities require more flexible space for work groups and project execution. No longer are classrooms solely designed around the traditional classroom model where students sit in rows and listen to teachers lecture. In addition to merely being overcrowded, small class room size is proving to be an impediment to curriculum delivery, as the District is working to infuse 21st century skills into students’ learning experiences. Finally, research has shown that students learn in different ways and the classrooms being designed for the future are responding to those needs. As the renewal of Naperville Central moves through the design process, there will be ongoing discussions with the individual departments to design the right size (and shaped) classrooms for each subject area.

Legal mandates (Federal and State) require school districts to provide appropriate educational programs for children with special needs beginning on the child’s third birthday. This legal mandate also requires the District to provide classrooms for children with special needs that include typical peers as part of the class, since typical peers serve as role models. Families of typical peers pay tuition to attend the program. Because of the variance of needs that must be addressed, the end result is that several different types of programs must be provided at the Early Childhood level.

• The Early Childhood program has outgrown the space at Elmwood Elementary School by a considerable margin.
• Five years ago, there were five classrooms at Elmwood. Last year, there were 11 classrooms located at five elementary schools across the District.
• Five years ago, there were 137 children in classrooms; last year the program had grown to 260 children in classrooms (including 100 itinerant students).
• The number of children receiving services in classrooms in the past five years has nearly doubled, and the program continues to grow. Classroom space is a major issue and a challenge every time it becomes necessary to open a new class.

More children are being identified with special needs at an earlier age and more parents are seeking help because of their awareness that the earlier the intervention, the greater the progress their child will make.

• There is a significant increase in children being identified with autism.  All of these children benefit significantly from early intervention and Early Childhood education.
• Medical advances are helping more children survive, along with an increase in premature births and children who are medically fragile.
• There has been growth in Early Childhood education across the country.

Many surrounding districts have built a centralized Early Childhood Center; examples include:

Naperville – Indian Prairie 204, Plainfield District 202, Bolingbrook – Valley View District 365U, Wheaton District 200 and Oswego District 302 have Early Childhood Centers because they recognize that it is the most cost efficient and it is the most worthwhile investment in the future of Early Childhood.

With the increasing recognition of how important learning is at an early age and the political awareness of this investment (Preschool for All legislation), this program will continue to grow

The Site and Construction Fund was created in 2006 with the land sale of Walnut Woods for $5.8 million. District 203 added $6.2 million to that in 2007 (from operating funds) and plans to add $10 million in 2008, $4 million in 2009, $5 million in 2010, and $.2 million in 2011. The remainder ($1.5 million) is interest income on the balance. The amounts added by District 203 each year are based on year-end budget revenue over expense. 

In 2008, an additional $5 million over that planned (total of $10 million shown above) was added due to higher interest income and increased state grants.  Projected revenue exceeding expense in 2009 through 2011 is based on projected reductions in health insurance costs based on a recent plan change and salary costs set by recent contractual agreements.

The bonds will be issued in 2008 and repaid over 20 years in equal principal and interest payments each year. Using an estimated interest rate that is .5% higher than current rates, these payments will require an annual tax levy of about $3.39 million each of the 20 years (see “Estimated Tax Impact of $43 Million Bond Issue” in the Facilities Financing section of  District 203 Plan for Upgrading School Facilities 2007-2012). 

The average residential Equalized Assessed Value in the School District (DuPage County) for 2006 is $106,813.  The estimated levy for the debt will cost this average residential property $82.

Another way to estimate the cost is that it is $77.13 for every $100,000 of billing value shown on your 2006 tax bill. The “billing value” in DuPage County is the same as the “net equalized assessed value” in Will County.  So, divide this value by $100,000 and then multiply it by $77.13 to arrive at your estimated tax cost for the proposed bond issue.

Once the bonds are sold, the tax levies to repay the bonds will be locked in place. The tax impact ($82 for the average residential property) will be about the same each of the 20 years it takes to repay the bonds (see “Estimated Tax Impact of $43 Million Bond Issue” chart in the Facilities Financing section of District 203 Plan for Upgrading School Facilities 2007-2012). Typically, properties are reassessed each year. As long as an individual property matches the average rate of change in assessment, the tax bill for the bond repayment should be about the same each year.

For example, if a property increases in assessment by 5% and the average reassessment increase throughout the District is 5%, then individual property owners will pay the same amount toward the bond issue as the prior year. If a property increases in assessment by 10% and the average reassessment increase throughout the District is 5%, then that individual property owner will pay a little more than was paid the prior year. At the same time other property owners will pay a few dollars less as the total amount to be collected for this bond issuance remains the same each year.  It is assumed that over the twenty-year period yearly fluctuations for an individual property owner in comparison to the District average would even out.

When bonds are issued, the purchaser can sometimes bid a premium (provide more funds) above the face amount of the bonds. This amount can be relatively small (less than 1% of the face amount) or it could be significant – even several million dollars. However, all of it (the face amount of the bonds as well as any premium) has to be paid back with interest – so a significant premium (in addition to the face amount of $43 million, in the case of District 203) would drive up the cost of the bond to taxpayers. The Board of Education is committed to collecting no more than $43 million in funds toward the project – as indicated by the “Estimated Tax Impact of $43 Million Bond Issue” chart in the Facilities Financing section of District 203 Plan for Upgrading School Facilities 2007-2012.

“Zero coupon bonds” are bonds with no regular interest payment – all of the interest is paid when the bond comes due.  This can lower the initial payments, but increase the payments in later years – usually costing more than simple regular interest paying bonds in the long run.  “Zero coupon bonds” are not being used.

This ballot question is about facilities and using a “fixed” funding method. In this referendum, the District is proposing a $114.9 million facilities project, asking the voter for permission to issue $43 million in bonds. The remaining $71.9 million is being funded by other sources:

a.  Sale of Walnut Woods - $5.8 million
b.  Land Cash money - $1.2 million
c.  Interest Income - $3.5 million
d.  Operating budget allocation - $25.4 million
e.  Borrowing against TIF - $36.0 million

A portion of the $71.9 million, $25.4 million, is listed as a budget allocation from operating funds. In 2002, the community passed a tax rate increase referendum. This increase in taxes produced more funds than was originally projected, allowing the $25.4 million allocation, as noted above.

The 2002 referendum was an operating referendum that had to have a much more complex method of implementation based on the tax cap laws, assessed real estate values, and annual changes in the Consumer Price Index. The explanation of what happened in the phase-in of that referendum was discussed in a white paper in July 2005 – see the following link: http://www.naperville203.org/assets/2002-Referendum-Implementation.pdf. In simplest form, the District received more money in tax revenue than projected because the Equalized Assessed Value of Naperville District 203 homes went up more than projected, while the Consumer Price Index (used in applying the tax cap) was lower than anticipated. At the same time, the District lost expected revenues from the State and interest earnings, while District expenses also exceeded projections, due largely to dramatic increases in health care costs.

In 2002, the District made a projection that the District would collect $873.7 million for the next six years. The District actually received $918.9 million – or a cumulative total of $45.2 million more (4.9% over that six-year period. In essence about half of this was used to offset the negative variance of our budget projections (noted above) to meet the referendum promise of balancing the budget within five years. The remainder has been targeted for the needed building improvements. Naturally, the prediction of property tax increases is not an exact science and a reduction in property values during that period was also possible.

Due to higher than expected tax revenues, the Board of Education voted to forgo the final year of the referendum phase-in. If the District had ended the referendum implementation after two years, and the EAV went back to historical increases of 3.2% (instead of the 6%+) the budget deficit would not have been eliminated, a cornerstone of the 2002 referendum. 

Likewise, some have also asked why the District simply didn’t rebate or abate tax monies. In reality, these ideas were discussed extensively during several Board meetings, and several different proposals were considered. Ultimately, the Board of Education decided on a middle ground – to forgo the final year of implementation and move surplus operating funds into a Site and Construction fund pending the outcome of the facilities study. Using the money for the facilities is essentially a “give back” because the referendum increase is reduced by at least $25.4 million; in fact, it is leveraged because there won’t be interest charged for bond repayments on this amount. Finally, the use of the Warrenville TIF money for facilities (and not operating funds) can be viewed as a return of $3.0 million each and every year.

If the referendum passes, the District will issue bonds and set the tax levies needed to repay the bonds. The County will extend these taxes every year, no matter what happens with assessments and home values. If interest rates hold or continue to decline until the time of issuance, the cost to the District would be reduced and this would benefit taxpayers. 

The operating taxes are different and are limited by the Tax Cap. The District typically levies and collects taxes as limited by this statute. If CPI (Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation) continues at the average pace of 2.5% despite falling assessments, the District would still be able to levy up to the Tax Cap limit. Assessments, as a whole, would have to fall at least 25% before the legal tax rate maximums of individual fund tax levies would come into play. For example, the District has a maximum legal rate of $4.00 for the Education Fund and is currently at $3.3465 for the 2006 levy. By 2008 (2007 assessments are already in place and increased from 2006), that rate should be about $3.0555 with the predicted EAV (Equalized Assessed Value) in our projections. That predicted EAV would have to be reduced almost 25% before the legal maximum of $4.00 is hit.

Should there be a major recession or severe economic downturn, the Board of Education would have to consider the impact of levying property taxes in the context of a severe economic  environment.  All local governments would have to establish priorities in light of the impact on taxpayers.

The District 203 2007-08 Budget includes a section titled "Financial Projection – Trends and Assumptions."  This document was prepared in April of 2007 – prior to the Board of Education finalizing the Master Facilities Plan and resolution to place a question on the February ballot. This projection does not include an increase of $9.2 million in additional funding for the facilities projects as outlined in the District 203 Plan for Upgrading School Facilities 2007-2012, so anticipated fund balances would have to be reduced accordingly.

Additionally, many events have occurred after the preparation of this financial projection. Among those events, interest rates have significantly declined. Future revenue from interest income would likely be reduced by about $2 million per year. Other revenue and expense estimate changes will effect the financial projection as well.

The bond issue interest rate is not tied directly to short term interest rates. A better gauge of this would be the Bond Buyer 20 Bond Index. This index has declined about 25 basis points (.25%) since last fall and is almost a full percent (1.00%) below the estimated interest rate used in the "Estimated Tax Impact." The bonds will be fixed-rate bonds and we expect a “Aa3” or better rating from Moody's. That will help keep the borrowing costs down.