CC4SS Community Meeting #2 Presentation 4.2.13

7/28/2019 CC4SS Community Meeting #2 Presentation 4.2.13

1/36

Concerned Citizens for

Smithton School (CC4SS)

Community Presentation #2

4.2.13


2/36

Agenda

Belief Statements

Why are we opposed to this bond issue:

Growth Assumptions (population, housing, school)

Financial Considerations Current Tax Implications

Future District Financial Considerations

Process Transparency Additional Items for Boards Awareness (plus a recent addition)

Final Items Alternate Option

Our Request

Contact Info


3/36

We are FOR Smithton School

We believein a strong, quality education for our communityschildren and we recognize the essential foundation it provides fortheir future success.

We support the inclusion of 21st Century learning concepts in the

curriculum.

We support the expansion of technology and the continuation ofart, music, sports, PE and other programs that some area schoolsare forced to consider as non-essential.

We are in favor of progress, in favor of smart growth, in favor ofproviding appropriate facilities.


4/36

Belief Statements

We believeSmithton School must act to address student capacity.

We believeA new middle school is an excessive option. A wantin a time of need.

We believeA rigorous analysis of the factual data leads to adifferent conclusion.

We believeThe school bond referendum should not be passed, sothe School Board will be forced to review other options.


5/36

Growth AssumptionsPopulation

HousingSchool


6/36

Smithton Growth Assumptions

The Vote Yes Committee claims population growthfueling large future class sizes, based on 2010 Censusdata. Predicts 2013 1st grade to be 60+ students

Predicts 2014 1st grade to be 69 students

Source: 2.6.13 Vote Yes Community Mtg.


7/36


CC4SS Response:

2010 census data for Smithton CCSD #130 does not

enable accurate prediction of future enrollment.

FACT: 2010 Census data indicates 298 under 5 children in the school

district.

K-2 current enrollment = 163 students

This would leave 135 students in remaining 2 ages of this cohort (avg. 67.5

students / age) Calculating to the full 298 isnt accurate, as it assumes 100% of district

children will attend CCSD #130.

No allowance for Home Schooling or Private School (St. Johns, St. Peter & Paul,

etc.)

Source: 2010 Census Data CCSD #130 District from National Center for Education Statistics


8/36


338333

298

280

290

300

310

320

330

340

350

10 to 14 Years 5 to 9 Years Under 5 Years

2010 Census - CCSD #130

Total # Children in Age Cohort

FACT: 2010 Census data shows the youngest age cohort is significantly lower than

children already in school!

11.8%

decrease

Source: 2010 Census Data CCSD #130 District from National Center for Education Statistics


9/36


The Vote Yes Committeeclaims existing home sales inthe Smithton area is a validmetric for measuring the

influx of young families.

CC4SS Response:

Existing home sales is not a valid metric, unless specific demographic data

is available about the household composition of both buyers and sellers

We believe a better metric for measuring community growth within the

district is new home construction (although this is still a flawed metric,

unless specific demographic data is analyzed)

Source: 2.6.13 Vote Yes Community Mtg. and Q&A document on Vote Yes Facebook page


10/36


Housing growth has slowed substantially.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Smithton Building Permits for

New Houses

7 are vacant

spec homes!

Source: New housing permits issued inside CCSD #130 district Smithton Village Hall


11/36

School Enrollment is Stable

Source: ISBE (09 12 links on CCSD #130 website) & 13 provided by school administration

'09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19

K-8 470 507 490 502 505

6-8 168 178 176 174 156 167 163

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550 Smithton Total Enrollment

Since housing

slowdown, total

enrollment has

stabilized!

Using current

enrollment data,

middle school will

decrease after 14!


12/36

Growth Assumption Summary

School age population within the school

district is NOT on a growth trajectory!

New home construction within the district is

down substantially from the peak!

The peak middle school enrollment will have

graduated before the new school is built!


13/36

Financial Considerations


14/36

Current Tax Implications

22% increase in school district taxes for 20 years Length of bond duration

While we expect few to like higher taxes, the biggerconcern is the state fiscal crisis and what impact thathas for future financial concerns.


%04.221000627.3675.0100x

LevyTaxCCSD2012IncreaseLevyProposed

increasetaxann.inc.=.00675xEAV

EAV=.3333)(SALxFMVMarket Value of Home Annual Tax Increase 20-Yr Tax Increase$100,000 $224.98 $4,499.60$200,000 $449.96 $8,999.20

$300,000 $674.93 $13,498.60

$400,000 $899.91 $17,998.20

$500,000 $1,124.89 $22,497.80


15/36

Illinois - Four Years Ago

Funding

Has Been

Bad

Source: May 2009 Report from St. Clair County Property Tax Committee


16/36

And its Getting Worse

Illinois Ranks Last for Funding Education through 2011

Source: National Education Association Rankings and Estimates Research December 2011


17/36

Were Beginning to See the Effects

State funding is and has been well below budget.

95% in 2012.*

89% in 2013.*

Some project another

10% cut next year.

Source: EFAB report to IL Gen Assembly dtd. Jan. 2013: www.isbe.state.il.us/EFAB/pdf/final-report-01-13.pdf


18/36


Many project future state funding cuts & predict a transfer ofteacher pension responsibility to the local school district!


19/36


New Middle School = Increased Operating Costs Estimated at $670,000 annually, an increase of

~15-20% vs. current year.

Includes additional administration, utilities, teachers,

operations & maintenance, food service and transportation.

Initial estimates provided in November community meetingswere ~$800,000.

Current General Fund Budget (approved in Sept 12): $350,000 deficit



20/36

Future District Financial Considerations:

Tax Increase Triple Threat

Bond Referendum

State Cuts &Teacher Pension

Increased

Operating Costs

Higher

Taxes

and/or reduced funding for education programs!


21/36

Financial Concerns Summary

Significant increase to current taxes (+22% vs. 2011). Will district citizens be able to handle this increased burdenor begin to seek

other options?

Current Illinois funding levels driving schools to:

cut non-essential programs seek bond financing for current operations

close schools

Future Illinois actions may: cut funding further

transfer pension expenses to the local district

Known operating cost increases will make it harder to maintain andimprove our well-rounded education programs and funding.


22/36

Process Transparency


23/36

We Believe a More Transparent Process

Could Have Been Achieved in Q4 2012

We question the validity of the Nov. community meeting study results: Several attendees completed multiple surveys

Several attendees indicated confusion over wording for option ranking

As outlined earlier, we believe factual inaccuracies were provided to the publicprior to their vote for a preferred school option.

Results were used as key rationale for New School recommendation to Boardof Education

Need for existing school optimization not referenced in

Administration letter sent to parents and referenced in local media.

The original New School option presented at November

community meetings only covered the $10.23 MM construction

cost, not the additional $1.6 MM building optimization for theexisting school.


24/36

Additional Items for the Boards Awareness

The Vote Yes for Prop S committee has

provided misinformed or misleading

information.


25/36

Examples

At 2/6 public meeting the following question was asked:

We believe this to be inaccurate, as we have

come to understand that Mrs. Berrys former

classroom remains empty and unused forclassroom purposes (occasional usage for

meetings and a last period study hall).


Fact

Challenged

By

Administration

We stand by

our claim!


26/36

Examples

At 2/6 public meeting this

chart was used to

communicate the growth

projections of the Middle

School enrollment. This same chart has been used

in various forums since last

November

It indicates current enrollment

of 184 middle school students.

As we saw earlier, this is simply incorrect

the true current enrollment is 168!



27/36

Examples

At 2/6 public meeting the following question was asked:

0 Search Results

0 Search Results indicating

a St. Louis study or article

What we did find, however, was the

referenced study had been conducted in

a poor, urban school district in New Haven, CT.


28/36

Examples

We believe the current community meetings being positioned

as Design Workshops could give the false impression that a

decision for new school construction is already made.


29/36

Examples

CC4SS Response:

If 412 is the current school's "capacity", how were we possiblyable to survive the '07-'08 enrollment of 465, the '08-'09

enrollment of 470, the '09-'10 enrollment of 507 and the '10-'11 enrollment of 490? Modular "annex" buildings were NOTneeded any of these school years.

Could it be that moving all-day classes into the modular

buildings in the same year the board planned this referendumactually served a purpose other than the efficientoptimization of the existing building?


30/36

Additional Items Summary

We believe the public has a right to accurate

information in order to make an informed

decision.

Based on what youve seen, we hope the

board and administration is compelled to set

the record straight to ensure the public has

access tofactualinformation.


31/36

Final Considerations


32/36

An Alternate Path

We believe several options exist for alleviatingclassroom space pressures at the current schoolsite.

We recommend a No vote to force the schoolboard to consider additional options.

Further, we recommend a more comprehensivecommunity engagement plan to identify theoptimal option.


33/36

What Were Asking of the Board

We request the bond referendum be removedfrom the April election to allow a more robustevaluation of near-to-mid term solutions.

If the referendum remains on the ballot, then weask the district (board and administration):

to practice extreme caution relating to applicable election andethics statutes (including the removal of improper e-mail

addresses, presentations or other materials). to communicate to parents, through the WW, that previous

materials should not have been sent via the WW and toencourage parents and community members to informthemselves fully about the upcoming election.


34/36

In Closing

We hope the board understands that our intention in raising these issuesISabout ensuring the best for our children and their educationnot justour pocketbooks.

We believe a more conservative approach towards near-to-mid termenrollment will improve our ability to remain a strong, vibrant center of

education well into the future.

We believe this and previous school boards have done a good job ofmaintaining fiscal prudence, making Smithton one of the rare schools thatis not in economic crisis. This positions us well to weather the comingstorm of state funding decreases.

We plan to present a fact-based, passionate and respectful point of viewto district voters. If, at any time, you believe we are not acting accordingly,then please hold us accountable.


35/36

In Closing

Remember, a NO vote ONLY means NO to

building a new middle school.

A NO vote forces the school board to consider

other, less costly and perfectly viable options

for meeting our students needs!


36/36

Thank You!

www.facebook.com/cc4ss

http://concernedcitizensfor.wix.com/cc4ss

[email protected]
http://www.facebook.com/cc4sshttp://concernedcitizensfor.wix.com/cc4ssmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://concernedcitizensfor.wix.com/cc4sshttp://www.facebook.com/cc4ss

Documents

CC4SS Community Meeting #2 Presentation 4.2.13