No mention about the cost to the district for this move. Since the district is its own "jurisdictional authority" and pays no real estate taxes, how will it compensate Palos Heights for Police, water, sewer and other services? How much will the financial burden on the community increase or decrease? It seems Mr Scarsella doesn't choose to divulge this information, and instead the district focuses on "elevator inspections". BTW, what makes him think that Palos Heights would inspect them any faster? The primary responsibility for safety of the elevators is the DISTRICT. They are supposed to have periodic inspections and maintenance on elevators by their maintenance firm, and county inspections should play no part in the safety of the elevators, they only identify when the district has not met its responsibility for their safety.

I've learned over the years that when 118 makes a decison like this, someone winds up with more money in their pocket, and it's rarely the student families and community!

I guess an important question would be whether the school is currently connected to the Palos Heights water system or to Orland's, as is most of Southern Palos Township. A key question will be the comparison of costs between Palos East and Palos West for Municipal services. Both schools are abut the same size, but one is in unincorporated Palos twp with Orland water and one is in Palos Heights. The cost comparison should be made available, and cost impacts to the district from this change should be easily determined. If elevator inspections are the most important thing affected, it doesn't seem worth the trouble.

BTW, another good question would be how much the legal fees for this change would be. "Follow the money"!

In addition to Bob's questions, I'm wondering why the request is to Palos Heights rather than Palos Park?

Thanks for the questions, you bring up good points. I will get answers for you.

In fairness to Scarsella and the district I should clarify that he was not asserting that elevator inspection is the primary reason for the proposal. He was simply using it as an example of the procedural difficulties that comes with dealing with Cook County instead of a single municipality.

FYI, I read in another source that putting in new water lines from the main would be required for South. This would infer that the school currently gets its water from Orland. Putting in a new "loop" to supply water can be an extremely costly project, and one would think that ALL costs should be determined and made public before this moves forward.

I somehow suspect that that's not the district's intention for some reason.

I wanted to jump back in and clarify a few things regarding the water issue. According to District 118 officials, there is no need to put in new water lines for the annexation to occur. The school does not get its water from Orland. Nothing construction-related needs to be done for the annexation to occur.

I spoke with Board President Sue Hennessy and she said there are no financial gains to be made from annexation.

Answering Maria's question, Palos South does not share a contiguous border with Palos Park. In order for land to be annexed it has to share a border with the annexing body. Palos Heights is the only option.

Dan, please check out the claim by Palos Heights officials that a "loop" (new line) would need to be added for South to be served.

It may be semantics, but Ms Hennessey may mean that no "construction" is needed on 118 property, but that may exclude main line work OFF 118 property.

Is there some reason you didn't ask the logical question when Ms Hennessy said there were no financial "gains" from annexation? What about financial DISADVANTAGES? You say that they don't get water from Orland. From where DO they get water? If it's from Palos Heights, then it's likely they're charged premium rates. After annexation, they would be charged resident rates.Why would that not be a "financial gain"?

Excuse me if I'm suspicious of Ms Hennessey. I remember well in her district 118 building project, which added about $21 million to the community tax burden, she claimed that the direct addition of that cost to real estate taxes through working cash bind sales (without rferendum) was not a "tax increase" because it replaced taxes levied for the previous bond sales. Bottom line was the taxpayers were $21 million poorer because of it, and she refused to let the public even vote on that tax obligation.

That certainly would indicate a certain skepticism of Ms Hennessy's statements is appropriate.