I attended 2 District 131 meetings on Tuesday, Jan. 16th. I
attended the Tuesday Talks meeting at East HS hosted by Dr. Roberts. I thought it was to be second in a series he has scheduled. I was disappointed to find out this meeting was just a repeat of the first meeting but at a different time of day, and different location. As will be the remaining three talks.
Basically, Dr. Roberts explained “how we got here.” Which I took to mean-How district 131 got in this financial situation. He explained that due to the new law that requires districts to balance their budgets, 131 has a problem. Previously, 131 used to borrow money (deficit financing) to balance their budget.
Approx. 7 years ago they had a surplus of $20 million. At that time, they were spending $4 million more per year than they were taking in. The board chose to spend down the surplus before coming to the electorate to ask for more. Over the last 2 years they have cut $4 million from the budget. They felt there would be a “friendly referendum environment when the tenure of the community changed.”
He feels that great strides have been made in the quality of qualified teachers the district now attracts and retains. Over the last decade they have become more of a preferred employer due to changed working conditions and improved salaries. He feels this has resulted in getting 12 schools getting off the AYP list.
Since the referendum did not pass in Nov. '06, cuts will need to be made in ‘07-‘08 school year. They have attempted to do a balanced reduction “so everyone feels a little pain.” For those who have suggested cutting more administrative positions, Dr. Roberts said even if they cut their 16 principals and 8 central office people at the administrative level, that could not balance the budget.
The rest of the “talks” was stuff you would have already read in the paper or somewhere, if you have been keeping up with 131 and their business dealings.
Yada yada…….boards decides whether or not to put ref. on the ballot; West EAV (tax $$) extremely higher than Easts.
Dr. Roberts ended asking if we can look ourselves in the mirror and ask the question “do they need the money?” If we say no- 13,000 kids in the community will suffer. “Just a guy trying to help 13,000 kids.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I went to the School board meeting that evening. Pretty much, same stuff. Board member,Russ P. expounded on why the tax cap has hurt our revenue. (to save space on this post, I will be adding a comment about tax caps ).
A very surprising comment came from Bud Herbig and the curricular committee. He put a request out for donations of band instruments. It seems there are many students at the elementary level that cannot join band, because they cannot afford the instruments. As you well know, as a band booster, I could write another chapter on that comment.
So for now, I will leave you with this brief overview of the meetings and will add comments later, and I encourage yours. :o)
8 comments:
This was one of 3 handouts I had at the Talks meeting. I am not well versed on referendum issues, but it is amazing what you can find on the internet. The biggest public library anywhere!
Does the Tax Cap Hurt Public Education?
There's been a lot of talk from school districts about how harmful PTELL (the tax cap) is to their budgets. It has been claimed that school districts "lose" money because of the tax cap, or that the tax cap prevents districts from collecting money already approved by voters.
These statements simply aren't true. Using Enron-like accounting, the tax cap is vilified by its opponents. A simple explanation of the basic elements of PTELL reveals the truth.
The essence of PTELL is that school districts may not increase property taxes faster than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or 5% annually, whichever is lower, plus taxes for new construction. In recent years, the CPI has been below 5%.
The tax rate for every year is determined by an assessment of all taxable property in the district. These assessments amount to a guess by the county as to the total property value within the district. If this estimate increases faster than the CPI, the tax rate will decrease, even if every taxpayer experiences a tax hike.
A simple example shows this:
Example
In 2003, the property in Taxville is assessed at $100 million. The school receives $1 million, setting the tax rate at $1 per $100 assessed valuation. Next year, the school receives $1.02 million because the CPI grew by 2%. The county assesses the property at $105 million. Because of the 5% increase in assessed valuation is larger than the increase in the CPI, the tax rate is lowered to $0.9714 per $100. ($105 million x 0.9714 per $100=$1.02 million).
This is not an actual reduction.
The typical homeowner's taxes will increase by 2%. As many homeowners know, property assessments are variable and often inaccurate. Had the county chosen to leave the assessment unchanged, the tax rate would have increased to $1.02 per $100. Either way, property taxes increase by 2%.
Myths Shattered
The tax cap allows districts to increase taxes for existing construction up to the rate of the CPI without a referendum. School districts do not "lose" money just because the county happens to increase property assessments faster than the CPI.
Voter approval of a tax rate does not give a school district license to increase taxes at the same rate as property assessments. The occasional decrease in the school tax rate is a result of large assessment increases, not due to a decrease in taxes. Voters have little knowledge of what the future holds for property assessments.
Without referenda, PTELL allows the cost of education to increase at up to the CPI. A valid question of any taxpayer facing a referendum is "Why is the cost of education increasing faster than the Consumer Price Index?"
PTELL-Property Tax Extension Law Limit
CPI-Consumer Price Index is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.
Here is part of an article I found on the champion.org website about the tax cap. The article is Illinios School Spending Crisis.
The plain fact is this: since tax caps were passed in 1991 through the 2004/05 school year, the schools in the State of Illinois have received over ten billion dollars ($10.69 billion) in additional revenue, more than doubling the revenue for education.
This gusher of public funding and support for education has doubled and is a 116 percent increase since the tax caps became law. Yet, the education bureaucrats claim this is not enough. They cannot explain why this amount, which is up nearly two and a half times the rate of inflation, is insufficient. Inflation during the fourteen-year period was only 48 percent.
$20 million surplus seven years ago? and they throw it away by spending $4 million more than they should? seems very irresponsible to me.
Now the threat is to fire 12 teachers, 12 "other" staff members and only 3 administrators. Last I knew administrators MADE more money and DID NOT educate the students. Why not fire 12 administrators? I am pretty sure we would SAVE MORE money and really help the students.
By the way, the new paint job in the service center is very nice. No mention of why this was done or where the funds came from. Yet they did mention that 29,770.00 was to be spent on a new sound system for East's gym. Funds LEFT OVER from the field house. Sound familiar? This is where the money came from for the new score board in the same gym. Yet when funds were needed to repair the berm on the south side of the field house because the planting that was to be completed by the school maintainence staff was never done and the berm is now deteriorating into the street, they asked the ward to pitch in and help. Now if we have that much money left over from the field house, why aren't we repairing what needs to be repaired BECAUSE of that building AND THEN returning that money to the outstanding debt? Another classic example of double talk and sneaking around with district money. And where is this "extra" money being shown in the accounting of funds? I don't see any "extra" money listed in the budget.
The budget needs an audit from an independent source and the district needs to be forced into having an independent accountant to approve costs.
Great idea. How do we get it done?
It was suggested at a forum. It was suggested again at a Tuesdy talk.
Lots of questions, lots of suggestions.....they have their own agenda.
Any ideas how to force them to open up?
A return message from Linda Chapa LaVia's office clarified the meeting place.
Education Meeting is Thursday
6pm at the Copley Theater.
You may call her office yourself if you like at: 264-6855
The district is just going to continue to waste tax payers money on programs and other interests that do not benefit our children. The only way to stop the mishandling of our money, is to fire the administrators involved in deciding how the money will be spent. Until this district can learn to control their frivolous spending habits I will not vote for a tax increase. Everything comes down to this, anyone supporting a family can tell you that if your total monthly bills are x amount and you are over spending by x amount it will catch up to you in the long run. We all have to figure out how to pay our bills and balance the checkbook each month. So why is it our so called educators cannot?
Post a Comment