Back when the district had 8 elementary schools, each school had a principal, secretary, nurse, ... and the schools had enrollments around 300 students (or fewer).

Now there are 4 elementary schools with enrollments over 600 students.

Have you asked the parents of special education students and those with IEPs if the asst principals serve no purpose?

GEDefender,

You’re now batting 500 in my book.

I thought that your 2/2 post added nothing but anger, sarcasm and… I just felt that it was a strike-out.

This last one is a homerun.

Defend away.

The Clerk's office advises that other than schools, there are no statutory maximums for the Limiting Rate. Actually, they only mentioned elementary schools [the rates shown below apply to every elementary school district in all of Illinois] but I will just extrapolate that to high schools [and "consolidated districts"] as well, although their maximum rates might differ. They told me to "search the Illinois Department of Revenue site for the the actual statutes for more details".

By adding up the maximum allowable Limiting Rates shown below, it appears that the maximum aggregate rate allowed by law for an elementary school district in Illinois would be $4.70 per $100 of EAV, after exemptions [3.5 + .55 + .20....etc].

The actual rates from D41's 2008 levy total up to $2.4517 per $100 of EAV, after exemptions.

Subtracting the 2008 actual from the maximum leaves 2.2483 [4.7 - 2.4517 = 2.2483] of unused "cushion" to increase the Limiting Rate.

Is this correct?

quote:

Ed Fund 3.5
Operations 0.55
Transportation 0.2
Working Cash 0.05
Special Ed 0.4

You can access the CAFR at the Districts website to see a history of rates (page 82 of the CAFR, 110 of the PDF).

Levy year 2008's rates were:
Ed Fund 2.1725
Operations 0.2043
Transportation 0.0546
Working Cash 0.0001
Special Ed 0.0202

This is what should concern both payers and receivers of property tax - as the EAVs decline [100% certain], the Limiting Rate will rise to "make up the difference".

This is all new to EVERYONE but I get the feeling that payers of property tax aren't going to be real happy about this.

Don't shoot the messenger. And, all is calm here in 2010 as the 2009 tax bills will provide roughly the same amount of revenue as 2008's.

We're at the top of the roller coaster.

It’s hard to quarrel with the notion of neighborhood schools or more green space/recreational area surrounding our schools or ridding the school landscape of portables or preparing D41 finances for that proverbial “rainy day.” All of these concepts can generally be counted upon to inspire public support.

Fine.

What is not fine, however, and which should inspire no public support, is to contemplate doing any of the above with stolen taxpayer dollars, and . . . make no mistake about it . . . without the $6 million annual windfall (above and beyond the voter-sanctioned $6 million referendum proceeds) accruing to D41 every year from the 2001 phase-in, there would not be the amount of cash reserves fueling this current debate.

Most taxing bodies acquire the appropriate funds for major capital improvements or expansion by making a case to taxpayers through a legitimate referendum process . . . not by laying claim to ill-gotten funds. By choosing to stay the latter course, D41 perpetuates an end-run around its shareholders, continues to belie the public trust, and to a certain degree, makes current Board members and administrators as complicit in the fraud as those who originally concocted the disgraceful scheme 9 years ago.

It is beyond time that those who represent us at the Board table stop avoiding this most “inconvenient” of truths, and face up to their fiduciary responsibility instead of becoming sidetracked with land acquisition and the like . . . no matter how noble or lofty those ideas might appear to be.

Along that line . . . and as a good-faith start back to the Green Line . . . I will reiterate the suggestion of eliminating $2.6 million from the D41 budget by using “phase-in reserves” to abate bond and interest for the 2009 levy. An idea, by the way, that for our upcoming tax bills has a shelf life that expires the end of March 2010. If the Board neglects to take action by that date, it misses the opportunity to make restitution to taxpayers for yet another year.

With thanks to our resident phase-in/school finance guru, Michael Lynch, a stickler for support documentation, the following column (outlining D41's remaining debt service amounts) is taken from p. 26 of the Final Official Statement for the refinancing of the 1997 debt (Sept. 27, 2004):

2009 - $2,619,500
2010 - $2,661,563
2011 - $2,727,800
2012 - $2,840,000
2013 - $2,842,250
2014 - $2,849,000
2015 - $2,902,500
2018 - $3,075,000

Total - $22,517,613

If it chose to do so, the Board could elect to abate these annual bond & interest amounts with one resolution . . . necessitating that all current and future Boards dedicate into each annual budget a portion of the annual phase-in windfall for that year’s bond & interest payment . . . or they could address the abatement on an annual basis via separate individual resolutions.

Bond and interest makes up approximately 6.7% of the total D41 property tax bill. Informal calculations using 2008 levy data (again, thank you, Mr. Lynch) indicate that such action could potentially reduce the District’s tax rate by approximately 18 cents, in turn allowing taxpayers to see the D41 portion of their tax bill reduced by that amount.

Translated into round dollars . . . for the 2009 tax bill, due on June 1 and September 1, 2010, the reduction for a homeowner with a $300,000 home (EAV=$100,000) would be approximately $180.00; the reduction for a homeowner with a $600,000 home (EAV=$200,000) would be approximately $360.00; the reduction for a homeowner with a $900,000 home (EAV=$300,000) would be approximately $540.00, and so on . . . you get the gist.

While certainly not a perfect judgment for taxpayers who have kissed good-bye to thousands of dollars of their personal net worth since 2001 . . . and who stand to see thousands more evaporate each and every year that this fraudulent tax grab continues to go unaddressed . . . it is a start, which deserves as much vetting by our elected representatives on the Board as any number of other agenda items currently on the table.

AMEN!
Honesty is the best policy.
Accountability leads to credibility......
What are the six pillars again?
Most of this districts issues would start to go away IF it took SOME steps to restore its public's trust.

Gee, I thought voting in Steve, Bob and Dan was a great start in restoring the public's trust.

This seems more and more to me like a kindergarten sideshow. "If I can't have my way, I will not let you have yours" (frighteningly sounds a lot like congress, too.)

Is it your stance that the District will never get a vote or anything else from you unless they abate some tax money from 2001? You would actively block any and all proposals based on this one issue? Melbourne's suggestion is a great one IMO, but I harbor no realistic hopes that this will happen.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Herbold:


This seems more and more to me like a kindergarten sideshow. "If I can't have my way, I will not let you have yours" (frighteningly sounds a lot like congress, too.)

In what way? Do you mean the D41 board, or the posters on this site?

The last two elections were a great start but they are up against an entrenched administration with an agenda. as Steve and the rest of the board continue to utilize their authority, fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to their constituents, then we will start down the trust rebuilding path.
FYI, Many of the other communities that took advantage of the since closed loophole that allowed the $ in the first place have, at minimum, apologized and vowed to make it right. Some districts like in Hinsdale and Naperville abated the money and one districts board fired the entire administration in addition to making a commitment to make it right.
D41 has done????
This is not a "my way" thing at all. You and I along with a significant majority of our fellow residents made it known by our votes on the last referendum that we are concerned about some of D41's initiatives.
As D41 takes steps to re garner the public's trust, I along with other residents (including Melbourne, right Melbourne?) would certainly vote for reasonable initiatives.

Don't lose hope my friend.

Me too. Still waiting to hear from these two on the 2001 ref and what Solak and Vondrak will do to address this issue.

quote:

If it chose to do so, the Board could elect to abate these annual bond & interest amounts with one resolution . . . necessitating that all current and future Boards dedicate into each annual budget a portion of the annual phase-in windfall for that year’s bond & interest payment

This sounds totally reasonable to me. Why don't we do this?

I am convinced that we need to right the wrong before we can move forward. Spending ill gotten gains is only salting the wounds of many folk, who, for this very reason will now dig deeper into the "Say No" camp. In speaking with my neighbors, I am convinced that no matter how legitimate or reasonable, no future referendum will pass and that's the real shame.

Looks like this topic has made it to the D-41 Agenda. d41.dupage.k12.il.us... The board meeting is tonight at 7:00 at Ben Franklin for all who are interested in attending. See you there.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Ted E.,

Interesting word . . . hope.

I strongly maintain that the election of Vondrak, Solak, Kahler, Ellis and Smith in 2007 and 2009 inspired a very real hope amongst supporters that common sense would return to D41 after an absence of several decades . . . and that the words “fiscal responsibility” would become more than a trite, overused bullet point on campaign flyers.

The advent of such a talented group also brought the equally high expectation that a board with this level of intellect and critical thinking skill would get off the dime, and start tackling some tough issues. At the top of that list . . . the phase-in of the 2001 referendum, clearly the 900-pound elephant in the room.

Although most D41 administrative revisionists, and their loyalists, would have us believe otherwise, I repeat . . . that sleazy sleight of hand is not past history, and it is time to stop dismissing it as such. Taxpayer rip-off is committed each and every year that D41 dips into the extra $6 million booty that the phase-in enabled . . . treating the loot like some personal piggybank to which the District is entitled.

For this, or any Board to continue to look the other way, and avoid a substantive discussion/resolution of the 2001 phase-in does nothing more than sanction the fraud, and green light D41 administrators to come up with never-ending spending initiatives, such as possible land acquisition . . . or the $600,000 which was approved on Feb. 1, 2010 that will pay for almost half of the new special education classroom project at Hadley.

(Note: While the Hadley addition was advertised as being primarily funded by federal stimulus money, I was concerned to read on a recent District E-News communiqué that almost half of the $1.3 million addition will come from "accumulated developer donations and D41 operating funds" which once again raises nagging questions about the District’s ability to access such large sums of money at the drop of a hat.)

Courageous boards in Hinsdale, Huntley and Naperville long ago faced their phase-in demons head on. While there was absolutely zero expectation that previous D41 Boards under the aegis of Schmidt, Vivoda and Costa-Howard would find their moral compasses on this matter, such was not the case with the changing of the D41 guard 10 months ago.

I never completely lose hope, Candidate, but that’s not to say that I am not losing a little bit of patience . . . and heart. To watch such a “dream team” squander its potential by failing to take a leadership position on difficult issues . . . perhaps even allowing itself to be deftly "handled" by administrators and paid consultants . . . is proving to be a profound disappointment.

Hi,
I agree Ackerman, it would be great to hear from all of them now, especially those who asked for support from this GEBB back when they were seeking votes, and putting their signs on our lawns.

Here's what I do know about the D41 meeting on Tuesday night: Apparently, Jack Kahler was out of town but phoned in for the meeting. He presented a Motion to the board that would basically table all further discussion of purchasing land, until the board could figure out what to do about the FACT that (unless something is done - soon) we will be in a deficit within a few short years. We are not talking about 10 years from now. Sooner than that.

After much debate, his motion was voted down. The final vote was 4 to 3.
Kahler, Ellis and Smith all voted Yes.
Terra Howard, Erica Nelson, Steve Vondrak and Bob Solak voted No.

If you have a chance, I urge you to listen to the audio tape from Tuesday night's meeting. So very interesting to see where we are now. And yes, you are right about it being one year later. But when you listen to the audio perhaps you will see why we are where we are. The nice thing about the audio tapes is that you can hear exactly what happens at a meeting without having to show up. It's on the D41 website.
Melbourne: I share your frustration and can only imagine how those on the board who are trying to address this stuff must feel. Like swimming upstream.

I urge all to listen to the tape if you are concerned about this vote.

I was at the meeting Tuesday as well as the meeting before when this motion was first presented and discussed.
This is an over simplification of the motion as presented. I believe a more correct summation of the motion (and I do not mean to step on JK’s toes here) is to create a rule that would prevent he D41 board from discussing the purchasing of additional properties or the Master Facilities Plan until January of 2011. There are a couple of additional twist to it, and it was later amended to include language stating that the board would consider such discussions if requested to do so by the Finance and Facility Committee.

I believe that if you listen to the ensuing discussion and debate (that occurred at about 1 hour and 15 minutes into the meeting and lasted for 50 minutes), as well as the additional discussions that occurred at the end of the meeting when the vote on the motion was actually cast, you will most likely come to the conclusion that the board members were a lot closer philosophically than the vote indicates. As such, and even though he voted no, Bob Solak stated that he intended to bring a reformed similar motion at the next meeting.

All this is… potentially good or not – only time will tell if it stopped what could have been an either wasteful or fruitful purchase, or meant nothing at all.

However, there was nothing in the motion that required the board to figure out anything. Quite to the contrary, it only stated that the board couldn’t discuss it.

But, it was during the Finance and Facilities Committee meeting before the official board meeting that Drew Ellis recommendation the formation of a new sub-committee charged with reviewing the district’s budget and developing a list of suggested expenditures to be prioritized for the board’s review (again, I do not mean to step on toes and I am paraphrasing).

These are important discussions to have, as they highlight both the probable future budgetary deficits as well as the shortfalls of our current facilities.

I agree with Coveted – listen to the tape. Write the board members with your concerns and comments at the District website. Better yet, come to a meeting and speak out. If you want, just hold up a sign.

Rather than paraphrasing, here is the verbatim text of my motion:

“I move that any further Board action or consideration of new building construction or renovation, Land Acquisition, the Master Facilities Plan or facilities strategy, excepting only the project funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant or general maintenance projects, be postponed until January of 2011, and that all analysis and discussion of such matters be delegated to the Finance and Facilities Committee until that time.”

It simply means that resolving the district's financial situation must predicate any discussion about discretionary spending. Going into the meeting I expected the motion to pass by 4-3, but I was mistaken. CLE recapped the "yeas and nays" in a prior post, so I will leave the analysis to you.

Ackerman, I agree completely that our upcoming contract negotiations are very important. We really don't know what we can and can't afford, but the one undisputed fact is that our expenses are growing faster than revenues. That has to change or we will run out of money.

On this last point, the board is not close to agreement.

Jack Kahler

quote:

Originally posted by ackerman:
That insurance increase on the teachers that I've brought up before is absolutely neccessary. Any tenured teachers that felt compelled to job search because of higher insurance payments, cie la vie(give me some slack-took French 39 years ago).

Yeah - I know it sounds harsh, and it suggests taking money out of someone else's pockets, but given the state of state and local finances and benefits given private sector employees, I would hope our schools expected significantly increased contributions from and decreased benefits to teachers and staff.

I understand there are any number of young recent grads out there hungry for work. Anyone who wishes to test the employment waters can be readily replaced.

Ackerman,

As should reflected in the audio, my reason for voting against the motion was the desire to not have the Board handcuffed from considering the purchase of a smaller (non-referendum level) property - a home next to an existing facility, for instance. Such a property, should it become available, would first need to be discussed by the board in closed session to find out if we're even interested. But we cannot go into closed session from a Facilities and Finance Committee (not to mention not all BOE members attend those). And the motion would prevent us from discussing "any" land acquisition at the whole Board level. So, in order to discuss it we would have to rescind the motion at one meeting, go into closed session at the next (since we can't put it on the agenda and those have to be posted in advance), decide whether or not to pursue the property, and then vote back in the original motion.

The bottom line is while I'm OK with putting the MFP next steps and larger acquisition discussions/analysis in the Finance and Facilities Committee, I'm not willing to hinder the Board from acting on something smaller that could benefit the District.

The way I see it is quite simple. A motion was made to table Board discussions re: the spending of ill-gotten gains, not to mention at a time when projected budgets show D41 running running a deficit. Being phiosophically close on a such a pivitol issue means nothing - absolutely nothing. I applaud Kahler for having the courage to bring forward the motion and I also applaud Smith and Ellis for supporting it.

It's no wonder a certain someone had no problem or conscience when it came to writing and signing a $37k check for moving expenses without Board consent. Probably figured if he got caught, no one would do anything about it. And he was right.

I think he is referring to then president Johnny V. jumping the gun and prematurely reimbursing Dr. Reebok her moving expenses.