District 87 Superintendent recommends installing artificial turf at Memorial Field at a cost $1,600,000. Topic on agenda for Monday's board meeting.

See excerpts from the Resolution Action Memo along with a copy of the Memo pertaining to the Glenbard West Athletic Fields.

GlenEllynLife.com

Who said they were going for Memorial the whole time? More reaching across the aisle into our pockets.

Another district's financial woes.

"The problems are largely due to an unexpected drop in the consumer price index....leading to a shortfall in property tax revenue."

So, is District 87 exempt from this problem that we can be discussing spending millions for which there is no budget?

Wait until the pension funding calculations are completed.

While corporations have gotten hammered by pension obligations they couldn't afford, school districts and gov't employees have leaned on tax payers to fund much of theirs.

After 5 very good years in the market, the recent collapse will cause all pensions fund contributions to go way up in order to keep pace with the needed money in the pension plan.

Even those accounts that are invested in fixed income securities (i.e. treasuries) are hurting due to historically low interest rates.

Yes, they will be asking for more tax money from us, unless they cut their budgets somewhere else to offset.

And now it begins.

The ink isn’t even dry on the $1.6 million resolution for turf at Memorial Park, and the wheels are already starting to come off Glenbard’s buggy.

At last night’s District 87 Board meeting, it was divulged during the Finance Committee report that the District is seeking to cut $2 million from its list of 2009 summer remedial projects.

That’s right.

At the same time as Business Manager Chris McClain was dancing on the head of a pin at the January 26th meeting, assuring the Board that the District had identified sufficient “non-taxpayer” dollars to move ahead with artificial turf at Memorial Park . . . he apparently did not feel compelled to also share with the Board that District 87 is indeed facing financial shortfalls that will quickly require some hefty budget cuts.

Let me repeat.

Instead of sounding the warning siren before the Board voted 5-2 to approve the Memorial resolution, McClain (acting on orders from headquarters??) waited until after the vote to turn on the alarm.

Instead of pulling the plug on some frivolous plan for plastic grass . . . McClain is now recommending that the District cannibalize $2 million worth of construction/remodeling/repair work to our buildings that has been identified, planned, prioritized and budgeted for years!

Is it any wonder that the public at large is filled with skepticism, and continues to have so little confidence or trust in the administration of our schools?

Stay tuned for the matter to come before the entire Board of Education at the next meeting on February 23. If I were one of the five members lured into a “yes” vote two weeks ago, I’d have a few thorny questions for Mr. McClain.

So sad ... yet so true to form!

Why am I not surprised? To anyone on this board who is reading this who supported the turf and lights, what do you have to say now?

I personally know the majority of the Gain Ground folks...and I can only imagine that, if accurate, this kind of information will make them sick to their stomachs.

So is this shocking, predictable or shockingly predictable.

I smell a referendum coming.

I'm sure that no administrator will lose their job over this.

Many of our local governments will be experiencing unique budget predicaments this year. If these expenditures are important to you, it is time to stay informed, as many FY budgets are set in the spring.

Village explores options

At one point, maybe after the ref, didn't the district form a group of citizens to view the schools? Wasn't there some extensive work and research in developing the list of much needed improvements? Wasn't there a 5-10 year plan? What has happened to all of that? How can we move forward with a new project and cut things that were important a few years back? Has the list of cut projects been released?

from the St. Pet's bulletin (don't you love my source material) this past sunday: "Seniors invited to defer Property Taxes"
Qualifired Senior citizens, age 65 and older are invited to apply for the Senior Citizen Real Estate Tax Deferal Program. this Program allows participants to defer prop. tax payment until the property tax is sold. the deferral is treated as a loan and accrues 6% simple interest until paid. To qualify, the applicant' household imcome cannot exceed $50,000. additionally, the property must be used exclusively for residential purposes. reg. closes 2/22..."
ok, so their taxes are reduced under senior exemption already, but couple this with lost revenue from foreclosures and reduced property values and it's intuitive that the district 87 income WILL BE REDUCED in the very near future.
and we want plastic grass????

2/23 meeting should be a good one. how about taking the"resolution" off the table. a "resolution" probably has no teeth, and can be tabled to a "later date" (like in 5 to 10 years.) we are all in a rough boat, but i really think it's going to get very rough for our schools. REMEMBER THE 6 PERIOD DAY!!!!!

quote:

Senior Citizen Real Estate Tax Deferal Program. this Program allows participants to defer prop. tax payment until the property tax is sold.

Should that have read: "...until the property is sold.."?

I know of at least two seniors in the immediate area who have $100s of thousands of dollars in investments, cash and other high-value assets socked away but have "household incomes" of $50,000 or less. They get the Senior Freeze, as they are entitled to.

The Senior Freeze program needs to be looked at and perhaps modified a bit. One of my senior friends is "frozen" at 1999 rates. He missed out on all the assessor's "housing boom" fun and pays - in real dollars - about 1/2 of what his neighbor pays. His net worth, even without the house, is in the high six-figures.

One adjustment would be a better means test. Another might be moving the "freeze" year forward in time. Not leaving it forever "frozen" in the year it was first granted. Say, after 10 years at a given "frozen" rate, start moving it up so that it is never more than 10 years out of date...kind of a moving 10 year window.

What's with this crazy talk?
Next thing you'll be suggesting is that they actually cash in some of their savings to pay to ride public transportation!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dinsdale,

Just to be clear: The shortage in property tax dollars caused by the Senior Freeze is "spread around" to everyone else.

In other words, for every dollar they don't pay? We ALL have to make up the difference.

I'm not suggesting that the Freeze be eliminated, just tweak it a little to be more fair.

Freeze is a nice word.

Freeze the budgets for the school districts. Give administrators' salaries a nice haircut, say 10%. Reduce their cadillac benefits down to chevy size. Then tell the union we're doing our part, you do yours.

Board members should lobby anyone and everyone in the state who needs to be lobbied in order to remove obstacles and advance this strategy.

Watch for Pat Quinn waking up the tax swap proposal sometime during the next two years. They can 'hide' a true income tax hike inside that proposal to help the state budget, while our local heroes prevent any relief from arriving at our doors due to expected prop tax decrease by a combination of budget rises and borrowing a like amount beforehand, and sticking us with the bill.

quote:

Originally posted by sances:

Board members should lobby anyone and everyone in the state who needs to be lobbied in order to remove obstacles and advance this strategy.

Couldn't agree more!

Unfortunately, there is lobbying going on . . . but from the discussion that took place Monday evening at the District 87 Board meeting, it certainly bears no resemblance to the kind of reality-based, common sense solutions that you are suggesting.

What a thought!

On the contrary . . . with CPI dropping to zero or negative numbers, one popular notion being floated around Springfield by various hand-wringing, legislative school lobbyists is to revisit the Tax Cap, and replace the current formula with methodology that would better insulate school funding from economic uncertainty.

Not sure what form that might take since no one is talking “specifics” yet. But with LEND and the Illinois Education Association in the mix, you can be assured that the recommendation to legislators will not include a solution that is overly concerned with keeping a finger in the dyke on property taxes . . . or school spending in check!

Ironically, it is more likely that the recession, and the disastrous drop in CPI, will at long last provide a golden opportunity for these lobbyists to neuter the Tax Cap with a full frontal assault . . . something they have been itching to do since 1992.

As the shenanigans begin to unfold, it’s probably not too early for the public to do some lobbying of its own. Senator Cronin and Representative Pihos need to know that their constituents are engaged, and will be watching.

I always hate to make funny-fun-fun above the fold, but...there is a very interesting typo in your post, Melbourne.

Only you, mon cher Don Chianti!!

Although, admittedly, the "i" is preferred, my Funk & Wagnalls spells the word with both an "i" and a "y" . . .

Guess I still remember the latter from an old volume of Hans Brinker!