Thanks to inflation, Naperville School District 203 may decide to skip the collection of an additional $82 a year, on average, in property taxes that voters recently agreed to pay for facilities improvements.
This is because in recent years the Consumer Price Index has been very low. The tax cap law in Illinois allows taxing bodies to only increase their rates of collection by 5 percent or the CPI, whichever is lower. Like most taxing bodies in recent years, D203 estimated a low CPI of 2.5 percent. It turns out, the CPI is looking like 4.1 percent, which means D203 and other taxing bodies can collect more than they predicted.
It would appear, then, the D203 officials intend to take responsible action and forego collection of the additional amount they could have collected next year, thanks to the recent referendum. This action may be motivated by criticism the district endured after it overcollected taxes following a 2002 tax-hike referendum.
The board is scheduled to consider this action on March 17. This would forego only the higher taxes during the first year of the 20-year bond issue that voters agreed to.
What do you think it means? Should taxpayers cheer administrators and the school board for acting responsibly? Or are administrators and the school board deserving of criticism because their estimates were so far off and revenues are much higher than expected?
I think it means we all owe the critics of the referendum a word of thanks!
THANK YOU!!!! Their work had an effect.
This is getting better than an episode of Jerry Springer.
Anon -
You want to say thanks, when I want to know why the tax increase was needed to begin with? Why was this info whithheld? Surely the SB knew then.
T.B.
I think a little of both is due.
Cheering is due because the Board did Not decide to collect the first year just because they could. However, I highly suspect that the citizens' advisory group and the new Finance guy (Zager) had a lot to do with this action.
Jeers are due for two reasons:
1)It's hard to believe the Board did NOT know of the forecasting issues earlier in the process. If I recall correctly, many citizens and citizens' groups have been saying for years that the District's forecasts have been horribly conservative and not in the best interests of the taxpayers.
2)Without the highly-negative publicity the District received for the over-collection on the implementation of the 2002 referendum (estimated today as between $62 million and $100 million!), it is doubtful the Board would have foregone this $82.
Having said all of that, I believe the Board has a uniques opportunity in front of it: they can make the decision NOW to forego collecting the $82 UNTIL their budget, using current spending forecasts, no longer creates a surplus. Based on what we have heard, this could easily be
3-5 years at a minimum.
Additionally, to ensure that these new monies are not squandered, the Board should create a citizen's contract negotiations group (like the Finance group) to represent and guide the Board going forward on their vendor contracts. We as a community CANNOT afforf to wait until August of the contract year to negotiate with our largest vendors yet again!
Thanks....With the $82 I can now upgrade my Tall Skim Mocha from Starbucks to a Grande Skim Mocha over the next 52 weeks!
First off I live in 204 and we have our fair share of never ending SB issues. As a result of the whole NV vs WV vs MV saga our family was considering moving across town into 203. Then we started to pay attention to what is going on on the east side of town. Good lord, how is it even statistically possible for a town the size of Naperville to have two SD's the size of ours and both of them to be this screwed up?
I'd vote in a heartbeat to dissolve both school districts. Let's throw out both SD's SB's in their entirety, followed in close order by both Administrations. Lets get a fresh start with a single consolidated, newly elected school board and a whole new administration. Maybe for a change we can elect people who have the education, background, experience, and personal integrity to not only do a better and more conscientious job, but to will perform it in such a way that they will also be a role model to every student in our schools.
Dear "anonymous" of previous entry @10:22:
Re: combining #203 & #204 to save money and job duplication....You're making way too much sense. You should really think about moving away from here before you start drinking too much of the local cool-ade and get stupid. There's only one problem with your logical statement...it will never happen.
These guys and gals love their little fiefdoms way too much. The SB's, Supt.(s) and administrations are like the current warlords in Iraq or the old Earls of England. You would have to storm their walls, ram their draw bridges and drag them out by their hair before they would give up their little miniature power trips. Then they would call their union stewards, consultants and lobbyists to say this is bad for jobs. You have to understand, they would rather "stick needles in their eyes" then talk to us taxpayers and parents.
Good luck though my logical, fiscally responsible, tax paying brother!
If you think the District 203 and 204 boards are unresponsive to the voters now, just think how much less so they would be if we combined them.
Excellent article today (March 12th)in the Chicago Tribune about St. Charles SB District #303(Metro section, community briefing sub-group, page 7, titled "Administrative job cuts eyed to aid classrooms")
Their Supt. Don Schlomann decided to consolidate and/or eliminate some high-paid admin. staff positions over a 2-3 year period. District #303 has about 12 departments headed up by some 7 asst. Supts. and several Directors all making well over 6 figures. Eliminating 4 asst Supt positions and consolidating directorships will save over $500,000 annually. That money instead, will be infused into the classroom to directly benefit student and teacher resources.
What a "novel" idea! Kind of like a business getting rid of a few expensive VP's that just analyse data and pass paper up/down all day. Certainly our two local districts could share in some of this "administrative" re-shuffling idea. In addition, why not have them share some fees for consulting, data analysis, centralized purchasing, etc. etc. etc....eliminate duplication at the "staff" (admin.)level....yet remain separate at the "line" level (teachers, deans, principals etc.)
Here's the key to his analysis and decision.....and I quote Mr. Schlomann...."Our cost per pupil is below state average, but our administrators per pupil is way above average." What's the ratio in #203 and #204? Anybody know?