Monday, May 21, 2012

News Feed Comments
You are here: Home / CCSD #46 / Grayslake 46 and 127 Over Debt Limit

Grayslake 46 and 127 Over Debt Limit

February 5, 2006 by  
Filed under CCSD #46, D-127

2 Comments

I wanted to do a separate article about how Grayslake High School District 127 and Elementary District 46 are using Premiums to exceed debt limits and borrow more money than the voters approved. The full article about all the schemes used are here. [Emphasis mine]

          

But Grayslake Elementary District 46 and Grayslake High School District 127 couldn’t just take what voters were willing to give.

Let’s see what happened in each District.

  • Elementary District 46
              

    In 1999, they approved a $23.2 million bond issue to build two elementary schools.
    ————————
    And in 2004, they approved another $34 million to build an elementary school for the Madrona Village subdivision in the Lake County community of Round Lake.
    ————————
    On a 2001 issue, for example, the district issued $4 million in bonds and tacked on a $3.29 million premium.

    And like their counterparts, District 46 officials paid for the premium by agreeing to 9 percent compound interest on the loan.

    On those bonds, taxpayers will pay back $2.41 for every dollar borrowed — making it among the most costly loans issued by suburban school districts in the past six years.
  • High School District 127
              

    In 2002, they approved a $50 million bond issue to build a high school.
    ————————
    Twice since 2002, District 127 took cash bonuses — called premiums — in excess of its debt limit.
    ————————
    In total, District 127 has received $37.22 million in bonds and $17.28 in premiums — for a total of $54.50 million.

    That’s $4.50 million more than the $50 million voters approved.

    Voters now are due to pay back $95.71 million for their $50 million OK.

    And district leaders are prepared to borrow more.

    The district’s 2005-06 budget includes proceeds from a planned $14 million bond sale. That would bring the amount collected through loans and premiums to $68 million — $18 million more than voters approved.
    ————————–
    “Now we need other things,”

    Tags:

    Comments

    2 Responses to “Grayslake 46 and 127 Over Debt Limit”

    Trackbacks

    Check out what others are saying about this post...
    1. Education Matters US » Grayslake Taxpayers, Do You Want a Tax Break says:
      March 21, 2006 at 7:21 am

      [...] The discussion follows a Daily Herald analysis that revealed the district was one of many across the suburbs that took out premiums. But if the Grayslake district decided to give back some of the money, they’d be the first in the suburbs to do so following the study. —————————— The district took premiums that transcended its state-imposed debt limit. That’s not illegal, because by law, those bonuses don’t count against the limit. —————————— Board member Jill Rohrer said she sensed public pressure about returning some of the money. [...]

    2. Education Matters US » D46 Facilities Plan Discussion says:
      September 2, 2006 at 10:10 am

      [...] This is a very important discussion. This discussion will lead directly to whether the district will pay for this expansion with the money they received for overtaxing us and going over the debt limit. [...]