Grayslake D127 Approves Levy
- on 12.26.06
- D-127
- 7 Comments
- Digg
- Del.icio.us
The Grayslake High School District 127 approved the levies as presented at a special meeting this morning. Mr. McClain was absent, but all present board members voted to approve them.
The levies as presented asked for a 30% increase over last year. However, because of the tax cap they will not receive that much and are themselves expecting about a 6% increase.
There were 3 members of the public present to speak at the meeting. I presented each board member with a copy of my calculations on how they have overcharged the taxpayers by at least $6 million dollars. This was outlined in a past article for you to review if you wish. I asked the board to lower their levy to the level promised to the voters when the 2002 referendum was passed.
The two other members of the public wished to remain anonymous and I will honor that request just as the board did. In speaking to them afterwards they were both afraid of retribution in tax appraisals and other ways if the district knew who they were.
The first gentleman asked some very valid questions and observations:
- When does it stop?
- When do you start being accountable?
- Are you on the taxpayers’ side or the administrators and teachers side?
- Education is important, but so is a house to live in.
- You are forcing people out of their homes.
- The teachers have a union. What do the taxpayers have to help them?
Second, a business owner spoke:
- Neighbor is now selling their house of 15 years because they cannot afford the taxes.
- Owns her own business.
- Agreed with the first gentleman that taxes are too high.
- Attended school in New Trier East High School.
- Education is more important than the extras. The parents should foot the bill for those.
Board President Hager stated that the district newsletter being sent out in January will explain why the rate is what it is.
Mr. Lippert made the following statements:
- Tax rate is different than the assessment
- I know what is does to people
- Work with the villages to balance growth between commercial and residential
- Impact fees are set by the local municipalities
Mr. Lippert forgot to mention that although the municipalities set these fees, the school districts have the opportunity to be involved in the negotiation process and to help get the dollar amount that are finally agreed upon.
Mr. Hager mentioned there was a good article in the Daily Herald today about impact fees.
|
A bill that would change the way school districts negotiate for a critical source of land and revenue is raising eyebrows around the suburbs. The legislation would require school districts to negotiate impact fees directly with developers and prohibit municipalities from imposing school impact fees. Currently, cities and villages can collect impact fees for schools; school districts cannot. The bill also would require school districts to conduct an assessment of their needs to justify the fees or land donations they request. |
Mr. Lippert explained what they were doing is call a “balloon levy”. The actual levy will be lower when the actual assessments are out in March.
Dr. Zelek said that laws were changed this passed year changing the maximum levy rates for some funds. This ballooning allowed the district “flexibility to move pennies”.
This statement was astounding, but not a surprise. The audacity to call moving hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars as moving pennies is offensive to me and should be to all taxpayers. They take more than we agree to give them in a referendum and call it “stretching their dollars”, “maximizing their revenue” and now moving pennies. The attitude of entitlement has to stop. This is not their money. This is our money that is increased and taken from us each year.
After the meeting, Dr. Finger, District Superintendent, spoke to me and the other taxpayers present. She explained how the district operated in the black, but that next year it appeared they would run a slight deficit. My question to that is where did they spend all the money so fast? At last years levy meeting, it was stated that the extra money from phasing in the referendum had not been touched. They were stretching their dollars. So in 2 years they will have spent the entire $6 million dollars, plus the extra from this year and will be running a deficit. Where did this large increase in expenditures come from? You and I know full well, that once deficit spending starts, a referendum is soon to follow.
Now is not the time to just pass this off as you cannot do anything. Now is the perfect time to run for the school board. We need 4 solid fiscally conservative community members to run. Let’s find out where the money is truly being spent. Let’s hold the district accountable for how they are spending our money. It is time for taxpayer advocates to be elected to the school board. Stop sitting or get run over.
“This ballooning allowed the district “flexibility to move penniesâ€. This statement was astounding, but not a surprise. The audacity to call moving hundreds of thousands of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars as moving pennies is offensive to me and should be to all taxpayers.”
That statement seemed to strike a nerve with you. Did you ask him for clarification to be sure that you didn’t misunderstand what he meant? Is it possible that the “pennies” he referred to were not ‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’ and maybe they were a reference to the levy multiplier for each fund used in the ‘per $100 of EAV’ calculation instead? When slicing up where the money goes, it is often literally in pennies in the calculation.
Joe,
You can spin it all you like. It is still large amounts of money. The 2005 levies for just the Education and Operation & Maintenance were $21.5 million and 2.5 million respectively. The request for these funds in 2006 are $27.5 million and $3.5 million. Everyone can see that this is $1 million dollars in the O & M fund and $6 million in the ed fund. This is not pennies to the taxpayers.
2006 Levies
2005 Levies
I’m not debating the levy dollar amounts, just your understanding of the explanation of them. Sorry you see that as ’spin’.
Joe, I don’t know how you can debate the understanding of what the business manager said since you were not there and Lennie was. I think he was clear on what was said and the content with which it was said. My opinion… I think you questioning it was meant only to discredit the messenger.
Doesn’t sound to me like you were there either, Lisa. So your understanding of it is certainly biased by your husband’s account.
Your opinion is just that. I wasn’t discrediting the messenger, rather trying to point out another possible interpretation of the comments based on my knowledge of the kinds of numbers involved in the situation.
It is unfortunate that you are so quick to criticize my view from another perspective. Isn’t open and honest discussion about topics where there are differing opinions heathly? Or is it only healthy when seen through your filter?
“So your understanding of it is certainly biased by your husband’s account.”
Of course it is biased!!! I know my husband to tell the truth! I only know you from what I have seen you do a number of times on here. You make a snide comment about what he writes and then turn around and act like you are so offended at his answer. Case in point… above! Debate… yes, but what you are doing is trying to smear him. Truth be told, I just got tired of it. We even get email about why we even allow some of the comments that we receive.
So with that being said, may I remind you, Joe, that your comments as well as everyone else’s is screened/filtered and allowed to be posted here. This is not a message board. Although we have let some through, if you have something personal to say, please click on the link that says “email me” at the top of this blog. Or you can choose to do as some would do and write it on a message board that doesn’t have decorum.
Joe said, “trying to point out another possible interpretation of the comments based on my knowledge of the kinds of numbers involved in the situation”.
Again, you are trying to spin this to make it sound better. I was there. I heard how and why it was said. It was an arrogant display of the school district attitude of entitlement.