Yesterday, we gave School District 64 a kick in the ass. We feel they deserve it.
Today, we'd like to give them a pat on the back. We feel they deserve it.
On October 25, 2007, School District 64 sent out the following email notice. Our thanks to the PRU reader who shared this with us.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Parents of District 64 Students:
I am writing to ask your cooperation in helping to fight MRSA infection in District 64 schools. The guidelines immediately following this letter are being shared with all District 64 staff members. Teachers have been asked to review the information with students as a way to reinforce good personal health habits while pointing out the serious dangers of such infections.
Now we need your help and active cooperation to take the steps necessary at home to make sure your children are protected as far as possible from such infections. Please note especially the instructions on daily hygiene, avoiding the sharing of towels and personal items, laundering of clothes, and frequent hand washing.
Please feel free to contact your healthcare provider, the District 64 School Health Services Facilitator or your building Health Assistant if you have questions.
We are asking every District 64 household to adopt these guidelines. With everyone's cooperation and ongoing vigilance, we hope to keep all members of our District 64 community healthy and safe. Thank you for your support.
Sally Pryor, Ed.D.
Superintendent
******
How YOU can help fight MRSA infections in District 64
Sandy Larson, RNFacilitator, School Health Services & Certified School Nurse
In response to the media coverage of Community Associated Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (CA-MRSA) infections, it is important to remember that District 64 already has practices in place that address this real concern. Although student athletes are cited as the primary focus for transmission of this infection, staphylococcus aureus is a bacteria that is commonly found on the skin or in the nose of healthy people. This makes everyone subject to a possible exposure in many settings.
Risk factors associated with the spread of this bacteria include:
o Direct skin-to-skin contact with infected persons (non-intact skin allows a point of entry for the bacteria)
o Sharing contaminated personal items (towels, razors, soap, clothing)
o Inadequate personal hygiene
o Direct contact with contaminated environmental surfaces
In District 64, we practice Universal Precautions and take every measure to evaluate students and staff with any kind of skin lesion. Teachers are responsible to send students with any questionable skin condition to the health office for evaluation. Skin rashes, wounds or lesions require medical evaluation and physician documentation regarding treatment, dressing, and contagiousness in the school environment.
All staff have been asked to be aware of and follow these hygiene practices, and to share reminders with students to prevent the spread of MRSA, as well as other infectious organisms:
o FREQUENT HAND WASHING - use soap, rub for 10 seconds, rinse well.
o Use hand sanitizer if you cannot wash your hands.
o Any skin lesion must be evaluated, treated and kept covered with clean dressings, as indicated.
o Good body hygiene is essential, including showering with soap.
o Avoid sharing personal items such as towels, clothing, skin lotions, or razors.
o Do not touch skin lesions/abrasions or bandages on another without the use of protective gloves.
o Wear clean clothing daily - washed in hot water and dried in a hot dryer to kill bacteria.
o Clean environmental surfaces on a regular/as needed basis where potential wound, blood, or body fluid spills may occur.
Maintaining clean, healthy, intact skin is the first line of defense against innumerable diseases. As we work together to keep District 64 healthy, we will assess areas where practices can be improved and awareness can be increased.
Remember that the most important practices are already in place, and that questions that arise about health practices are being addressed on a daily basis.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you for your cooperation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither the Park District nor the City has posted anything like the above on their websites, nor has the City made use of its NorthStarNet email notice capabilities.
To the Community Health Commission: We hope your fundraising/recognition dinner was a success. Now bend over, we've got something for you.
October 30, 2007
An 'A' for Effort
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
Kudos to Dist 64 for info on health issues. But lets get back to real discussion. One could spend hours trying to break down all the issues concerning test scores, teaching methods, money, and where we fall in the ranks. Isn't it funny though, that we don't look at where it should all begin. AT HOME. As a 64-207 grad, it seems to me that the biggest change from our generation is parenting, or lack of. Growing up in PR, most mothers were stay at home moms and fathers worked 8 to 10 hour a day as the sole financial provider. Now, we have power families who have latch key kids expected to be able to take care of themselves, do their homework, and be all grown up by the age of 8. Lets remember, kids are kids, not mini adults. School is a tool for growth, not a day care. Over booked childrens activities, are a substitute for hands on parenting. And it leaves little time for actual schoolwork. Not excusing the many issues that plague our schools. But when we teach our kids that competition is not healthy, it makes for hurt feelings or that average is ok. And we applaud them for just getting the work done instead of insisting that they do their very best, it sends a wrong message. Perhaps that's why test scores are down. Take charge of your childs your childs furture. Pay attention. Do the proper reasearch into our schools. Just sitting back and complaining about it, or putting blame on the district doesn't solve the problem. We pay the taxes, and assume that all is being taken care of. Wrong! Get involved, go to meetings, ask questions, and start insisting for nothing shy of the very best from our schools. We do pay the taxes, and do the fundraisers, and we should not settle for anything less than great for our kids.
Parents must be engaged in the process, but teachers and administrators need to be held accountable for the educational systems they run.
It's time we stopped the reflexive, unthinking, non-critical embrace of ideas or programs just because they're
"new" or because somebody has slapped a "for the kids" label on them. Just because "Trix are for kids" doesn't make them the nutritional equivalent of broccoli.
It's time we shook off the teacher's union brainwashing and recognized that every teacher is not a cross between Mother Theresa and Albert Schweitzer. A lot of them are just standard government issue bureacrats - only with more time off, more job security and better benefits. We need to start properly compensating the good ones and expediting career changes for the rest.
It's time we stopped letting the "educators" run the schools. Most educators couldn't manage a hotdog cart, yet we give them multi-million dollar budgets and then wonder why they're always running short of cash.
And it's time we elected smart, savvy, analytical, skeptical, frugal, decisive and courageous people to our school boards - people who see their public duty as something more than getting a caucus endorsement, switching on the auto pilot, and staying out of the administrators' way.
We've accepted way less than we deserve, and way less than we've been paying for. Do we keep sleepwalking or do we wake up and smell the coffee?
Shepherd makes a lot of good points. One question: how will we ever elect good people to the school board when the average Park Ridge voter can't see beyond an exotic name on the ballot and dings a candidate for that reason?
Another question: as long as the "get-along, go-along" caucus runs the show, how is anything going to change?
It seems to me the "go-along, get-along" caucus only *thought* they ran the show...and maybe the "go-along, get-along" candidates they endorsed thought that too, or the candidates endorsed by the caucus might have acutally acted like candidates and bothered to campaign beyond the doors of the Field School auditorium.
If the voters selected a plain name, AND NON-ENDORSED CANDIDATE, over an "exotic" name of an ENDORSED candidate...well, maybe the voters were as "prejudiced" as they've been accused of being by some folks and those who ran the caucus...who, incidentally, don't have the balls to say anything publicly - but they sure know how to smile and dial and say obnoxious things to newly elected office holders...isn't that right, caucus c#&!ksuckers...
...or maybe the guy that got elected is known by an awful lot of people because he works at a bank in the community, AND he is active with his kids activities...and maybe he didn't come across as some smug heir apparent who thought he was a shoe-in because the caucus elected him in their "mini-election".
Maybe, just maybe, the voters made a choice to go with a guy that wasn't combed and brushed by the caucus first.
I did.
Down as I am on the caucus, I'm pretty sure the voters didn't care who'd been picked. They just voted the name. It's not like the other caucus-endorsed candidates suffered. So we ended up with a guy who had dropped out of the race and then wasn't man enough to keep his word and refuse the seat.
We ended up with a guy who was man enough to abide by the majority vote.
I can't say the same for the whiners who think he should have "refused the seat" and thereby also "refused" the majority vote...and some actually attempted to get him to "refuse the seat".
Democracy may suck at times, but even when it does, it's STILL better than everything else...and the fundamental agreement of democracy is that the majority vote carries the day.
The tenure system is part of the problem. Where else are you guaranteed a job for life (or as long as you want it)? Once a teacher has tenure, that's it! They can slack off, they're paid the same as the teacher who brings innovative ideas and excitment to the learning process and we allow it to happen. Since it's unlikely we'll ever be rid of tenure in District 64, how about at least moving teachers around from building to building on a yearly basis? Don't let them get so entrenched in any one building. Kind of boring when a kid knows he's going to have the same projects his older sibling did two years before just because he's got the same teacher who can't be bothered to come up with anything new and different. Might be boring for the teachers as well, so why not shake things up??
Majority vote gave us a guy who lied about his intentions when he said he was dropping out of the race. Just goes to show you: the people get the government they deserve. And PR deserves this bunch.
I'm hearing a lot of general slams of the school board. Could someone be more specific in their criticism? For example, M. Anderson, you said you were never a D64 parent-- have you attended meetings of the school board? There is a lot of venom floating around, and I'd like to understand why.
You want "more specific" criticisms of the D-64 Board?
Check out the D-64 finances since it built the "new" Emerson - they've been barely "one step ahead of the sheriff" that whole time, even after that sneaky $5 Million "back door" working-cash bond issue in 2005.
Check out the test scores since then compared to other districts, a number of which spend less per pupil, and which pay their teachers and administrators less on average, and even have more "low income" families, than does D-64.
Read up on how they made almost $12 Million of budget cuts over the past several years while claiming no harm to educational quality, but how they are planning to use the higher taxes from the just-passed referendum to restore a lot of those cuts.
And then go to a D-64 Board meeting and see the rubber-stamps that pass for "our representatives" on that Board.
In response to the anonymous reply listed two above: you have got to be kidding! Several responses ago, M. Anderson stated that he “will never begrudge one penny of public money spent to help special needs kids” and we absolutely agree. However, the district has made a conscious and public effort to let the community know that the district is also funding programs for the brighter kids, which we must take issue with.
They have the nerve to broadcast that the Channels of Challenge program “addresses the needs of academically gifted children” when in fact they refuse to include an academically gifted child in the program because the child's performance on a one-page (this was Kindergarten) non-normed, non-standardized, achievement based test did not meet their criteria; we didn't know we should teach her to count by 3's. This refusal came in the face of an individualized test report by an educational psychologist in which the child clearly tested gifted and several lengthy calls that ended with the Channels of Challenge director for the school telling us "we don't like to leave any child behind," but, clearly having every intention of leaving our child behind.
In the face of such an intractable refusal to accommodate our child's legitimate educational needs, we felt we had no choice but to move to a private school that would do so. And the Superintendent's response to our concerns when we found ourselves with no choice but to leave? “Good luck and let us know if you want to come back.” It is no wonder the test scores are falling when your brightest students are ignored or in our case just give up and leave.
Would you like some cheese with your whine?
You know, those of you who have criticisms of the way D64 manages its finances really ought to consider serving on the Community Finance Committee. They are looking for people. Bring your views to them-- it's a way for you to have an impact.
To anonymous at 1:01 am, you should perhaps educate yourself on tax caps in Illinois, which ranks 2nd to last (only Mississippi, I think, is worse) in state funding for education. Much of what you are complaining about are the same complaints people made at coffees during the referendum effort, and those complaints were based on people not understanding what was really happening with respect to the finances in the district. The coffees were designed to educate people and answer questions. The current board members admitted that mistakes had been made in the past, when the district had more cash (before the tax cap was instituted), but that very concrete steps had been taken to see that those things don't happen again. The community finance committee is one of them. Yes, some of the cuts from the last five years will be restored, but not all of them-- in fact I think most of them will remain in place. They had to stop spending on technology, for example, and now they are going to try to bring that up to speed. That is a GOOD thing. Would you rather they not do that? And Bruce Martin, who heads up the finance department for the District IS a financial guy, not a teacher. Get educated yourself, go to the District website and read up before you come here and lambast the District. No, they are not perfect, but let's at least make the criticisms be grounded in fact.
Ahhhh....
Now I get it. You must be on the school board.
Respectable points nearly all around.
We're amazed. We put up a nice positive piece about something D64 has done, and look at all this negativity. We hope the Lord of the Manor isn't too disappointed.
Seriously people, we are loving the impassioned debate; far too many folks seem to feel disagreement has no place in the public discourse and is harmful to the creation of public policy.
We feel very differently. Too much happy horseshit and you'll rot your oats.
Well, PRU's got that right. It's good to thrash out issues of the day. Good to avoid getting personal, too. I shall keep trying.
One request for each of the anonymous posters: please try to come up with a pen name. It's just too hard to keep track of everyone otherwise.
To Anonymous 12:06 p.m. - You slam Anonymous 1:01 a.m., but you don't address several of his/her more important points, including test scores and spending by comparable districts. But let me address your points:
1. Did you make up that Illinois state funding number? Per the NEA's website, for the 2004-05 school year (the most recent one available) Illinois ranked 12th in state funding, 4th in local gov't funding and 7th in overall gov't (fed, state, local) funding.
2. Tax caps have been around since 1996. How dumb do even school bureaucrats and rubber-stamp Board members have to be to bumble along for the past decade the way they have?
3. I went to one of those referendum coffees and it was pure propaganda - with a bunch of pro-referendum people simply steamrolling the average citizens with the same kind of made up "facts" as your state funding rankings.
4. The current D-64 Board admitting
"that mistakes had been made in the past" is total buck-passing. Did current Board member Marty Joyce admit that he made mistakes when he was on the Board back in the '90s?
5. If D-64 needs an unelected
"Community Finance Committee" to manage its finances, then the D-64 Staff and Board (including
"financial guy" Bruce Martin) are incompetent. Period. And if they're
incompetent to manage the District's finances, then their handing off financial decisions to the likes of Phil Eichman, Craig Elderkin, Diana Stapleton and the rest of that merry band is probably
also incompetent.
From what I've seen of D-64 over the past decade, the inmates have been running the asylum - and still are.
No, Mr. Radermacher, you are wrong. I am NOT on the school board. Nor have I ever been. I frankly am not willing to make the time sacrifices that those folks make to serve in that capacity. I do try to stay informed, though. Which is all I was suggesting to you.
Good point from M. Anderson-- I will use a name from here on out.
Joy, my “school board” shot was aimed at the “whine and cheese” fun being poked at me. If that was you so be it, but I’m guessing it wasn’t. However now that you have directed comments at me in another direction please allow me to respond.
My first thought at your comment is that it must be purely tongue-in-cheek humor. If that is the case you can stop reading now. However your writing gives the impression that you are serious.
First, are you actually suggesting that my wife, Margaret McGrath, or I “ought to consider serving” and that we should “try to stay informed”?
1. My wife and I have served and currently serve on numerous community organizations.
2. I have served as an Alderman in Park Ridge and on the Zoning Board of Appeals.
3. As for District 64, my wife currently serves on the District 64 Insurance committee.
Second, you seem to imply that in meeting your “time sacrifice” criteria, which my wife and I seem to meet, automatically makes you capable of determining school district priorities. Let me assure you that it doesn’t.
I have spent my career as a CFO setting budget and performance requirements in some of the toughest industries in this area. The ones who survive and strive are the ones who are willing to make the tough decisions necessary to reach full potential. Dave Kovic makes an excellent point that tax caps have been around since 1996. Yes they have and guess what? The school districts that district 64 rank behind have the same tax cap restrictions as 64. So why then are we so far behind?
Mr. Radermacher, I wasn't actually addressing you except to respond to the comment that I thought you were making to me about being on the board (which resulted from a lag in the postings). So, thanks for educating us all on your service, etc.. but I wasn't really calling any of that into question. I still say that people need to be informed before they criticize, and I still think if people are going to complain about how their tax dollars are being spent on education they should go to school board meetings or serve on the board, or serve on the Community Finance Committee. If you feel your service has done that, then good for you.
Joy,
You hold an interesting point of view that seems to have several underlying assumptions:
1) People who offer their criticisms or complaints are uninformed, and
2) In order to have those criticisms or complaints addressed one must seek an elected office or membership on a committee, and
3) Those who have criticisms or complaints must attend meetings.
The PRU Crew disagrees with what we believe to be your underlying assumptions.
Offering criticisms and complaints does NOT mean someone is uninformed. It may simply mean they disagree with the way business is being conducted, and the way in which they are being represented.
Elected office holders are, by virtue of their having been elected, obligated to listen to the criticisms and complaints being offered by the constituents they purport to represent.
The very nature of electing representatives is for the purpose of NOT having to do the job one's self.
After all, it's not as if these elected office holders have been conscripted; they volunteered themselves and promised to do the job. Yes, they have committed themselves to putting in the time. But no, activity does not equal achievement, nor does it give even a volunteer office holder a pass for doing the job poorly, albeit even if that is only the opinion of some, of their constituents.
May we ask your indulgence? You have stated that you make an effort to stay informed, and we gather from your posts that you believe others are not educated about issues such as tax caps.
Would you be kind enough to explain your understanding of the tax cap, how the tax cap has hurt our school district, and why some other school districts, also laboring under tax caps and with higher percentages of "disadvantaged" students and lower spending per pupil and staff, manage to out perform our students?
Joy, I’m sorry to inform you but I do not feel that my service or that your attending meetings qualifies either of us to complain. The criteria for anyone to offer criticism of District 64 is to simply have their children attend or for them to pay taxes to that body. As for the finance committee you continue to support as being the entity which holds all the answers, I already serve on my daughter’s school’s finance committee. That would be for the school we moved her to when district 64 mishandled her educational needs.
PRU,
To address your assumptions about my assumptions:
1) No, I do not at all believe that people who criticize or complain must be uninformed. That would be absurd of me. I was reading things here that I felt were uninformed statements, so I was simply trying to say "before you make those statements, you should look into it."
On your second and third points, I acknowledge that I might be a little intolerant of people who complain but don't affirmatively try to become part of the solution rather than just keep on complaining. That's just me. Mostly, though, my comments were addressing specific points that were being made that I felt were uninformed.
I had no idea I would piss people off so much by making that suggestion!
And now I find the PRU crew sort of challenging me to "educate" the few people still reading this thread about tax caps and comparing D64 to other unnamed districts....
OK, so could you give me the districts you are referring to? I will give it a shot, provided you really want to know and are not just asking me to do so because you are pissed at me for clearly taking a different view of things than the majority reading here.
Joy,
Are you sure about who is "pissed off"? We simply remarked upon your point of view and asked your indulgence.
Perhaps you could start with refuting, with supporting information, the specific points you believe are being made in an uninformed way.
Why not begin with a simple explanation of your understanding of tax caps. We'll even give you a hint to begin: "tax caps" are a misnomer. Here's another hint: PTELL.
Thanks a bunch for any "education" you deign to provide the PRU Crew and PRU readers. We assure you, people are still reading this thread.
For anyone that cares:
Property Tax Extension Limitation Law by Referendum,
An Overview
April 2002 (PIO-62)
What is the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL)?
The PTELL is designed to limit the increases in property tax extensions (total taxes billed) for non-home rule taxing districts.
Although the law is commonly referred to as "tax caps," use of this phrase can be misleading. The PTELL does not "cap" either individual property tax bills or individual property assessments. Instead, the PTELL allows a taxing district to receive a limited inflationary increase in tax extensions on existing property, plus an additional amount for new construction.
The limit slows the growth of revenues to taxing districts when property values and assessments are increasing faster than the rate of inflation. As a whole, property owners have some protection from tax bills that increase only because the market value of their property is rising rapidly.
Payments for bonds issued without voter approval are subject to strict limitations.
If a taxing district determines that it needs more money than is allowed by the limitation, it can ask the voters to approve an increase.
The collar counties (DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will) became subject to the PTELL for the 1991 levy year for taxes paid in 1992; Cook County was added for the 1994 levy year for taxes paid in 1995. Public Act 89-510 allows county boards to give voters in all other counties the opportunity to decide if the PTELL should apply to their counties. In addition, Public Act 89-718 allows county boards of counties that are subject to the PTELL by referendum to give voters the opportunity to rescind the PTELL using the same referendum process.
What is the "limitation"?
Increases in property tax extensions are limited to the lesser of 5% or the increase in the national Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the year preceding the levy year. The limitation can be increased for a taxing body with voter approval.
The CPI used is for all urban consumers for all items as published by the United States Department of Labor.
A history of the limitation is below: 1991 - 5.0% * 1995 - 2.7% 1999 - 1.6%
1992 - 3.1% ** 1996 - 2.5% 2000 - 2.7%
1993 - 2.9% 1997 - 3.3% 2001 - 3.4%
1994 - 2.7% 1998 - 1.7%
* CPI was 6.1%.
** For Cook County, the limitation for 1994 was 5.0%.
How is the PTELL question brought to a county referendum?
County boards of counties other than Cook and the collar counties decide whether or not to allow voters to choose if property tax extension increases should be limited. The county board can place the issue on the ballot at any election other than a consolidated primary election by passing an ordinance or resolution at least 65 days before the election.
Referenda made under the PTELL are exempt from the requirement that taxing districts may have only three public questions on a ballot.
The question is placed on a separate ballot and is worded as follows:
"Shall the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (35 ILCS 200/18-185 through 18245), which limits annual property tax extension increases, apply to non-home rule taxing districts with all or a portion of their equalized assessed valuation located in (name of county)?"
What is the county clerk's role in the referendum?
Once a county board agrees to have a PTELL referendum, the county clerk has two major responsibilities. The first is ensuring that the question is placed on the ballot either by doing so directly or by sending a certified copy of the resolution to the proper election authorities for them to place it on the ballot. Second, immediately after the referendum, the county clerk must notify all taxing districts located in the county and the Department of Revenue that the referendum was held and its result.
How does the referendum affect individual taxing districts?
If the county referendum is approved by the voters, the PTELL applies to non-home rule taxing districts that are located entirely within the county. A taxing district that overlaps two or more counties is treated differently. Two conditions must be met before the district becomes subject to the PTELL. First, all counties in which the taxing district is located must hold referenda. Second, a majority of the taxing district's equalized assessed value must be located in counties where voters have approved the referenda. If these two conditions are met, the entire district becomes subject to the PTELL, even the portion in any county where voters rejected the referendum. After the final referendum is held, the Department of Revenue will notify the district and the county clerks of all the counties in which the taxing district is located if the district is subject to the PTELL.
Can the PTELL by referendum be rescinded?
Yes. The county board in counties other than Cook and the collar counties may again put the PTELL question to the voters using the same referendum process and ballot question that made taxing districts subject to the PTELL. If the voters reject the PTELL at this referendum, taxing districts located entirely within the county will no longer be subject to the PTELL.
A taxing district that overlaps two or more counties and that is subject to the PTELL by referendum will no longer be subject to the PTELL if two conditions are met. First, the question must be put on the ballot in each county in which the district overlaps unless the county's voters rejected the most recent PTELL referendum. Second, a majority of the taxing district's equalized assessed value, other than equalized assessed value in Cook or the collar counties, must be located in counties where voters have rejected the most recent PTELL referendum.
If these two conditions are met, the entire taxing district will no longer be subject to the PTELL, even the portion in any county where voters have approved this referendum. The Department of Revenue will then notify the district and the county clerks of all the counties in which the district is located that the district is no longer subject to the PTELL.
When are levies affected by the PTELL referendum ?
For taxing districts located entirely within a county, the PTELL applies to levies made after January 1 of the year immediately following a voter-approved PTELL referendum. For example, if voters approve a referendum in November 1998, districts in the county will first be affected for 1999 taxes, payable in 2000.
For taxing districts that overlap two or more counties, the PTELL applies to levies made after January 1 of the year immediately following the referendum that makes the district subject to the PTELL.
The PTELL does not apply to levies made after January 1 of the year immediately following a referendum that results in a taxing district no longer being subject to the PTELL.
Does the PTELL guarantee that individual tax bills will increase no more than the limitation?
No. The PTELL only limits increases in taxing districts' extensions. Individual tax bills may still increase or decrease. Some of the reasons tax bills could increase more than 5% or the CPI are below.
The property is in a taxing district that is able to increase its extension by more than 5% or the CPI increase because it is a home rule municipality or an overlapping taxing district that is not subject to the PTELL.
Voters approved an increase in tax rates or in the limitation.
Voters approved a bond issue or an increase in the debt service extension base.
New bonds were issued before the PTELL referendum.
The property had been under-assessed in relation to other properties and is reassessed.
The property had a homestead exemption or other exemption that was removed.
The property has a greater share of the tax burden because the assessed value of other property was decreased.
Can the district receive more than a 5% or the CPI increase?
Taxing districts are allowed additional increases for new construction, annexations to the district, voter-approved increases in the limit itself, voter-approved increases in tax rates and voter-approved new rates, and the Tax Increment Financing district (TIF) increment when the TIF expires.
Are there other restrictions on extensions in the PTELL?
A taxing district subject to the PTELL may not levy for a fund it has never used unless it obtains voter approval.
A district cannot increase its maximum rate without voter approval, even if the taxing district is authorized by a law other than the PTELL to increase its maximum rate without referendum.
What is the impact of the limiting rate?
The limiting rate is calculated, for each taxing district, by the county clerk to implement PTELL. The sum of a district's rates extended for those funds subject to the PTELL cannot exceed this limiting rate. After calculating preliminary rates for the funds, the county clerk will compare the sum of these rates to the limiting rate. If this sum exceeds the limiting rate, the county clerk will reduce each rate proportionally, unless instructed by a taxing district to reduce them in a different way.
What is the aggregate extension?
The aggregate extension is that portion of a taxing district's total extension that is subject to the limitation. The funds included in the aggregate extension are the annual corporate extension for the taxing district and those special purpose extensions made annually. Some examples of extensions included in the aggregate extension are those for self-insurance, pension plans, unemployment and workers' compensation, and, whether levied annually or not, road district permanent road funds.
What extensions are not included in the aggregate extension?
Some examples of extensions that are not included in the aggregate extension and, therefore, not limited are those for
general obligation bonds issued prior to the referendum that made the taxing district subject to the PTELL.
bonds issued to refund or to continue to refund bonds that were issued before the PTELL referendum.
general obligation bonds issued after the PTELL referendum, if approved by the voters.
bonds issued to refund or to continue to refund voter-approved general obligation bonds.
alternate bonds, sometimes called "double barreled bonds," issued under Section 15 of the Local Government Debt Reform Act.
limited bonds, to the extent the payments do not exceed the debt service extension base, minus certain offsetting amounts.
building commission leases used to retire bonds issued by the commission before the PTELL referendum.
See Section 18-185 of the Property Tax Code for more details.
How is the aggregate extension base used under the PTELL?
The aggregate extension base is used in calculating any increase allowed. For most taxing districts, the aggregate extension base is the previous year's aggregate extension. There are, however, some exceptions.
If a district reduced its aggregate extension in the prior year, the highest of the previous three years' aggregate extensions may be used as the aggregate extension base.
If districts merge or consolidate, the aggregate extensions of the consolidating districts are added.
If a taxing district transfers a service to another district, the part of the aggregate extension base used to provide revenues for that service is transferred to the district taking over the service.
If a new district is formed that does not have an aggregate extension base, or if a district does not have an aggregate extension base because it has never levied for the funds subject to the PTELL, then the voters must approve the aggregate extension by referendum before it levies for the first time. This question may be placed on a ballot at the same election as the referendum creating the new district.
Are there other provisions for bonds under the PTELL?
A referendum can be held for any bonds under Section 18-190 of the Property Tax Code. Other bonds can be issued using the debt service extension base provision. This provision allows county clerks to continue to extend taxes for a taxing district's non-referendum bonds at the same level as for the levy year in which the referendum was held that made the district subject to the PTELL. When issuing new bonds that will be financed using this provision, the district must label them "limited bonds" under Section 15.01 of the Local Government Debt Reform Act. The debt service extension base can be increased by referendum.
Are TIFs subject to the PTELL?
TIFs are not taxing districts and are not directly subject to the PTELL, but the amount of property tax raised from the TIF increment may be reduced because the PTELL may lower the tax rate.
Do you need additional information?
A more detailed publication, The Property Tax Extension Limitation Law, a Technical Manual, is available from the Department of Revenue. You may also wish to consult your taxing district's legal counsel, the county state's attorney, or write or call us at the address and telephone number below.
OFFICE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES
ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
PO BOX 19033
SPRINGFIELD IL 62794-9033
(217) 782-3627
I appreciate all of the discussion in these comments, even if my school board colleagues and I got called a few names in the process . . .
Without responding to each comment individually (although I'd be happy to respond to anything specific you'd like to ask me), I hear two general concerns raised in the comments. One concerns the quality of the education D64 delivers. I have heard community members range on this issue from happy with the status quo to quite angry that our test scores are not higher. I tend to take a more middle view. We are a good school district, with about 90 percent of students meeting or exceeding state standards. But where you are should never be good enough -- we need to make sure we always have an ethic of continuous improvement. As school board members, we'll do our best to instill that ethic. We could use your help, in staying engaged and coming to meetings to comment.
The other concern I heard in the comments was financial. Prior to the referendum, our fund balance was dropping dangerously because our expenses were rising faster than revenues. (Revenues are capped at the rate of inflation.) This was due to an increase in students over the past decade, health insurance costs, and energy costs. The referendum should reverse that trend and help us maintain a prudent fund balance for at least 10 years. (At some point in the future, things may decline again for the same reasons they did last time, but the referendum money will keep us healthy for a long time.) What I just said is basically what those of us who campaigned for the referendum said in coffees. I know one commenter called those "made up facts." I'd be happy to go over finances in more detail than this if it helps.
Please feel free to e-mail me (jheyde@d64board.org) with any comments or questions that aren't appropriate for a blog comment. I'll also try to watch for more comments on this post. Finally, please come to our meetings or volunteer for a committee like the Community Finance Committee. I think we're doing a pretty good job, but most decisions only get better when more people are engaged.
Outstanding contributions to the PRU public pool!
Thank you very much.
I wonder if the school board members that are viewing this thread can provide a few facts that I lack.
Mr Heyde points out why D64 needed to go to referendum: expenses rising faster than revenue. Specifically sited as factors contributing to this were (1) energy costs (2) an increase in students over ten years and (3) an increase in health care costs.
Mr. Heyde, can you provide: (1) the number of enrolled students ten years ago as compared with today, (2) the amount of money spent on energy by the district over the last 3-4 years and (3) a bit of a breakdown on the healthcare costs (how did the go up, what do the employees of the District pay for coverage, etc.)
I know from reviewing the finance information on the D64 website that the highest expense for the district is personnel. When an increase in the number of students is sited as a reason to go to referendum, is it because there is a correlating teacher/personnel cost? Is there a figure for what each student costs the district? I'm assuming that there is a metric out there that for every X number of new students, a new teacher must be hired?
Thanks...just trying to learn more.
Anonymous,
I'll need to supplement this comment once I have the chance to check some of the numbers, but I'll comment now from memory.
D64's student population has increased about 18 percent in the last 10 years or about 650 extra students. You are right that this translates rather directly into additional teacher salaries (even though, prior to the referendum, D64 controlled the growth in the number of teachers partly by increasing class size). For the latest year we had data during the referendum campaign, it cost about $10,000 per year to educate a student, so the additional students cost D64 about $6.5 million per year. School districts don't get a "break" on their property tax cap limit when enrollment increases.
I'll have to look for the figure on energy price increases, but natural gas prices generally have risen faster than inflation in the past few years. D64 has an energy conservation program that has resulted in using about 25 percent less energy than before, but energy costs have still exceeded inflation.
I'll also have to check the health insurance increases, but from memory, I recall that, like most employers, D64 has seen 10% + increases over most of the past few years. (The most recent year was a little lower.) Teachers with "single plus one" or family coverage pay a share of the cost that is comparable to the private sector average. Teachers with single coverage pay a smaller share, but that share has increased over time from zero several years ago to the current level.
Finally, you also asked about class size. D64 has a class size policy that sets the maximum size for a class. The maximum depends on the grade level. The District website has a lot of detail on this (www.d64.org, click on "District Finances," then the "Fact Book," then "Class Size"). As I mentioned above, D64 increased class size as a budget cut a couple of years ago; we reduced class size after the referendum passed.
I hope that helps!
Thank you Mr. Heyde.
I want to know more about the policy of class sizes. My daughter is in a big class. To me anything over 25 students is a big class size. Is the School Board going to look into making class sizes smaller?
I did not understand the tax information. I'm not a taxes person.
Mr. Heyde:
You get a couple of “moxie” points for stepping up to face the music…and you’ll need ‘em.
You state: “As school board members, we'll do our best to instill that ethic [of continuous improvement]. We could use your help, in staying engaged and coming to meetings to comment.” Sorry, John, but you're the one who ran for the office, you're the one who got elected, and you're the one who took the oath: so it's YOUR job - either get it done or get out of the way, because we've already had too many years of School Board members claiming to be doing their best – before finding out that all their activity
does not equal achievement, and that our schools aren't performing - academically or financially - like they should be.
You state: “Prior to the referendum, our fund balance was dropping dangerously because our expenses were rising faster than revenues.” The District's expenses don’t just rise, nor do its fund balances just drop, as if by magic or act of God. People – like D-64 Board members and Staff – do the raising and the dropping with their decision-making. So it was Supt. Sally Pryor and seven Board members, including your wife, who let those fund balances drop
"dangerously" by consciously and deliberately spending money the District didn't have and had no realistic chance of getting except through a referendum - that it should have run at least five years earlier, before it ended up on the State Board’s financial
"Watch" list for districts that can’t manage its finances; and before it snuck through the $5 Million in non-referendum working cash bonds in Fall 2005.
You state: “D64's student population has increased about 18 percent in the last 10 years or about 650 extra students...For the latest year we had data during the referendum campaign, it cost about $10,000 per year to educate a student, so the additional students cost D64 about $6.5 million per year.” That's an average increase of 65 students per year, or a 1.8% per year increase – approximately the same percentage as the increase in D-64’s tax revenues, isn’t it? So unless D-64 is practicing voodoo economics, by increasing class sizes and cutting almost $12 Million in programs during that same time period, why wasn't it able to cover the costs of those new students? And doesn't state and federal funding cover about 35% of the per student cost?
If the number of students in the school system has increased 18% in the last 10 years. What is going to happen with all the new developement going on in uptown, NW Highway and EOP? There have to be some school aged children moving in. Is the School Board anticipating additional students in the next few years? or the increase to their budget?
Dave: Thanks for the "moxie" points.
I suppose that previous boards, in theory, could have kept expenses from rising faster than revenues by cutting programs more and increasing class sizes further. I don't think that would have been a good idea, and it wouldn't last forever -- eventually you get to a point at which further cuts reduce quality unacceptably.
In my mind, that means eventually you need a referendum. Should D64 have gone to referendum sooner and avoided some of the budget cuts it did make? Maybe, but having worked pretty hard to get a referendum passed in 2007, after D64 had already made some serious budget cuts, I wonder whether the community would have supported us had we asked, say, in 2003 or 2005.
Finally, your question about additional students is a good one. Here's how I think about it. If inflation (and, therefore, revenue) rises 3 percent per year, and students increase 1.8 percent per year, that leaves room for about a 1.2 percent increase in expenses for all other reasons. But I would expect most of D64's expenses, from salaries to purchases, to rise at the rate of inflation, rather than below it. If that happens, that's a 3 percent inflation increase on top of the 1.8 percent increase in students, for a total 4.8 percent expense increase. And that's before any above-inflation increase in energy costs or health insurance. Therefore, you get an imbalance that you have to fix either by running down the fund balance, cutting expenses (for example, laying off teachers) or passing a referendum.
Blueberry buckle -- I'd suggest checking out the D64 web site for info on class sizes. D64 just reduced maximum class sizes following the referendum. I don't expect a further reduction soon, but that's just one board member talking.
Mr. Heyde:
A D-64 Board member who is explaining the District's position should be able to offer more than "I suppose"s and other speculation. Where are your numbers?
Take your CPI discussion. You fail to mention that the CPI includes a lot of expense items that the District doesn't provide, like housing, food, recreation and apparel. So the District effectively gets a significant portion of the CPI increase for "free" - with no commensurate expenses.
You also don't explain why those almost $12 Million in budget cuts didn't solve the problem, or how the $5 Million in working cash bonds that allowed the second tax installment to be used to increase the fund balances didn't solve the problem. You also don't address the federal and state money the District gets.
You "wonder whether the community would have supported" a referendum prior to 2007. But why didn't D-64 ask back then rather than cut $12 Million of the budget which the District is now saying needs to substantially be restored?
And most troubling, no significant increases in performance for all the money being committed.
I am not quite following Mr. Kovic's logic on the CPI issue. A I understand the tax cap, the CPI basically dictates the increase in revenues that the district gets from year to year-- sort of like the raises in salary an employee gets annually. That raise in most cases should match the commensurate increase in the expenses incurred by employees for things like food, clothing, etc... The basket of expenses for the district is different than the average consumer, however, with the greatest expenses being for salaries, energy and benefits. I believe the district holds overall salary increases close to that CPI number, but the other two items-- energy and benefits like insurance coverage-- have increased over the past several years at rates much higher than the CPI number. So you have at least two of your major expenses raising at higher rates than your annual raise, and it starts to become clear that you have to tap into your savings to pay your bills. Perhaps Mr. Heyde can explain it better. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding Mr. Kovic's point.
When can we expect to see Dist # 64 take their hands out of the pockets of the voters ?
When can we expect solid fiscal management of dist # 64 ?
We know that the realtors and the school distict boards and all in bed together - right?
Why else would you want to live here - because of the taxes only?
I wish the realtors would stop thier behind the scenes buggery
and perform their duties as trained.
Park Ridge is not and extention of chicago - or is it???
Post a Comment