The Woodstock District 200 School Board.
Seneca Township’s Susan Handelsman offers the following rebuttal to comments made by School Board President and School Superintendent on D200 school budget and possible consolidation article in NW Herald 9-11-15 by Hannah Prokop.
Woodstock District 200’s new North High School, which is 58% occupied.
We taxpayers pay 5% property tax and are looking for relief.
The school presents limited information, and we have to look at what is available to find POSSIBLE cost cutting measures. If school consolidation isn’t possible, then it isn’t possible…
But neither is it possible for any of us to survive this tax burden which is not only decimating household budgets, it is making homes impossible to sell at prices higher than foreclosure discounts.
Given those two impossible scenarios, the school board chooses to relentlessly increase spending and hiring at homeowner expense.
1. “…the special education program, to which other area districts send their students”.
So we are using empty space (rather than even consider consolidation) to benefit other richer districts?
Are we selling special education services to richer districts at a loss, through local property tax subsidies, so richer districts can save money themselves?
The proposed budget for D200 show a whopping levy increase in the (restricted ) “Special Education” Fund. In 2012 budget 4 years ago the property tax extension in the Special Ed. Fund was $540,812.
This year the budget proposes a property tax extension in Special Ed. Fund of $5,718,191. (That is the max tax by law, 0.80% of EAV).
How is a $5 million increase billed to property taxpayers between 2012 and 2016 explained?
If it is “SEDOM closing”, then how were we paying for our own students before?
What is the true cost of hosting other districts’ students versus the tuition and federal funding received in offset?
2. “…one of the ways to reinvigorate home sales is by having a good school district”.
I wouldn’t disagree with that broad assertion, but have to say it either doesn’t apply here or it isn’t working.
Data we have today:
4 years of a cumulative 40% drop in EAV.
Was the school district not ‘good’ for the past 4 years? as our home values have fallen and fallen?
National mean Percentage of Household Expenditures for property tax expenditure is 3.6%
(BLS.gov Consumer Expenditure Surveys).
In Woodstock, Percentage of Household Expenditures for property tax expenditure is 14.3% .
14.3% vs 3.6%.
(Woodstock D200 median housing and income data in 2015 Bond Official Statement) .
Where is that extra 10% (above national average) to pay property taxes supposed to come from?
Cut back college savings funds, retirement savings, Christmas gifts?
How will home sales ever be reinvigorated in a 5% property tax environment when the national average property tax rate is 1.5% (Indiana is capped at 1% of home value)?
3. The general statement about scary possible effects of enlarging class sizes and cutting programs…
at $14.500 annual per pupil expenditure in D200 (compare to other schools in Illinois and America apples to apples; this is the expenditure per pupil without regard for revenue source. How they spend that money is up to school board) is quite high?
Test results and college readiness assessment results are…what they are.
How much scarier can it get than people (that includes families with children) losing homes due to 5% property tax rates?
Everybody can do some research on their own at school comparison websites like
See comparison school finance statistics at https://nces.ed.gov/ (the National Center for Education Statistics).
On the website, top toolbar ‘Data&Tools’ dropdown menu choose ‘Peer Comparison Tools’. Choose ‘Public School District Finance Per Search’. Enter Woodstock USD 200 in search box then click on search result ‘WOODSTOCK CUSD 200’.Click toolbar category ‘Current Expenditures’ to see comparison spending categories, and look at all spending different categories under different tabs.
4. Finally, “Enrollment Capacity is somewhat subjective.
For a second opinion on enrollment capacity in a 300,000+ square foot facility, see this link
http://www.ncef.org/ds/answer.cfm?StatId=24 (260,000 square feet for 1600 students).
Thank you for taking time to look at strategies for us all to work together in cooperation and compromise to save our community.
= = = = =
The most stunning paragraph in the NWH article follows:
Moan said there is not a breakdown in the budget of how much it costs to operate each high school.
Somehow, it would seem to me that cost comparisons among schools would be relevant information.
GO SUSAN! You are a powerhouse!
I wait with bated breath for the district’s response (if they have one).
While other schools systems operate in the red, D200 is responsible with its funds and operates in the black. Serwatka and Susan are looking for a problem where there is none.
That said, Susan, it’s incredibly disheartening to see an elected official take aim at Special Ed students. How heartless are you that you want to cut funding for kids with Autism or other disabilities? What sort of monster does that?
Not at all.
1. Operating in the black simply means the taxes imposed on society (without regard to their ability to pay) are sufficiently high to pay for desired spending.
2. Not taking aim at all. The law decrees that special education must be supplied. Each district is subject to that law. Is each district absquatulating from their responsibility to supply that service by palming the responsibility off at a discount? If we can’t question whether D200 is spending too much on any one area, how can we be sure if we are spending enough?
3. What kind of monster disregards the fate of families losing homes as their tax rates nearly double in 4 years?
To your #1: Operating in the black means that we have good bond ratings, therefore borrowing money costs less and we are FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. I’m sure you aren’t advocating for the District to operate at a deficit because then you are having your cake and eating it too.
To your #2: Yes, that is what the law states that special ed students are required to attend school. The fact that the one cherry picked statistics from your original posts purports an increase in special education funding is due to the fact that we no longer supply vouchers to students attending SEDOM, which is itemized differently on the budget, therefore, the ‘increase’ is no more an accounting trick. But, actually what I think you are being ignorant to is that SEDOM cost MORE to send students tol. So it’s GOOD it is closing because it cost the taxpayers MORE to send our students their than to otherwise have an in house special education program and become the new defacto program that OUTSIDE districts send students to with THEIR vouchers meaning MORE money for D200’s special ed program.
To your #3: Susan, you asked more questions than you actually answered – in your original post and now. I wish you the best in your race for state rep or whatever you seem to by trying to gain attention for. But it’s a troubling thing when you ask more questions and don’t do the research yourself. Actually, it’s rather LAZY of you. Your post does more to HURT kids with special needs than HELP them
1. Operating in the black is a necessary but not sufficient component of fiscal responsibility. You cannot frame an argument that because I object to the other elements of fiscal responsibility being lacking, I am advocating for operating at a deficit. I do not follow your logic.
2. Would you walk me through the math on your assertion? What is the cost per pupil sent to SEDOM, what is the cost per pupil at D200, what is the tuition charged per pupil from other districts whose student we host, and what is $$ quantification of offsetting grants?
These are questions I ask because after reading hundreds of pages of documents (CAFR’s, budgets, bond OS’s, Census and BLS stats and ISBE fall attendance tables and Nces.gov stats)I cannot find these answers, because certain specific costs are not broken out in budgets.
3. If you will attend school board meetings and read this blog, you will see source citations for most of my assertions. (Some are repeats, but citations are in earlier iterations of my comments).
The source citations for my assertions in posting above are contained in posting above.
Have you read the 2012 budget, the proposed 2016 budget, the 2015B Bond Official Statement? I do not understand which source citations I am lacking, would you be specific?
As to your ad hominem attacks, I simply point out that if any special needs kids live in homes where parents are financially stressed due to the near doubling of Woodstock property taxes over the past four years, these children are being hurt. And you seem to be assiduously indifferent to ignoring that injury.
I could attack you on those grounds, but ad hominem attacks are not productive toward solutions.
4. What I propose we do is put aside personal remarks (which are not productive, and deflect focus) and focus on specific ways to help all injured parties.
Just because money is being spent does not mean it is being spent EFFECTIVELY.
(Example: the money which was embezzled by the Principal from the Kids Club was SPENT, but it wasn’t spent EFFECTIVELY).
Let us not be so defensive but rather look at each expenditure objectively and determine if we cannot obtain similar or better results for less money.
Susan,
I am ashamed at rampant assertions that the current school board is being irresponsible.
These people are concerned parents of current and past students of the District and volunteered to perform the job that they do.
The have no affiliation with any political party and never have.
Yes, they are elected, but they pay the same taxes that you do and have done a great many things to remain fiscally responsible to the taxpayers of the district.
1) Earlier this year they had an outside organization review all of their existing costs of materials and processes to identify any waste that may exist. The report is public record, District 200 has optimized their procurement strategies to make certain every dollar is spent wisely on those goods, materials, and services.
2) D200 has not had any students in SEDOM for a number of years. It took that long for them to contractually exit the program. They do receive compensation for all students that come from outside of the district using the programs created within. It is not wasted extra space, it is space used for mandatory programs that give students with special needs an excellent education. D200 does have some students that go to other districts as well, and monies are transferred to those districts as well.
3) You repeat time and again as an attack on the Board that infers that they are solely responsible for the 40% loss in EAV. The economy did that along with a burst in the real estate market bubble. It is going to take time for the growth to return to Woodstock. It is already happening to the south in Huntley, are you ready for the other frustrations that will come when the growth returns to Woodstock? It is coming along with the traffic and many other things.
4) You have cited that the Board performed a minor adjustment to their debt load by reselling some of the Bonds earlier this year. You failed to note that they only can sell those Bonds at key benchmark dates of maturity and they did so immediately with the ones that they could. The AA credit rating that the District has is what allows them to achieve the better terms in the market.
5) The primary source of funding that any school has in this State is property taxes. They have no choice but to leverage that source as best as they can while also balancing mandatory services and programs pushed upon them by the State and Federal Governments without providing any income resource to pay for them.
6) Please read the paper more closely regarding the current situation with the Principal. No Kids Club funds were taken, it was PTO and Sports Conference monies that the individual allegedly performed forgery to access. It is disgusting and D200 worked closely with the police department as soon as the allegations were made. How is the School Board at fault for this.
Since you spend so much time researching things, how about you look for some positives and back off of your witch hunt where witches may not exist?
You may be surprised at the quality and commitment that we have in D200!
@Wow, That is such a bad argument that you made!
Cut spending for Autism/disabled is not the argument!
Susan is right to question where the money is coming from, how much it cost Woodstock residents compared to other districts that send their kids here, and how is the money being spent?
If Woodstock is floating the bill compared to other school districts then that is not right.
If Woodstock residents spend $100 toward they tax bill but Crystal Lake spends $25 toward the bill and they have more students here then yes we are getting screwed!
It is a easy math problem.
How many students per district, how much does it cost to run the program, divide it equally and then you have your amount.
Of course this changes every year so you have to adjust.
Susan wants a level playing field and also wants to know how the money is spent!
That is far from unreasonable!
It is not a accounting trick.
School Board members actively sought the position of control over a $97 million budget.
I would be ashamed to vote to spend any millions of dollars of other people’s money without a thorough understanding of what that money is buying, at what comparative cost, and whether the budget is affordable to begin with.
General statements about great jobs and fiscal responsibility ignore the 5% property tax rate in Woodstock, 65-70% of which is directly attributable to D200 spending policy.
1. The taxpayers of the District cannot afford the tax rate.
The tax rate and expenditure per pupil rate compared to peer average are extraordinarily high.
Is indicates an active decision to value continued spending over taxpayer wellbeing.
School Board members actively sought the position of control over a $97 million budget.
I would be ashamed to vote to spend any millions of dollars of other people’s money without a thorough understanding of what that money is buying, at what comparative cost, and whether the budget is affordable to begin with.
General statements about great jobs and fiscal
responsibility ignore the 5% property tax rate in Woodstock, 65-70% of which is directly attributable to D200 spending policy.
1. The tax rate is too high by all comparative standards.
Spending money which is more than people, in the District can afford to spend is not spent wisely.
2. I actually expect the District to produce figures which indicate that they are NOT operating at a loss hosting other District’s students, but do. It take into account our District responsibility for the pension obligations of the additional personnel necessary to host out of district students.
Why are you so afraid of looking at actual numbers involved?
3. No the economy is not responsible for the latest several years of plummeting home values in Woodstock.
Look the Case Shiller home value index charting property values all over America rising during the past several years ( and even some neighboring communities in this County).
This town has recent property value loss which can only be correlated to the extraordinarily high promptly tax rate.
Growth will not bring property taxes down, unless growth involves property taxpaying businesses– which it will not because tif’s and enterprise zones make it standard for business property tax abatements and even tax money gifted to developers.
Growth of residential units will RAISE property taxes for all existing homeowners unless new homes built generate property tax revenue per unit above breakeven cost of new services provided.
It’s a high number.
You don’t seem interested opinion numbers but I can write it out again by request.
4. I don’t know what you are referring to when you say I “cited a minor adjustment to debt load” .
I cited the Official Statement of the latest bond refinancing as source for many statistics I have used, such
as
Expenses up,66% since 2005,
Annual cost per pupil up 55%
Teaching staff up 17.7%
FTEs up 24%
Tax levy up 58%
Enrollment up either 7% or down slightly depending whether you choose D200 figures, ISBE, or ADA from GSA Entitlement application.
And all this while EAV has declined 3.2% ( it has fallen 8.8% when you include this year’s decline).
Schools are supposed to,spend relative to the means of their population, that is why Levys are a function of EAV.
5. They absolutely had a choice to reduce spending as property values have plummeted.
The annual expenditure per pupil is comparatively very high among district peers.
They chose not to cut but instead to increase spending.
Here is a very powerful metric to consider.
Woodstock d200 median
6. I never said the school board was at fault for this alleged embezzlement.
Are you saying they are?
Let me repeat the exact wording:
Example: the money which was embezzled by the Principal from the Kids Club was SPENT, but it wasn’t spent EFFECTIVELY.
( I apologize for mistaking the fund from which the money was allegedly embezzled and not including the qualifying word allegedly).
I see the standardized test results, college readiness and other standard measures of effectiveness, and stand by my opinion that similarly mediocre results can be acheived with a much lower budget.
Another powerful metric to consider is this: in Woodstock d200, a median income household living in a median value home must spend over 14% of its household budget on property taxes.
Compare over 14% of household budget in Woodstock to 3.6% average share of household budget nationally.
Where is that money supposed to come from?
Will anybody ever speak to the devastating effect these school spending habits are having on real people in the community?
My comments were written not to criticize but to look for possible ways of saving money in order to cut school budget.
It isn’t productive to criticize people, it leads to distraction and diversion of topic from one seeking solutions to one which does not seek solutions.
The potential solutions which I think bear exploration (for which source citations were included to validate the opinion that these areas might be able to reduce budget–NOT to say aha! you are wrong!)include schools with low enrollment-to-capacity ratios consolidating, verifying that students hosted from other districts are not being subsidized by the property taxes of this district, and reducing expenses on salaries and benefits which overspend peer districts as determined on national basis.
It is not productive to dwell on the past nor to be defensive about a current condition.
If there is concrete (specifically described) benefit to the community to counteract damage done by high tax rate it should be presented.
If merits outweigh the lost value due to economic destruction of households in this community engendered by 5% property tax rates, policy should stand.
And I am repeating that I am very sorry for having the wrong referenced fund in my comment about Principal alleged embezzlement.
It is horrible to be wrongly accused.
It is terrible that I was so careless to make that mistake.
I will quantify my remorse with increased future diligence.
The labor costs are the highest costs in a school district.
The labor agreements all (there are 4 bargaining units / classifications of employees in Woodstock District 200) expire August 2016.
Collective bargaining negotiations will begin this year or early next year.
The public has been relying on school boards and school administrations to represent the public during collective bargaining negotiations.
That often has not worked out well for a wide variety of reasons.
So for the taxpayers to be able to advocate for themselves during collective bargaining negotiations, the taxpayers have to understand the collective bargaining agreements currently in place.
http://www.WoodstockSchools.org > School Board > Collective Bargaining Agreements
The collective bargaining agreements will reference collective bargaining law.
The collective bargaining law for public education was signed by Jim Thompson in 1983 in exchange for teacher union election support.
It was Public Act 83-1014 (PA 84-1014) which was House Bill 1530 (HB 1530).
PA 84-1014 is commonly known as the Illinois Educational Labor Review Act (IELRA) which has an Illinois Educational Labor Review Board (IELRB).
A law was passed a few years ago allowing for either side in collective bargaining negotiations to declare an impasse at which point both sides submit an offer to the IELRB website which is public information.
Right now on that website are impasse offers from the School Board and Teacher Union in McHenry High School District 156.
http://www.illinois.gov/elrb/Pages/default.aspx
The Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS) contains the laws.
115 ILCS 5 Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act
Note: Chapter 115 is Educational Labor Relations.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1177&ChapterID=19
Incidentally, outside of public education, at the same time the IELRA was signed, Thompson signed the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act (IPLRA), Public Act 83-1012 (PA 83-1012), which was Senate Bill 0536 (SB 0536), likewise in exchange for public sector worker election support.
5 ILCS 315 Illinois Public Labor Relations Act
Note: Chapter 5 is General Provisions.
IELRA & IPLRA were effective January 1, 1984.
2015 – 1984: 32 years of IELRA (& IPLRA).
2015 – 1971: 45 years of pension hiking laws.
Major reasons driving the hiking of public sector pay, benefits, and pensions, which have resulted in hiked taxes.
The rules of the game have been changed over time by politicians.
Taxpayers in general don’t understand the rules and don’t understand how the rules have been changed.
Most taxpayers wouldn’t read more than 3 lines of the IELRA or a collective bargaining agreement.
It takes an enormous amount of time and energy to understand a collective bargaining agreement and the IELRA.
The unions on the other hand receive dues from members and a lesser mandated agency fee from non members, and through that money have been able to build entire infrastructures for understanding the laws and agreements.
The unions are active during most elections in campaigning for politicians who will negotiate agreements in their favor.
Teacher unions and any union is not paid to represent taxpayers.
The best way for a school board, school administration, and teacher union to improve the education of children would be to advocate for competition other than just buy a house in our school district; by allowing parents to choose where to spend taxpayer dollars to educate their child.
We are locked into a monopoly school district with monopoly teacher union education system with rules mainly written by teacher unions with politicians elected mainly through teacher union support.
That would sum up the majority of the state.
That is the antithesis of competition.
Competition drives innovation and performance and drives down costs.
Now we just have a big political and bureaucratic mess.
Of which a major problem is hiked pensions.
Money spent on hiked pensions could be spent on actually educating children and changing the system instead of early cushy retirements.
A good comp for D-200 is Huntley D-158, both unit districts in the same county and relatively close in size. Here’s a couple of fun facts (per their FY14 Annual Statement of Affairs reports):
D-200 D-158
Enrollment 6499 9379
Buildings 12 8
Cert Staff-Full 488 656
Cert Staff>$60k 223 233
% over $60k 46% 36%
Tax Rate 7.7422 5.8797
EAV/Pupil 128,051 122,287
Note the number of buildings disparity relative to the enrollment size.
That means D-200’s O&M costs are substantially higher relative to D-158’s.
Also, D-200 is more heavily weighted with a more expensive certified staff.
That mix differential costs D-200 roughly $1 million/year.
Lastly, D-200’s tax rate is substantially higher than D-158’s.
A portion of that is explained by a higher debt service rate at D-200 (1.3775 vs 0.7696) because both districts carry a an exceptionally heavy debt burden, but the debt differential only explains a portion of the disparity in tax rates.
Additionally, D-158 is not facing the debt service bomb that D-200 faces in roughly 5 years as their Capital Appreciation Bonds begin to mature, which basically would double the annual debt service amount to the D-200 taxpayers.
Delving further into the Ops & Maintenance (O&M) expense of these two districts from their FY14 AFR’s shows that while D-200 has 2,880 less students, they spend exactly the same amount as D-158 on O&M-less CapEx ($6.354 mil vs $6.385 mil).
Obviously this is a function of D-200 serving one-third less students with 50% more buildings.
My guess is that D-158 also benefits greatly from what looks like an outsourcing of janitorial services versus D-200’s more expensive in-house employees-based model.
Through building consolidation and outsourcing, D-200 should be able to drive $2 million in annualized savings in the O&M fund alone.
OC thank you so much!
This will be very valuable data to present at public comment section of school board meeting next week (to approve next year’s budget).
These are areas we can look at for potential cost savings.
One of the most disturbing things about the Fy16 Budget is that D-200 is getting a huge increase in General State Aid (GSA) over last year of about $3.0 million or a 27% increase and they are spending all of it.
This is due almost entirely to a 10% drop in the district’s EAV which is used in the GSA formula for calculating aid.
Rather than taking the windfall and building up reserves either for future capital needs or setting it aside in the Debt Service Fund to help with the future massive increases in debt service expense, they are spending it on payroll, supplies, etc.
The district is counting on the State to make good on the GSA payments (which they didn’t do last year) and all of the four quarterly categorical reimbursement payments, which the State has been notorious known for delaying.
All with the backdrop of a State that can’t even put a budget together.
Its as if they are totally oblivious to the sword of Damocles hanging over their head.
OC that style of spending value set is consistent with past performance of this district.
Now we have 5% property tax rate.
I’m compiling a list and guidelines on property tax comparative research as it relates to schools.
Included are links to online sources of information.
Your comparison s to Huntley 158 are right on point, showing it is possible to do the job well on a lower budget.
If you have suggestions for sources or description of drilling down for details and then finding comparison, please post those.
(Thank you commentors Mark and Steve W. for many source citations in comments too. I just want to collect them all in one place).
For historical budget submission and historical Annual Financial Reports (i.e. Actuals), both can be found at this link on the ISBE site:
http://www.isbe.net/sfms/html/financial_archive.htm
There’s a link to both types. Then scroll to the year and select the appropriate district.
Woodstocks reporting number is: 44-063-2000-026
Humtley: 44-063-1580-22
All of the Mchenry County districts start with 44-063-xxxx based on the district number.
Another key spending indicator is in the Ed Fund.
There is a schedule that breaks out spending by function in the Ed Fund by type (i.e. Salaries, Benefits, Supplies, etc.)
With respect to the aforementioned facility cost anomalies between D-200 vs D-158, I’d recommend you look at the School Administration function for both districts.
For FY14 Salaries/Benefits, D-200 spent $3.948 million vs D-158 spent $3.351 million.
So, even though D-200 has 2,880 less kids, they’re spending $600k more annually just in Administrative payroll.
The same inexplicable disparity exists in the Food Service function.
D-200 spent $2.384 million vs D-158 only $2.310 million.
Once again, its the huge variance in payroll costs that makes D-200’s expense so much on a relative basis vs D-158.
The other interesting issue related to Food Services is the disparity in Revenues generated by this function.
D-200 generated $1.462 mil in Federal meal reimbursement plus another $754k in cash sales, for a total of $2.216 million.
D-158 recognized $641k in Federal revenue but $2.584 mil in cash sales for a total of $3.225 million.
Analyzing that disparity is going to take a lot more data than what’s on the AFR.
You need meal-related data.
Given the cash sales disparity, I’d be willing to bet that the meal quality at D-200 is less than at D-158 which results in less students buying lunch.
But you are also going to see a disparity in the number of free and reduced meals between the two districts.
Bottom line: D-158 netted a profit of $915k on Food Service while D-200 lost $168k.
Even Harvard-50 made a profit on its Food Service in FY14.
These are just a few quick, easy examples that were easy to spot at a high level that I noticed.
Wow.