McHenry County Blog

The top of McHenry County Blog's february 27, 2011, school consolidation story.

The end of February, McHenry County Blog did the math on Governor Pat Quinn’s school consolidation proposal.

The Governor’s pitch was that it would save $100 million in school administrators’ salaries.

Let’s assume he is correct in laying out the benefit side of the equation.

But he left out the increase in cost side.

He ignored the leveling up of elementary school teachers’ salaries that will occur as grade school districts are merged with high school districts.

Looking at how much it would cost to raise the salaries at grade school districts 3, 26, 46 and 47 to the level of high school teachers in Crystal Lake High School District 155, I concluded that $27,058,486 more money would be needed.

So, compare Quinn’s $100 million savings statewide on administrators’ salaries to $27 million more to pay elementary school teachers more in just this part of McHenry County and it’s easy to see that Quinn’s savings estimate is bogus.

Why would that happen?

I reasoned that it would because there would be one new collective bargaining unit in each of the newly-created districts and that union would have more elementary school teachers than high school teachers.

One does not have to be an expert in organizational theory to figure out who would dominate the teachers’ bargaining committee.

AP school consolidation story of March 11, 2011.

Associated Press, which I assume has looked at the legislation, puts it this way:

“That’s because when two districts consolidate in Illinois, teachers in the lower-paying district are allowed to switch to the higher pay offered by the other.”

I guess that means there would not even have to be collective bargaining to raise grade school teachers’ salaries.

The General Assembly would do it by just passing a bill that the Governor, wanting to reward “thems that brought him to the party,” would, of course, sign.

Reporter Zackary Colman cites a cost-benefit estimate in the Palatine area showing ‘would save $1.6 million in administrative salaries but cost at least $10 million in higher pay for elementary teachers.”

I could check the math on the cost side for Palatine, but I know the cost side of the equation for my high school district is rational.

Maybe grade school teacher salaries are not as much lower than high school teacher salaries in Palatine than they are in Crystal Lake-Cary-Fox River Grove. Locally, they are$31,066 lower, according to the latest School Report Cards (which can be seen here).

Ryan Pagelow of Sun Publications in Lake County reports that two large local school districts have found the little bill I wrote about a month ago.

I’ll use the reporter’s words to explain what’s happening:

”If school districts representing 51 percent of the county’s student enrollment support the tax hike, or it is supported by the Lake County Board, it will be placed on the ballot for Lake County voters to decide.”

So, if you shop at Gurnee Mills, you could help pay for Lake County schools.

Boy, did they move fast.

No district has said it won’t also propose property tax increases to finance school building or renovation, however.

Ryan Pagelow of Sun Publications in Lake County reports that two large local school districts have found the little bill I wrote about a month ago.

I’ll use the reporter’s words to explain what’s happening:

”If school districts representing 51 percent of the county’s student enrollment support the tax hike, or it is supported by the Lake County Board, it will be placed on the ballot for Lake County voters to decide.”

So, if you shop at Gurnee Mills, you could help pay for Lake County schools.

Boy, did they move fast.

No district has said it won’t also propose property tax increases to finance school building or renovation, however.

A friend of McHenry County Blog has noticed a new law that would allow a sales tax to help pay for new schools.

It would have to be approved by referendum, unlike the extra one-half of one percent sales tax the General Assembly just foisted on us to finance the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace.

Such a referendum could be put on the ballot by the county board or school boards representing at least 51% of the student enrollment within the county.

The ballot would read,

Shall McHenry County be authorized to impose a retailers’ occupation tax and a service occupation tax (commonly referred to as a “sales tax”) at the rate of [not more than ¼ of, ½ of, ¾ of or a maximum of 1%] to be used exclusively for school facility purposes?

The tax would not be on food or drugs, which are not currently taxed by state government, just local governments.

Once passed, it could not be lowered by a referendum initiated by citizens petition.

The McHenry County Board could lower the rate or discontinue it, unless school construction bonds were sold, it could not be lowered if repayment of the bonds would be endangered.

“School construction” is defined about as broadly as anyone could imagine.

The money would flow through regional superintendent of schools. I noticed one very strange provision. The regional supt. can sit on the money up to 30 days.

That reminds me of when all state aid to education used to take that route. School districts lost so much interest while the county superintendent of schools sat on the money that the legislature changed the law to require it to be sent directly to the schools.

The money would be distributed would be distributed on a pro rata basis, according to the percentage of county students in the school district.

I love tax incidence questions.

Who will be the winners and the losers?

My first take is that those areas that are built out will be the losers. They will tend to have paid for their schools.

The winners, if I am correct, will be the fast growth areas, the villages that lust for growth.

I see one intended consequence and one unintended consequence.

Once a flow of money starts and one school district sells bonds based on these sales tax receipts, the tax seems destined to stay forever.

The unintended consequence is that tax money will flow forever (so to speak) and the local school boards will find a way to spend, whether such expenditures are necessary or not.

That’s the problem with “free money.”

Perhaps the law should be changed to allow the money to be spent on operations, as well as building. After all, operations eat up most of the budget and the infusion of new cash could be used to cut the property tax, if all bonds were paid off.

Oh, yes.

This can’t be done in Cook County, even though Senate President Emil Jones jointly sponsored it with chief sponsor Mike Jacobs, both Democrats. House sponsors of Senate Bill 835 were Patrick Verschoore (D-Rock Island), Sandra Pihos (R-Glen Ellyn), Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago) and Roger Eddy (R-Hutsonville), who is also a school superintendent.

Locally, State Senator Pam Althoff and Chris Lauzen voted “No,” while State Senator Bill Peterson voted “Yes” on the final 31-24 vote.

The bill passed the Illinois House 74-41. State Representative Jack Franks and Mike Tryon voted against the bill. Mark Beaubien was listed as not voting. Tim Schmitz voted “Yes.”

As an aside, I see language that originated when I was in the Illinois House in the 1970’s. It requires sales tax to be collected on minerals like gravel and coal at the point of extraction. That was some coalition we put together to pass that bill.

A friend of McHenry County Blog has noticed a new law that would allow a sales tax to help pay for new schools.

It would have to be approved by referendum, unlike the extra one-half of one percent sales tax the General Assembly just foisted on us to finance the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra and Pace.

Such a referendum could be put on the ballot by the county board or school boards representing at least 51% of the student enrollment within the county.

The ballot would read,

Shall McHenry County be authorized to impose a retailers’ occupation tax and a service occupation tax (commonly referred to as a “sales tax”) at the rate of [not more than ¼ of, ½ of, ¾ of or a maximum of 1%] to be used exclusively for school facility purposes?

The tax would not be on food or drugs, which are not currently taxed by state government, just local governments.

Once passed, it could not be lowered by a referendum initiated by citizens petition.

The McHenry County Board could lower the rate or discontinue it, unless school construction bonds were sold, it could not be lowered if repayment of the bonds would be endangered.

“School construction” is defined about as broadly as anyone could imagine.

The money would flow through regional superintendent of schools. I noticed one very strange provision. The regional supt. can sit on the money up to 30 days.

That reminds me of when all state aid to education used to take that route. School districts lost so much interest while the county superintendent of schools sat on the money that the legislature changed the law to require it to be sent directly to the schools.

The money would be distributed would be distributed on a pro rata basis, according to the percentage of county students in the school district.

I love tax incidence questions.

Who will be the winners and the losers?

My first take is that those areas that are built out will be the losers. They will tend to have paid for their schools.

The winners, if I am correct, will be the fast growth areas, the villages that lust for growth.

I see one intended consequence and one unintended consequence.

Once a flow of money starts and one school district sells bonds based on these sales tax receipts, the tax seems destined to stay forever.

The unintended consequence is that tax money will flow forever (so to speak) and the local school boards will find a way to spend, whether such expenditures are necessary or not.

That’s the problem with “free money.”

Perhaps the law should be changed to allow the money to be spent on operations, as well as building. After all, operations eat up most of the budget and the infusion of new cash could be used to cut the property tax, if all bonds were paid off.

Oh, yes.

This can’t be done in Cook County, even though Senate President Emil Jones jointly sponsored it with chief sponsor Mike Jacobs, both Democrats. House sponsors of Senate Bill 835 were Patrick Verschoore (D-Rock Island), Sandra Pihos (R-Glen Ellyn), Mike Fortner (R-West Chicago) and Roger Eddy (R-Hutsonville), who is also a school superintendent.

Locally, State Senator Pam Althoff and Chris Lauzen voted “No,” while State Senator Bill Peterson voted “Yes” on the final 31-24 vote.

The bill passed the Illinois House 74-41. State Representative Jack Franks and Mike Tryon voted against the bill. Mark Beaubien was listed as not voting. Tim Schmitz voted “Yes.”

As an aside, I see language that originated when I was in the Illinois House in the 1970’s. It requires sales tax to be collected on minerals like gravel and coal at the point of extraction. That was some coalition we put together to pass that bill.