The referendum on the ballot in Cary’s elementary school district passed tonight providing an outlier for major tax hike referendums locally.
Here are the results before the early and absentee votes are added:
58% to 41% were the results.
So the Cary Grade School Board can borrow $15 million in working cash bonds.
The main article in the Chicago Tribune April 27, 2010. Note the artificial turf being laid which was financed by non-referendum bond money
“It’s just a little nothing bill.”
I can hear the words coming out of House Sponsor Roger Eddy to colleagues asking privately what the bill was all about.
Not that I know Eddy. I just know the process.
When you have an important bill, you minimize its impact.
And this is an important bill.
Eddy’s House Bill 6041 is a Tax Eaters’ delight.
School districts have been playing games with Working Cash Fund money for decades.
First, they create an emergency in their own minds. They know they can’t pass a referendum, so they pass an ordinance allowing them to issue bonds without voter approval…unless enough people sign a petition asking for a referendum.
This is called a “backdoor referendum.”
Often this is proposed in the middle of winter when taxpayers can’t go door-to-door collecting signatures.
As you might imagine, I and the democratic process prefer front door referendums.
Why should it be so easy to raise taxes?
It’s not easy to win election.
Which is more important?
I asked attorney Jim Rooney, whose appellate court victory the bill is intended to reverse, what was at stake. (I knew Rooney in a prior legislative life.)
“What’s at stake is the ability of voters to control whether a district goes into debt for building projects.
“You do have the operations and maintenance levy every year for ordinary maintenance and repair. It’s when you go into debt, you’re supposed to ask the people if they want to pay the interest and principal.”
In Cook County, about $150 million is at stake.
And the Tax Eaters are desperate to keep the money.
I can’t wait to see the roll call on this bill listed on the score card produced by National Taxpayers United of Illinois, Jim Tobin’s group.
In McHenry County, NOT ONE of our state representatives stood up for taxpayers.
Jack Franks, Mike Tryon and Mark Beaubien all voted for the bill to make it possible to spend Working Cash Fund money for capital or building purposes.
It zipped through 113-2. Only State Reps. Paul Froehlich and Betsy Hannig voted against it. Both are retiring at the end of the session.
Talk about being asleep at the switch.
Or in the pockets of school districts greedy enough to violate the law.
There was a warning issued by retiring Schaumburg State Rep. Froehlich:
“I see it as an amnesty bill. It’s giving amnesty to those school districts that didn’t follow the law.”
Amnesty not only for the spending of past money, but also for potential personal fines against school board members.
I didn’t mention that before. It not only allows this “money laundering”
Want to know how important the bill was to one school district?
The one featured in the excellent lead story of the Chicago Tribune by reporter Noreen S. Almed-Ullah is the Hinsdale High School District.
That board spend Working Cash Fund money to buy artificial turf.
Makes you wonder how the headline writer at the Tribune could possibly come up with the headline
SCHOOLS IN A SQUEEZE
The headlines below were more relevant:
Districts
skirt law
to fund
projects
and
Schools sell cash bonds
without going to the voters
I’ve never seen a Working Cash Fund proposal that I’ve liked.
Here's the process some school districts are using to "launder"m (as one unnamed school board member put it) their Working Cash Fund money so it can be spent on building projects. Normal repair should be paid out of the Operations and Maintenance Fund.
That’s because school districts have an unlimited number of bites at the apple.
They can drain their Working Cash Fund and immediately create another one.
The worst that can happen is that taxpayers will get angry enough to force a referendum.
If they lose such a referendum, they can immediately start over or decide to lay in the weeds until things quiet down again.
The Cary District 26 School Board drama started with the authorization of a $17 million Working Cash Fund referendum.
I am no fan of Working Cash Funds.
They are mechanisms whereby school districts borrow money for current operations and, after having drained the fund, can borrow the money again with asking for additional permission.
They are basically credit cards that never get paid off.
Voting for the measure were
Those opposed were
Four of the school board members were up for re-election Tuesday, three who voted for putting the referendum on the ballot and Chris Jenner, who opposed it.
The electorate seem to give women bonus votes around here.
You may remember that my research shows that a woman gets about a five percentage point advantage in elections. I speculate that it may be there have been many, many fewer crooked women politicians around here than men.
In any event referendum supporter Julie Jette won re-election, getting more votes than anyone else for the four-year term. Jette was appointed in 2008.
Second was referendum opponent Chris Jenner.
Newcomer Christopher Spoerl captured the third of four seats.
He’s currently president of the D-26 Education Foundation. His wife is PTO president and was on the FACT committee in 2003-4. That was the committee that worked with PMA Financial to try to soften up the community for a big tax hike referendum.
Incumbent and referendum proponent Dave Ruelle got the final four-year term.
Coming in out of the money, so to speak, even though school board members are not paid, was Board President Craig Loew, one of the referendum’s supporters.
Jenner, Ruelle and Loew, running for re-election, were first elected in 2005. They, along with Lawrence ran a coordinated campaign that year.
The results on the McHenry County Clerk’s web site last night were
Spoerl was first on the ballot, giving him something of ballot placement advantage.
Vicki Lynn Pesch was unopposed for the two-year term. She got 1,871 votes. She was part of the committee urging a “Yes” vote on the Working Cash Fund referendum.
1,754 voted against the bond issue, while 922 supported it.
66% – “No;” 34% “Yes.”
A school board president has not lost a re-election bid since Huntley Mike Skala’s narrow defeat two years ago.
= = = = =
The photo is of Chris Jenner fighting the Village of Cary’s TIF tax hike across from the Cary train station.
Here’s what the school administrators gave the District 26 school board members before they voted 4-3 to ask for $17 million in Working Cash bonds. Remember this contains no outside analysis. I made my general comments on my dislike of Working Cash arrangements in this article. I welcome and will publish any comments or analysis anyone wishes to make. (The first one took less than an hour to appear at the bottom of this article.)
Voting to put this tax increase on the ballot were board members
Opposed were
* Chris Jenner
* Randy Lawrence
* Julie Lehman
District 26′s explanatory material, which was not posted on its web site prior to the board meeting, follows:
To: Board of Education
From: Brian Coleman, Superintendent
Date: January 20, 2009Re: Recommendation for Issuing Working Cash Bonds
Our goal in District 26 is to provide a safe and caring educational environment for students with high expectations for learning while striving to remain within the limits of available recourses.
Due to the collaborative work of parents, teachers, administration, and the Board of Education, a high majority of our students continue to meet and exceed District and State expectations for achievement.
District 26 has always made the learning needs of our students the top priority. Through our focus on power standards and the collection of achievement data, we are now, more than ever, able to focus and fine tune our curriculum and instruction to meet the learning needs of each child.
The District maintains safe and secure facilities for students to learn and interact. We have worked to extend the life of many of our facilities so that funding could be used to provide educational services and materials to students. Some buildings are now in need of major improvements in order to maintain the safe and secure environment needed.
The Board and administration have also worked to bring the needs of our programs into alignment with the resources available. The Board adopted a deficit reduction plan to work toward aligning expenditures with revenue in an effort to close the deficit gap. The District has completed an initial analysis in a zero-based budget process to determine the essential activity and funding necessary to sustain program levels and to determine potential savings in the delivery of these programs.
The District has worked to control its expenditures. The revenue available to District 26 for funding educational programs often falls short of what is needed. Due to several factors, including the tax cap and funding shortages of mandated programs from the state, District 26’s revenue has not kept pace with the expenses required to educate its students.
The revenue recommendation which was presented by the administration at the January 20, 2009 Board of Education Meeting, provides the best solution for both the District and the Community. If approved, the District Administration is committed to this plan and to ensuring its effective execution.
We have developed a plan that would provide the District with ongoing funding to support the District’s educational programs and needed facility improvements while having the least amount of impact to the taxpayer.
(See attached Power Point presentation and recommendation)
Strategic Initiatives
• Upgrade classroom & District technology to improve curriculum delivery and student achievement.
• Provide a safe learning environment through facility and grounds capital improvements.
• Restructure District finances to move capital expenditures from the operational funds to the Capital fund and establish a sufficient fund reserve to minimize short term borrowing.
• Align classroom technology capabilities with new curriculums to effectively deliver the curriculums to students.
• Staff professional development to use new technology.
• Update District infrastructure in school buildings and administration office.
• Replace outdated equipment and software.
• Replace roofs at Three Oaks and Deerpath Schools.
• Capital projects/ life safety projects including:
parking lot repair or replacement, sidewalk repair or replacement, exterior maintenance of buildings, and building HVAC system updates and replacements.• Replacement of older busses.
• Early childhood/Preschool center Summary of Outstanding Bond Issues
• Remove capital expenditures from operational funds.
• Provide District a sufficient level of funds on
hand to eliminate/reduce short term borrowing.
Projected savings, using an estimated annual
cost of $130k, of $420k through 2013.
• Utilize savings to provide services/materials to
students rather than paying interest to banks.
Projected Fund Balance w/out Referendum
With $17 Million Bond Issue
• Working Cash Bond for $17 Million be placed
on the April 7,2009 ballot• If approved
– $10 for capital improvements.
– $7 Million to remain in Working Cash Fund.• All uses of funds require Board of Education
action.
0.05 rate structure increase costs an additional $2.4 million in Interest Costs.
Based on a $300,000 house, the 0.05 increase would cost $123 more than the 0.09 for the life of the issue.
(Remember, these images can be enlarged a lot by clicking on them.)
Ballot QuestionShall the Board of Education of Cary Community Consolidated School District Number 26, McHenry and Lake Counties, Illinois, be authorized to issue $17,000,000 bonds for a working cash fund as provided for by Article 20 of the School Code?
Here’s what the school administrators gave the District 26 school board members before they voted 4-3 to ask for $17 million in Working Cash bonds. Remember this contains no outside analysis. I made my general comments on my dislike of Working Cash arrangements in this article. I welcome and will publish any comments or analysis anyone wishes to make. (The first one took less than an hour to appear at the bottom of this article.)
Voting to put this tax increase on the ballot were board members
Opposed were
* Chris Jenner
* Randy Lawrence
* Julie Lehman
District 26′s explanatory material, which was not posted on its web site prior to the board meeting, follows:
To: Board of Education
From: Brian Coleman, Superintendent
Date: January 20, 2009Re: Recommendation for Issuing Working Cash Bonds
Our goal in District 26 is to provide a safe and caring educational environment for students with high expectations for learning while striving to remain within the limits of available recourses.
Due to the collaborative work of parents, teachers, administration, and the Board of Education, a high majority of our students continue to meet and exceed District and State expectations for achievement.
District 26 has always made the learning needs of our students the top priority. Through our focus on power standards and the collection of achievement data, we are now, more than ever, able to focus and fine tune our curriculum and instruction to meet the learning needs of each child.
The District maintains safe and secure facilities for students to learn and interact. We have worked to extend the life of many of our facilities so that funding could be used to provide educational services and materials to students. Some buildings are now in need of major improvements in order to maintain the safe and secure environment needed.
The Board and administration have also worked to bring the needs of our programs into alignment with the resources available. The Board adopted a deficit reduction plan to work toward aligning expenditures with revenue in an effort to close the deficit gap. The District has completed an initial analysis in a zero-based budget process to determine the essential activity and funding necessary to sustain program levels and to determine potential savings in the delivery of these programs.
The District has worked to control its expenditures. The revenue available to District 26 for funding educational programs often falls short of what is needed. Due to several factors, including the tax cap and funding shortages of mandated programs from the state, District 26’s revenue has not kept pace with the expenses required to educate its students.
The revenue recommendation which was presented by the administration at the January 20, 2009 Board of Education Meeting, provides the best solution for both the District and the Community. If approved, the District Administration is committed to this plan and to ensuring its effective execution.
We have developed a plan that would provide the District with ongoing funding to support the District’s educational programs and needed facility improvements while having the least amount of impact to the taxpayer.
(See attached Power Point presentation and recommendation)
Strategic Initiatives
• Upgrade classroom & District technology to improve curriculum delivery and student achievement.
• Provide a safe learning environment through facility and grounds capital improvements.
• Restructure District finances to move capital expenditures from the operational funds to the Capital fund and establish a sufficient fund reserve to minimize short term borrowing.
• Align classroom technology capabilities with new curriculums to effectively deliver the curriculums to students.
• Staff professional development to use new technology.
• Update District infrastructure in school buildings and administration office.
• Replace outdated equipment and software.
• Replace roofs at Three Oaks and Deerpath Schools.
• Capital projects/ life safety projects including:
parking lot repair or replacement, sidewalk repair or replacement, exterior maintenance of buildings, and building HVAC system updates and replacements.• Replacement of older busses.
• Early childhood/Preschool center Summary of Outstanding Bond Issues
• Remove capital expenditures from operational funds.
• Provide District a sufficient level of funds on
hand to eliminate/reduce short term borrowing.
Projected savings, using an estimated annual
cost of $130k, of $420k through 2013.
• Utilize savings to provide services/materials to
students rather than paying interest to banks.
Projected Fund Balance w/out Referendum
With $17 Million Bond Issue
• Working Cash Bond for $17 Million be placed
on the April 7,2009 ballot• If approved
– $10 for capital improvements.
– $7 Million to remain in Working Cash Fund.• All uses of funds require Board of Education
action.
0.05 rate structure increase costs an additional $2.4 million in Interest Costs.
Based on a $300,000 house, the 0.05 increase would cost $123 more than the 0.09 for the life of the issue.
(Remember, these images can be enlarged a lot by clicking on them.)
Ballot QuestionShall the Board of Education of Cary Community Consolidated School District Number 26, McHenry and Lake Counties, Illinois, be authorized to issue $17,000,000 bonds for a working cash fund as provided for by Article 20 of the School Code?
One of the most notorious violations of taxpayers used by school districts is the use of Working Cash Funds.
The scam works this way.
The school board passes a resolution to borrow money (issue bonds).
Taxpayers do have a short time to gather an extraordinary percentage of the voters’ signatures.
Districts typically publish the notice of the possibility of what is called a “backdoor” referendum during the winter when people find it too cold to go door-to-door.
“Sneaky” does not begin to describe this practice. “Evil” comes to mind.
If enough signatures are not gathered to force a referendum, taxes go up to pay back the bonds.
In the worst-case scenario, the school district then drains the Working Cash Fund and the process starts all over.
A tax increase without a referendum followed by another tax increase without a referendum, ad infinitum.
The Belvidere School Board is using a different permutation of this scam, a friend of McHenry County Blog has informed me.
The Belvidere school board tax hikers want $23 million, but don’t want to have to go through one of those messy referendums.
After all, when the district asked for $54.5 million, the voters said, “No.”
So much easier just to take almost half that amount with a majority vote of the school board.
Hey, it’ll only cost 3-5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation says PMA financial advisor Scott Smith, but he told Rockford Register-Star reporter Kevin Haas,
“Right now, it is difficult to say what would happen with the tax rate overall.”
This guy Smith says it will only cost $20 to $34 more a year on a $200,000 house.
How many years?
T-W-E-N-T-Y !!!
Taxpayers wanting the courtesy of a vote on the November ballot have until February 25th to gather more than 2,500 signatures.
Considering the cost, it might be worth the work of gathering petition signatures.
Petitions are supposed to be provided by the school district. (If they are not, please let me know.)
Here’s what Lyle Morgensen, a former business manager for School District 100 told Haas,
“It seems to me that the taxpayer should have the opportunity to decide if this is a good thing for the district or not.”
And, should they get than number, based on the experience of folks in the Elgin school district who did similarly, the local school board will hire lawyers to eliminate the unregistered voters in order to get the number lower than 10% and kill the referendum.
So, if you go after signatures aim for at least 3,500.
35 people would only have to get 100 per person.
Don’t tell me it can’t be done.
That’s no reason not to try, though.
I gathered 1,100 signatures in one week (I’ll grant it was summer) standing outside of the Jewel grocery store in Crystal Lake in the late 1980’s.
So, don’t tell me it can’t be done.
I’ll be some high traffic store would let you stand inside.
And, start thinking about who is going to run against these anti-democratic school board members next year.
= = = = =
Signs are from the second Belvidere school bond referendum.
One of the most notorious violations of taxpayers used by school districts is the use of Working Cash Funds.
The scam works this way.
The school board passes a resolution to borrow money (issue bonds).
Taxpayers do have a short time to gather an extraordinary percentage of the voters’ signatures.
Districts typically publish the notice of the possibility of what is called a “backdoor” referendum during the winter when people find it too cold to go door-to-door.
“Sneaky” does not begin to describe this practice. “Evil” comes to mind.
If enough signatures are not gathered to force a referendum, taxes go up to pay back the bonds.
In the worst-case scenario, the school district then drains the Working Cash Fund and the process starts all over.
A tax increase without a referendum followed by another tax increase without a referendum, ad infinitum.
The Belvidere School Board is using a different permutation of this scam, a friend of McHenry County Blog has informed me.
The Belvidere school board tax hikers want $23 million, but don’t want to have to go through one of those messy referendums.
After all, when the district asked for $54.5 million, the voters said, “No.”
So much easier just to take almost half that amount with a majority vote of the school board.
Hey, it’ll only cost 3-5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation says PMA financial advisor Scott Smith, but he told Rockford Register-Star reporter Kevin Haas,
“Right now, it is difficult to say what would happen with the tax rate overall.”
This guy Smith says it will only cost $20 to $34 more a year on a $200,000 house.
How many years?
T-W-E-N-T-Y !!!
Taxpayers wanting the courtesy of a vote on the November ballot have until February 25th to gather more than 2,500 signatures.
Considering the cost, it might be worth the work of gathering petition signatures.
Petitions are supposed to be provided by the school district. (If they are not, please let me know.)
Here’s what Lyle Morgensen, a former business manager for School District 100 told Haas,
“It seems to me that the taxpayer should have the opportunity to decide if this is a good thing for the district or not.”
And, should they get than number, based on the experience of folks in the Elgin school district who did similarly, the local school board will hire lawyers to eliminate the unregistered voters in order to get the number lower than 10% and kill the referendum.
So, if you go after signatures aim for at least 3,500.
35 people would only have to get 100 per person.
Don’t tell me it can’t be done.
That’s no reason not to try, though.
I gathered 1,100 signatures in one week (I’ll grant it was summer) standing outside of the Jewel grocery store in Crystal Lake in the late 1980’s.
So, don’t tell me it can’t be done.
I’ll be some high traffic store would let you stand inside.
And, start thinking about who is going to run against these anti-democratic school board members next year.
= = = = =
Signs are from the second Belvidere school bond referendum.
Latest Posts
