Ah! yes, lay it on us Pres. so we have a tax increase with the bond repayment and now an increase with a tax levy. And I assume another increase with the teachers contract coming within the 2nd year/3rd year? I hope I am wrong on the latter. I am curious in the negotiation process how one can negotiate(represent) when we have no money? Furthermore, has the District ever not increase its tax levy?

Rome was not un-built in a day. Let's prepare for the next battle.

Sounds like they sold us out.

G. Ryan - There was a consulting group that made presentations to the board several months ago. At that time, people wondered why all proposals showed an increase and none considered a proposal that would lower costs.

In the future, perhaps it could be asked that any consulting group show an equal number of proposals that have cost reductions as they show that have increased costs. As we all saw with the latest negotiation, whenever you build in automatic cost increases into contracts, it requires either increasing taxes, increasing tax levies (not sure if there is a difference in those two), or reductions in workforce if you keep the tax levy the same. I don't think they sold anyone out. I think we all need to prepare for the fact that the community and the country has lived off of a credit card for 6 decades, with social programs, handouts, subsidies, unfinanced wars, and excessive borrowing from Saudis, Russians, and Chineese that is unsustainable. When you look at the facts, the numbers, and the real amount of debt, the USA is bankrupt and illiquid. We are approaching the debt level being higher than the GDP, the signal that sank Greece. These are not hollow arguments - and people need to begin to listen to the facts - things are accelerating more quickly against tax payers than ever before, as tax payers become the last bastion of generating revenues. The local $300 million debt, the national fiscal cliff, and the need to pay for social programs have to be funded.

I would not condmen the Board on this one... I would get involved to make sure other levels of Government are doing their part to cut costs, maintain services, and reduce debts.

To those that complain, I say this: If you think you can do a better job, then you run for the Board of Education. I'm sure after the hell they have been through, they will be happy to see you step up and donate your time.

My take away is this: I got an invaluable lesson on how unions work,politics,city taxes and how money can really blur the line. I will say it again...this debate has (had) nothing to do with respect. I can speak for myself when I say that as a member of this community and a parent, I voiced my thoughts in a manner that was relevant and respectful. I use my real name and would be fully comfortable having a face to face discussion that would mirror my online comments. I will continue to respect teachers for the hard work that they do. However, I will struggle with how these negotiations,and the tatics used, polarized so many of us, in Geneva. I am thankful that my husband has a stable, fulfilling job that allows us to have a good life, at a time when many are struggling to make ends meet. We will make whatever sacrifices necessary to pay our taxes, in the coming years, but the price paid over this cannot be measured in dollars and cents.

I agree with Robert Jr. as well. It's time for the community to get their collective heads out of the sand and get involved. I went to my first board meeting last night and was astounded that there were no proposals to keep the tax levy at 0% increase, or even to, gasp, lower it! The board was discussing how difficult it will be to find the 900K in operating budget cuts that will be needed if there is only a 1.5% levy increase. WHAT??? If I'm correct, the operating budget doesn't get approved until Aug, 2013. How come they already know there will need to be cuts with a 1.5% levy increase? I suggest they take another long, hard look at the budget. I bet the average Geneva citizen would be surprised to see how the breakdown of expenditure of the levy money shakes out. The levy money is essentially used for 5 different "things" within the district's operating budget.....eduction, operations & maintenance, transportation, debt service, and municipal retirement/ss (there are a few others, but those are the main 5). I'll bet the majority of Geneva folks don't realize that in 2012, only 59.7% of the levy money went toward the education (state averate 73.7%), 11.6% went to operations & maintenance (compared to state average 5.9%), a whopping 9.5% went to transportation (compared to state average of 3.8%), and lastly 15.6% went towards district debt (compared to 7.4% statewide).

...continued.....I don't think it would sit well with the folks of Geneva to know that all those hard earned tax dollars are being diverted away from education and used and abused for o&m, transport and outstanding debt. Let's get the word out and force our elected representatives to do what's best "for the kids" instead of lining the pockets of the individuals and companies that do business with the district. Also, with regard to the debt service.....forget about abatement, just pay off the darn debt so we stop accumulating interest. The money has already been collected, most people don't even know abatement is an option, so just put it towards the debt. The outstanding debt service and tax rate shows that at the way things are going, by 2025, the district will have accumulated 306M in debt service. That just doesn't make sense. Let's all make sure to let our board know what we expect. They're elected, and unpaid, citizens of Geneva and we can't expect them to read our minds. Let's help them help us by getting involved!!!

Oh, and lastly, I'm sure if cuts could be made from o&m, and transport, we could put some of that money back to the teachers who deserve it....after the debt service is paid off that is. :-) Not to get into that argument again, but why were we all over the BOE to tighten the belt with regard to the new teacher contract, but this HUGE levy/budgeting issue doesn't seem to cause as much of a stir. That's it. I'm done, off my soapbox.

1. No one in the public knows the details of the teacher agreement, saying that the BOE did not represent us makes no sense. I'm 100% sure they did the best they possibly could and I applaud them for the countless hours they all spent to serve the community.
2. Every proposal presented last night increased the operating revenue over this year. Why? Watch the video when it is posted or read the presentation https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicItemDownload.aspx?ik=33133568 The current year's budget is balanced except for a planned spend from the reserve for capital improvements (football field & technology). The debt service payment will increase $1.4 million next year. The board has not even began to discuss any other expenses for next year - the salary increase should be minimal. We have more than $50 million dollars in reserves for any unforeseen expenses. The BOE needs to look at cutting expenses not increasing them.
The whole process is backwards. The BOE is predicting what amount they will need to operate next year when they haven't even started to look at what the expenses will be. The number isn't what it will take to operate, it is what they think they can get from the taxpayers without them revolting. When the budget is approved next September, if they don't spend the revenue it goes into the reserve fund. The reserve fund has more than $50 million because of the tax levy process. Every year we pay more than is needed. It has to stop, go to meeting

Bob is this levy final? What is the next step?

Yes, thank you I will do that.

Bob & all. I have been trying to get a grip on the tax issue so I went to the source. This morning, I spoke with Susan Ericson, Director of Tax Extension & Vital Records and after checking the website of public records (http://www.co.kane.il.us/Tax/TaxExtension.asp), I learned the following: The EAV (Equalized Assessed Value) for CUSD 304 for 2011 was 1,328,294,553. The estimated EAV for 2012 (available to the school board on 9/12/12) is 1,300,312,316. A reduction of .021. The school board is only proposing to raise the tax rate (levy) .015. This is a decrease in revenue of .006 to the school district in 2012. Hence, probably, the reason for the budget cuts and salary freezes.

Personally, in the past year, my house decreased in value .0461 (as per the Notice of Revised Assessment dated 8/16/2012). Since the tax rate of the school district is only increasing .015, I will actually pay $152.61 LESS in school taxes in 2012 than I did in 2011.

Please, everyone, understand what is actually happening before you harass the poor (and very fatigued) school board.

Rick Nagel or Jeff Ward ~ maybe you could write an article highlighting some of this information that would reach more of your readers. Thanks for your consideration!

Laurie R
Your calculation is not correct. Last year the district tax rate was 5.562. This year with an abatement and a 1.5% tax levy, the rate will be 6.06. This is listed on pages 20 & 21 of the presentation made last night.
https://v3.boardbook.org/Public/PublicItemDownload.aspx?ik=33133568
If your house had an assessed value of $100,000, you paid $5,562 in district taxes this year year. If your house decreased 4.61% percent to $95,400, you will pay $5,781 next year. That is an increase of $219 even though your house decreased 4.61%. You will need to fill in your own assessed value.
Asking the school board to approve a 0% tax levy is not harassing them. At a 1.5% levy, they will be collecting more money that they did this year -$ 63.7 million vs $ 61.3 million. This is listed on page 24 of the linked presentation.
The reduction or cuts that they reference is the amount below the maximum available 3% tax levy. It has nothing to do actually cutting expenses. In the past they would request the maximum levy and then not spend it all. The "unspent money" went into fund reserves but it really is the amount the community was overtaxed. The fund reserve now has over $50 million dollars. The abatement that they talk about is the excess funds in the education fund above $15 million that they put on the debt to pay it down. I understand what is actually happening and have for a while.
Hope this helps.

LLKCV
You hit the nail on the head when you said that most residents don't understand the process. It has taken me more than 4 years of attending meetings, doing research, asking questions and making mistakes until I understood the process. And by no means am I an expert. One of the problems I have found is that most people will not give you a straight answer even though it is our money. This is not just a Geneva problem it happens in all districts. It is the board's policy not to answer questions asked at a board meeting. Sounds ridiculous but it is true, they don't even answer questions at their own forums. I'll attempt to answer your questions on the next post.

Wow, that's pretty eye opening regarding the debt. It saddens me to think our city is going to be burdened with these huge debt repayments for many years to come, no matter which way you cut it. I wish I would've been more informed about the long term effect (debt) the 2007 referendum was going to have on us all. I just heard the cries of "it's for the kids" and voted yes. I'm ashamed to admit that, but it's true. I'm a busy professional with a family, and I just haven't had the time to research these kinds of issues. Although with 306M of debt on the district books, obviously the 2007 referendum wasn't the only contributor to our current state of affairs. I guess there's no time like the present to get educated and involved.

I don't like the idea that it's difficult to get answers/explanations from the people who determine what happens with "our money." In my opinion, transparancy breeds trust. I'm not trying to imply that our Board is terrible and warrants no appreciation. Maybe they've tried to provide explanations over the years and just got tired of it? Who knows. I most definitely appreciate their efforts to maintain the quality of education in our district. And they seemed to really respond to what the taxpayers were saying about the recent contract negotiations, hopefully it's reflected in the final contract. Anway, thank you for the explanation above, I appreciate it.

Bob - when is the next TaxFACTS meeting? Will you be discussing the Levy?

Sue
TaxFACTS does not have regularly scheduled meetings. We did hold two Town Hall meetings earlier this year and probably will do so again but not before December 10th. If you have a group of neighbors interested in sitting down, I'm more than happy to go over the process.
Actually, if anyone is interested send an e-mail to bob@genevataxfacts.org and if we get enough people interested, I'll find a place and select a day & time that most can make. Your e-mail address will be kept confidential. Need to do it soon if you would like to address the board prior to December 10th.

My understanding, which may be flawed in detail, is that the system itself punishes districts that actually try to cut the costs, by making it harder to reinstate the funding in the future. And then if we do not get the state funding, someone else does.

One of the problems is that the policy makers did not factor in the notion of a recession/depression in their calculations. Neither did the groups that build in automatic pay increases every year. Flawed policy at the state level contributes to the situation as well. In the end, the nature of the system is flawed in that it inherently increases costs... taken to the limit, it self-bankrupts.

The argument is that you take the maximum levy possible every year because you don't want to "leave anything on the table." That is all well and good except you end up overtaxing the residents because you might not need the maximum amount available. Everyone knows if you get the money, you'll find a way to spend it. The argument is that you also need to capture new construction. Again, in order to capture the $25 million of new construction you take a higher levy, but you are going to get the new construction anyway in 12-18 months because we pay taxes in arrears. The oath the BOE members take is to be good stewards of the taxpayer and district assets. In my opinion, approving an inflated tax levy is not in the best of the taxpayer. The revenue should be based on what you need not on what you can get. The process rewards those districts that take the maximum and then stockpile it in reserves. The taxpayers are not rewarded by this strategy.

Sorry, I gave a wrong e-mail address for those interested in meeting to discuss the tax levy. The correct e-mail is bobm@genevataxfacts.org Let me know what dates and times are good for you. I possible, I'll set up two different meetings to reach as many people as possible.
Thanks
Bob

@no more taxes,
Great pseudonym. Maybe when you get tired with that one you can use no more schools, no more police, no more fire department, no more roads, no more bridges....
From your post it is apparent you have only voted for a referendum and not the school board elections that determined the people who created it. Unfortunately for you you live in a country that believes in representative democracy. What I find most frightening about your post is your belief that people with children in the district have a "conflict of interest" by serving on the school board? As if the people who no longer have kids or who never have had kids in the school district are not affected at all by what happens in the schools? I have heard the word "greed" thrown about quite a bit recently in regards to teachers but what do you call when the desire to not pay "any" taxes is so great you want to change the very nature of the democratic process so you can do away with the infrastructure that supports us as a society. I would strongly suggest you participate in the school board elections this April either by running or voting, but realize there are people with school aged kids who might not vote for you. They live in Geneva also.

Also, if you want to effect change, EMAIL THE BOARD DIRECTLY!!! Their address is board@geneva304.org. I believe that if 100 or so residents email the board and express dissatisfaction at the proposed 1.5% levy increase (board vote is on Dec 10), they will be responsive. Here is how I read the numbers from the 2012 Tax Levy presentation Bob M. linked above:

2011 actual levy: operating levy (61.2M) + debt service (15.9M) = 77.1M total
2012 proposed 1.5% levy: operating levy (63.4M) + debt service (17.3M) = 80.7M tot
2012 proposed 0% levy: operating levy (62.4M) + debt service (17.3M) = 79.7M total

I don't have a degree in accounting, but both 79.7M (0%) and 80.7M (1.5%) are MORE than last year's 77.1M. Until the board can clarify these numbers and justify the bottom line number inrease, I can't suppot the 1.5% levy. Maybe there's more to it that just the bottom line, but I don't see it that way. The spreadsheet on page 22 of the presentation is misleading. It makes it appear that at anything short of a 3% levy, there will be a decrease in operating levy. But when you actually make another column in the table for the 2011 actual numbers, you can clearly see that even at 0%, the amounts are HIGHER than last year. I suggest you all email the board at board@geneva304.org and ask them to clarify this issue (if you agree that the numbers just don't doesn't add up, that is).

Bob McQuillan for school board president, the guy has all the answers. He is so intelligent. It's unbelievable how smart the guy is. He is just so impressive, please Bob run for school board, run for Mayor of Geneva. Geneva needs your leadership, you are just so awesome!

Wow Martha, that's a bit much. Why jump down Bob's throat? The presentations about the levy *appear* to be misleading based on the bottom line numbers (especially if someone only takes a quick glance and doesn't actually sit down and crunch the numbers). With 0% levy (and 1.5% levy) it *appears* that there will still be more money in 2012 than in 2011. But the presentation makes it *appear* that the board will be working with a 900K decrease in funds if they go with the 1.5% levy. Are you ok with that? I'm surely not, I'd like some clarification. Especially in light of the fact that the whole community was polarized by the recent teacher contract negotiations. The Board wanted the teachers to take a pay freeze....and based on the comments on the Patch and discussions I heard out in the community, it seemed that, in general, the community supported the Board in asking the teachers to take a pay freeze based on the current economy. Why should the teachers be asked to take a freeze, but the Board not be expected to work with a frozen tax dollar amount as well? What's that old adage....something about not shooting the messenger?

Parents demands and sports are the reason your taxes go up. I was subbing at a Middle School in Geneva and there was an announcement at the end of the school day that the kids could wait inside the building due to the inclement weather. I looked out the window and there was a light sprinkling of snow. I was shocked and asked the teacher if I heard that announcement right...she said yes, and she said you wouldn't believe what these parents demand. I also worked as a parapro in Aurora..the classroom teacher was on the phone before and after school answering ridiculous questions from PARENTS.

Parents make demands on the schools, it's out of control...that is all I am saying. I am serious, my kids were in sports too...I am just saying parents are too demanding and the schools cater to the parents more than the students. It's sad.

Right Sue, parents have nothing to do with $306 million dollars in debt. I am wrong and you are right, because I haven't done my research. New schools, upgrades, busing that has nothing to do with parents demanding the best for their kids.