If we would layoff all the teachers in one school and hire teachers on the open market this town would sh#t in their pants at how cheaply we would get high quality teachers at a cheaper price.

I was one of 3 citizens recommending a zero levy increase - it would be a signal to the community that we hear and vote your concerns to vote levy+0%. The board read the PMA study suggesting a dire impact on reserves but it used unrealistic assumptions; for example, levy+0% for the next 5yrs and no property value increases - of course it looked it bad, because that's wrong model assumptions. A Patch survey had 85% favor levy+0%, which still increases taxes on a $315k house $260 (see weird EAV lower = higher tax rate math elsewhere!). The board approved levy+1.5% anyway, a 5.4% increase to your 2013 property tax bill. I was the only citizen at the school finance committee meeting. I was a municipal bond fund mangaer and now I sell sofware analytics to other municipal bond investors who buy our school bonds (in fact our bond math and credit data is used by 95% of the bond buyers in the market) -I understand the math of reserves, budgets, debt service etc. and impact on buyers of our bonds who set our borrowing costs and terms. We need to send a signal to taxpayers and school spenders that budget trimming for the taxpayer is job #1. Taxing extra for surplus, for abatement of debt or otherwise is not a priority. Taxing more than is needed, when a budget has a $3 million surplus, shows a lack of fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers.

The whole point of Mr Flaks comment was that $76 will not keep anyone from foreclosure but it will provide the BOE with a budget that allows for the TEACHERS to have a consistent increases in income. As long as the BOE continues to use a budget versus actual expenses to calculate the amount of taxes they want we will continue to be overtaxed. The future abatement of taxes to cover increasing debt payments is a short term solution to over projections of income from the past. This method continues the long term strategy of over taxing which when COMPOUNDED gives the BOE a much bigger reserve pool for SPENDERS to swim in.

Anthony, I agree with your comment about overspending giving the BOE a much bigger reserve pool for spenders to swim in. However, I don't buy the argument that $76/taxpayer will allow the BOE to give teachers consistent increases in income. THE MONEY IS ALREADY THERE TO BE GIVEN TO THE TEACHERS! The Board is getting more money this year than last! The Board/Administration simply needs to redistribute WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE and give the teachers the raises and do away with frivolouse spending and waste.

If (and let me repeat the word IF) we're going to spend more money ANYWHERE within the system, it should be on teachers. Mr. Flaks and the rest of the GEA should take that gripe to the board! If they came forward with that position, I would have much more respect for them and their salary increase requests. However, as the whole scenario played out a month ago, I do believe the GEA's demands for the increases and retirement spiking were out of line given the current state of the economy.

Thanks Jerry for the kind thoughts

If you are going to hear multiple voices in you head, David, it's good that they agree.

If you are going to hear multiple voices in your head, David, it is good that they at least agree.

JMZ, once you have followed the school board you will know that they really don't care at all about your fiscal situation. The school board is made up primarily of Teachers Union friendly residents, who would rather tax you out of your home (it's for the children) than show any sense of fiscal restraint. The Geneva citizenry is ultimately to blame for failing to vote in the school board elections. The Geneva 304 Union Teachers all get out the vote - and vote of course for whichever candidate promises them a pay increase. Simple as that.

I understand the reserves were shown as of 6/30/12. Lots of assumptions were made at the finance committee about what the reserve balances were as of 11/30, with comments about it includes the debt payment due Jan 1 2013, the state is always late and probably will be again on the $3 million they owe us and they are several quarters behind, etc.

My biggest problem is the assumptions used to create a picture are sketchy, and no explanations are given when they vote yes, when a near majority of the taxpayers are saying vote no - there seems to be such a huge disconnect - either they are seeing numbers that the general public doesn't see, or we have a huge misunderstanding of what those numbers mean.

The board seems ultra-risk averse (keep as much reserve as possible), while the taxpayers are saying we are wanting to send a spending constraint signal for one year. The projections were built on a 0% levy for FIVE years - the taxpayers weren't asking for that... but the numbers showed bad things happening - of course they will, but why use unrealistic assumptions unless you already know what story you want to tell and point to?

We can change this bias by putting some new people on the board come April 9.

Martha - you don't understand the math and didn't hear last nights finance committee discussion. The reserves are not for the teachers to grab, its money needed to pay interest that will climb $2million per year from $15 to $24 million by 2017. The board is (abating) using the reserves to pay part of the interest so we only feel the $15 million interest we paid annually since 2006 (Kelly explained their reasoning).

Teacher's take note: The hard truth is we spent more on buildings than we needed, we have more interest payments than we can afford, and it will come from other operations budgets to cover the mistake - teachers and taxpayers are paying for past over borrowing, and will do so for years to come.

I don't see how a $3 million more revenue than spent in 2011, approving $80 mil when you didn't spend the $77 mil, equals teachers get the excess. We shouldn't be taxing for it in the first place. All employees, including teachers are at a pay freeze next year, but the overall budget and levy go up $340 per house. Even a zero levy would add $264 more on the average tax bill. If salaries are frozen next year, why do the PMA projections show salaries up 3%?

When increases are called cuts, pay freezes equals a 5.4% higher budget, and projections of levy plus 0% increase your tax bill, and projected surpluses on a consultant report shows a dramatic hit to reserves - none of the math seems right, does it? Again, bad assumptions = poor decisions

Martha
Disagreeing with someone is not belittling them. The teachers contract was not about the teachers, it was about the financial condition of the school district. The teachers and the GEA were the ones that made it about them. The contract was about trying to avoid yearly tax levy increases like the one approved last night.
Step back and look what the BOE's new policy is: Don't spend the reserves which are the direct result of overtaxing the residents for a number of years. Instead overtax the same residents a second time and abate some of that over-taxation to the debt service payment. What happened to the policy of back-loading the debt payments so that future residents will pay for the buildings already constructed? Under the abatement plan, current residents are paying the full debt service plus more. This is opposite of what we were told would happen. Abating the debt to the $15 million dollar a year level each year might be a good idea but the money to abate is what you have overtaxed the residents. Use the reserves. You are not saving the residents any money, what you are doing is moving money from pot to the other. To save the taxpayers, the only answer is to cut current expenses. The BOE needs to look at operations & maintenance and the transportation funds to find true expense cuts. Both of these funds are much higher than compatible districts the size of Geneva. Savings are there, someone just needs to make the hard decision to make the cuts.

Dan, I agree with you. All of the facts/figures that are available to the public are fuzzy. You basically have to sit down with all the data, sift through it, and piece it together to get a comprehensive picture. I'll reiterate that is was a gross misrepresentation for the Board to say they would be facing at $900,000 in budget cuts if they agreed to the 1.5% levy. They claimed that with a 0% levy, they would be faced with $1.8M in budget cuts. I was at the meeting on 11/12/12, I heard it with my own ears. Those numbers are simply untrue as presented.

However, with regard to my comment about the money already being in place to fund salary increases, I was pointing out that I'm tired of hearing the same battle cry from the GEA/IEA/teachers that the only way they can get salary increases is through increased taxation. It's ridiculous that nobody on the board or the GEA seemed to grasp that concept/bargaining point during the negotiations. If the GEA could've come up with some creative ways to fund salary increases without extra taxation, I think it would've been supported all around (well, except by the administrators I suspect). And I'm not talking abount funding the pension spiking, I'm only talking about annual salary increases. Like someone said below, the transportation and O&M budgets are incredibly high compared to neighboring districts (look at the percentages on the state report cards, they're available here: https://www.geneva304.org/Report_cards/index.asp.

David, the only way that will EVER happen is when a) Geneva further enhances it's reputation as a Tax and Spend District, to the point where it's obvious that home values are taking a hit, or b) Competent people get elected to the school board.

Please run for the school board Martina. We need at least one maybe two eclectic new members to sit on the board. The board is too predictable as it is right now.