Avoiding a Future Referendum at your Expense?

My opposition to the proposed 1% school board tax levy increase became even stronger after watching the video of the November 25, 2013 meeting (http://genevataxfacts.org/School-Board-and-Geneva-Tax-Facts-Meetings/11-25-2013.html  Use the Topic Short-cuts to 4.1 -Questions on PMA Update from Board – fast forward to 32 minutes for this exact discussion).

This discussion followed a presentation to the public and board by Steve Miller of PMA regarding a five-year financial plan update.

The comments made by both administration and board members revealed a strategy that had previously escaped me. 

1   (a) First was new board member, Leslie Juby’s good effort to paraphrase the “simple man’s way” of understanding the mentality of taxing, abating, and using the net gain to add to reserves. 

It went something like “So if we levy the money and then we give it back, when our debt service is paid off, we have a larger amount at the end so we have the potential to not have to run referendums or things like that because we have built up this money.   If we don’t levy, we have less to abate back, we probably will have less money in the future which will push us to maybe have to make more difficult decisions in terms of taxing?  So it’s basically, we’re  taking it and giving it back but we’re keeping the net gain of it as opposed to not taking, not giving it back, and then having to recoup.   … So, when I hear that, I think we’re taking it and giving it back, but it looks to me like we’re helping now but we are also helping in the future because we won’t be asking them for more in the future.. is that right?”

(b) Donna Oberg’s response was something like “Right, we wouldn’t have to go out for a referendum… rate increase.”

This was all an eye opener to me.  So the board has an underlying strategy to sock away net gains from frequent taxing to the max so they won’t have to ask for future referendums when large projects are envisioned?  Granted, it will be many years before this community approves a school board referendum in the light of the unexplained inflated figures used in the 2007 referendum.  It would seem to me the board would be inspired to show the community how fiscally responsible they are by NOT trying to increase the levy at all instead of following a strategy of avoiding public scrutiny on future major spending?

(c) Dr. Mutchler followed with something like “That’s right, and what it does is it maintains local control on the tax levy on the taxes that people pay because you are levying on the operations but doing the abatement on the amount that is already set to go up. So, if you take it off of the operations, that amount that is set to go up on the long-term debt is going to continue to go up.  So doing it this way with the abatements maintains the local control to impact the overall levy rate”. 

In reference to Dr. Mutchler’s confusing but strangely placating statement, the school board very clearly maintains local control over the taxing levy. Judging by poor community involvement at meetings, they will be able to continue unfettered.  What kind of strategy is this that implies that if we don’t tax in excess of what we need, we might lose “control” of that power in the future?  Or does this really mean that we need to continually increase the levy as long as we can, as down the road taxpayers might get upset and insist on a 0% levy which would hamper future efforts to avoid referendums?

2.  Mark Grosso followed with something like “we are not levying to the max… 

Mark’s statement has been said in many different forms from several board and administration members and it is said as if taxpayers should consider that a “gift of generosity” from the board? A 0% levy in past years would still have resulted in a net gain to the district but a net loss to taxpayers who are never abated the full amount of the gains from an increased levy and will never again have any of that money that was achieved by over taxation returned to their households.  I would prefer to see an attitude of  I want to maintain my commitment to the community to work hard so we don’t have to continue the tax increasing mentality and level off the constant increases over the last ten years.  

Even a 0% levy this year would result in a $2 plus million increase to the Education Fund. Well, yes, there would be less to abate, and even less net gain to set aside for the “avoid the referendum strategy” but it would send a clear message to taxpayers that this board regrets the mistake made in the last referendum and wants to show a truly fiscally responsible face to all taxpayers .

3.   Donna Oberg queried Steve Miller whether other school districts were taking less than CPI and received the response that “a lot are talking about it”.  It does surprise me that no one on the board thought to ask that question? Kudos to Donna for bringing that out in the open! Geneva isn't the only school district that has continually increased the school tax levy.

A lot of people are waking up and our town is no exception.  Couldn’t our school board take a leadership position and stop the squeeze on taxpayers rather than being followers and trying to capture as much as possible so they won’t have to go before the community when they need more?

Yesterday, I sent this letter to the school board and asked the following.

Are we really going to continue increasing the levy so our net gains which end up in reserves will provide future large spending opportunities for the district without having to ask the public via referendums?  What happened to the “rainy day”, the “pension issue might have severe impact”, “we need to be sure we can cover our expenditures”, “we don’t know what all-day kindergarten will cost”, “transportation/student reimbusements from state” and “affordable healthcare implications” and all the other sky-is-falling reasons?  Are they just hype intended to soft focus the underlying strategy of collecting more money than we need so voters won't have to approve large expenditures in a future referendum?

The final vote is Monday evening at a public meeting at 7pm at Williamsburg School.  Is everyone OK with another tax increase from the school district so we can help them NOT have to come back to the community with a referendum to fund other projects?  

Remember, that we all are now paying to reduce the debt incurred from the 2007 referendum that was presented to the public with inflated enrollment figures that none of the 11 people involved knows how the wrong numbers got presented to the voters? 

And, if the school board continues to get by with increasing the levy, you won't ever have to worry about getting the chance to be heard in the next referendum cause there won't be one. You will have prepaid for any big project they want to fund.