If you own a home valued at $315,000, the School District part of your property tax bill is projected to go up by $340 next year—and that's the good news.
The Geneva School Board voted unanimously Monday night to approve a resolution accepting at 1.5 percent increase in the tax levy, the lowest of five scenarios presented Monday by School District 304 Assistant Superintendent for Finance Donna Oberg.
Oberg's presentation may be viewed in the School Board's agenda packet in the BoardBook part of the School District 304 website.
The School Board's Finance Committee had recommended a 2 percent increase, but board members rejected that option Monday night. Tax-cap legistlation would have allowed a 3 percent increase, based on the consumer price index.
School Board member Matt Henry said his family had taken a $50,000 salary hit and is "just now starting to make it out a little bit," so he understands Geneva residents' concerns about rising tax rates.
"I can’t imagine that we would not ask, or continue to ask, for as much belt-tighting as possible," he said. "(And) I can’t imagine that we’d expect anything more from our tax base than 1.5 percent."
Board member Mike McCormick agreed.
"I think we have to go with the minimum at 1.5 percent," he said. "It’s going to stink having to come up with (additional budget cuts), but everybody’s suffering right now, and I think that sends a pretty strong message to the community that we hear them."
Tim Moran said the state mechanism for the levy "is rather bizarre" because it's based on estimates of property tax values that haven't been calculated yet, forcing School Board members and administrators to "look into this crystal ball based on hopeful expectations."
One Catch 22 for decision-makers is that next year's tax extension is based on the previous year's, so if the district doesn't seek the full amount allowed by law, it can't recoup the value of new growth that takes place in the next couple months.
True too is that Geneva School District 304 has had success lowering tax rates by paying down debt through abatement and refinancing. If the levy is too low, the surplus funds needed for abatement simply won't be there.
"It’s hard to the community to understand that you’ll never get that money back," School Board member Mary Stith said.
Stith and Moran said they, too, would support the resolution seeking the 1.5 percent increase. Bill Wilson, a member of the Finance Committee, said he had been in favor of the 2 percent increase because the district might have to make deeper budget cuts and it might be able to use surpluses to spread the cuts over two years.
"To go from $600,000 (cuts) to $900,000 doesn’t seem like much, but it means going into some areas we’ve tried to stay out of," he said. "Would it be better for us to go for $700,000 in two years? We would have to make cuts in the budget and start taking a look at that now to see what those impacts are."
The five options included scenarios for increases of 3 percent, 2.5 percent, 2.25 percent, 2 percent, and 1.5 percent. The tax impact on a $315,000 home—after abatement was factored—ranged from $415 to $340.
Oberg emphasized that those are the best estimates she could make based on the information available at this time.
"They’re projected amounts, and they could change," she said.
Geneva TaxFACTS co-founder Bob McQuillan said the School Board didn't go far enough and should have considered nothing higher than a zero percent increase.
"We are telling you, there is no more money," he said. "On every scenario tonight, you are asking for an increase over this year’s operating revenue ... Please vote for a zero tax levy in December. It’s time for taxpayers to win one for a change."
School Board President Mark Grosso agreed with other board members that the 1.5 percentage increase was the right choice, given the state of the economy.
"These are tough decisions," he said. "We just had some real tough negotiations with our teachers union. I think it was very trying on all of us. And now we’re having to look at the levy.
"For me personally, I would lean toward the 1.5, even though it's going to mean we'll need to do some belt tightening. I think that would be consistent with the same message we're telling our employees, and the same message our community would expect from us."
The $600k to $900k cuts mentioned aren't cuts. It is the difference from the maximum levy (3%) to the 1.5% levy. They don't need a 3% levy, so why even discuss that amount. The tax levy system is backwards, you ask for as much as possible, or what you think the taxpayers will pay, not what you will need. That is why we have $50 million in fund reserves. Every year they have asked for more than they need and then the rest goes into the fund reserve. With the $61.3 million they received this year, there was still a $3 million reserve in the education fund. The overall budget had a deficit because they used $7 million from reserves for capital improvements (football field & technology). One board member called it a "planned deficit". The debt service repayment will increase $1.4 million next year but that is separate from the tax levy. Please read the presentation and understand what is being done. Your taxes do not have to increase by $340.00 next year. A 0% levy option was not even presented to the board. Why not? The board uses the excuse that we can't recapture the money if it is left on the table. So you increase taxes so you can get as much money as possible? That's wrong.
http://thewillcountynews.com/?p=400
At this point, it may be time to move forward to focus on the next board elections, in addition to the 0% levy push. From what I learned in the comments, the union tries to stack the board with candidates that are pro-union and pro-spending to maintain the status quo. Bob, is there a way to add BOE election-planning to TaxFact’s agenda? I am willing to help with this effort.
Just like having a vanilla latte every day won't break the bank...it can certainly cost a lot in the long term. This board knows it needs to plan long term. And if I were a betting girl, I believe the IEA has Geneva right in the crosshairs...and are monitoring every move we make. This near-strike revealed the overwhelming discontent for current practices in teacher compensation. The union needs to get sympathetic candidates on the board...and quick. It will be interesting who will step up to protect this growling, three-headed dog.
1. The proposed tax increase next year is not due to the teachers agreement which is being voted on. The board did an excellent job in holding the line on salary increases and the GEA did compromise. No matter your personal feelings, both sides got the deal done. Everyone now needs to accept the fact and move on. 2. The proposed 1.5% tax levy increase is a result of a flawed system. It is not the BOE's fault. That said, they do not have to approve any levy increase. We have enough money to cover next year without a levy increase. The BOE has told the GEA there is no more money, now the taxpayers need to tell the board there is no more money. It is nothing against the board, it is just the way it is. Those that are interested in learning about the tax levy and how it works are welcome to attend a meeting I'm trying to set up. I will be setting up two meetings on the same topic to accommodate as many schedules as possible. This meeting has to take place before the BOE votes on December 10th. If interested, please send an e-mail to bobm@genevataxfacts.org and tell me what dates & times are best for you. Your e-mail will not be used for any other reason except to inform you of these two meetings. You can also send an e-mail through our website www.genevataxfacts.org As I have said many times, an informed public has power. It is your money, you should have a say in how you what it handled. The BOE is welcome to attend. any meeting that is set up
Your assumptions are starting to get annoying. It has already been made public that the GEA agreed to a freeze in the first year. That is "holding the line." I was answering a statement that John S made in a prior comment about the tax levy. You can continue to attack everyone but it is getting a bit creepy when you attack me and all I have ever done is answered every question you have asked. You need to give the teachers agreement a rest. Since the talks started in February, I have never e-mailed Mark Grosso nor have I gotten an e-mail from him about the agreement talks. I don't know any more about the agreement than has been written in the newspaper or here. I was also not on the grassy knoll holding an opened umbrella.
I know you love to muddy the waters and stir the pot...but there's nothing here. Really.
I have not spoken to Mark Grosso in person, on the phone, via e-mail, by smoke signal or Morse code. I suggest you watch the video of Monday night's board meeting and listen to my comments on the proposed tax levy. Next conspiracy theory please.
Did you shoot J.R.? People, give it a rest. I swear, the only reason some people post on here and complain is so the pressure in their head doesn't cause it to explode. If you don't like what the Board is doing, VOTE them out.