There is a crucial BOE meeting TONIGHT, Monday November 17, 7:00PM in the Cafeteria of Hinsdale Central High School, 5500 S Grant Street.
The levy for the upcoming year will be voted on.
The district 86 new CFO has prepared a detailed yet understandable overview of the entire tax picture.
In that presentation it is abundantly clear using projection based on the negotiated contract, a very modest increase of 1.5% in 'purchased services' and ZERO growth in either supplies or capital expenses the MINIMUM levy should be increased by 1.86% Levy Info D86 |Bill Eagan CFO See page 17.
The success of the development of commercial property near the intersection of Rt 83 and Plainfield Rd (which was done with a TIF district, also covered in the CFO's presentation ) means that residential property tax be will safely under the the Property Tax Cap if the D86 BOE decides to levy the full amount as recommended by their CFO -- D86 CFO Recommends Maximum Levy| Chicago Tribune November 7 2014
It is troubling (and undoubtedly the work of the Finance Cmt. headed by a known anti-tax activist on the BOE that touts his MBA) that the CFO's levy presentation includes scenarios that would leave the district severely underfunded. Further the potential impact of such insufficient levies on even home owners' with a Fair Market Value of $1M (which is rather uncommon in the district, but is in fact less than the value of aforementioned anti-tax extremist's home) would be about $40.00 per year , or the cost of two fewer carry-out coffee beverages per month...
Save our Schools -- Give radicals on the BOE a Gift Card!
I have been involved in watching local governmental bodies try to make decisions about setting a fair levy for decades and this is one the clearest presentations I have ever come across.
The illustrations of how changes in assessment and the impact of TIF districts can result in temporarily elevated burden for individual home owners followed by potential reclamation of revenue is clearly shown.
I highly recommend folks review this info.
PARENTS: MAYBE A SEPARATE POSTING IS WARRANTED?"
Our D181 Reflections:
Now that you have read Mr. Wick's comment, we wanted to add our D181 reflections. We agree that the D86 CFO prepared an outstanding presentation on the tax levy proposals and explained the terminology, formulas used and sources of property tax dollars (new vs. existing construction). After reviewing this proposal and comparing it to the one presented last week at the November 10th D181 board meeting, (D181 Tax Levy Proposal), it should be clear to all our readers that if the D181 approves its proposed tax levy, it will be leaving $538,678 in new construction money on the table. Slide 11 of the D86 presentation explains the importance of new construction money and why it was included in the Tax Cap formula.
So we ask Dr. White and his administration to answer the following questions before the D181 Board votes to approve the tax levy at the December 8, 2014 Board Meeting:
1. Why didn't the administration explain clearly to the D181 BOE at the 11/10/14 board meeting that the proposed levy will leave $538,678 in new construction money on the table?
2. Why didn't the administration provide more than one scenario for the D181 BOE's consideration, including one in which the new construction money would be levied to the maximum amount allowed?
3. Why didn't the administration provide long term projections for the D181 BOE's consideration that showed the impact on the budget over the next four years should the board under-levy AND should Senate Bill 16 be approved, stripping D181 of $1.65 million dollars in state funding? The combination of both actions would strip the district budget of nearly $2.2 million each year going forward!
4. Why didn't Board President Turek raise these questions and ask the administration to answer them? Doesn't he understand the tax cap law? Doesn't he understand the long term effect of under-levying? Doesn't he understand the long term negative impact on D181 should Senate Bill 16 be approved? Or is Mr. Turek simply trying to get in the good graces of the Citizens for Clarendon Hills PAC that supported Mr. Corcoran, Mr. Cassini and Ms. Manley in the last D86 election -- a group that is anti-tax and has pushed for and supported the D86 board majority's efforts to under-levy? Remember, last year, the D86 BOE approved a flat -- zero percent increase-- levy. Last year, Mr. Corcoran, a member of the Citizens for Clarendon Hills PAC, and a second member of that group, both attended the December 9, 2013 BOE meeting at which the BOE approved this year's tax levy. Both gentlemen advocated for the D181 BOE to approve a flat levy. (Source: http://podcast.d181.org/?p=214 D181 12/9/13 Podcast -- comments begin at 15:22.) The D181 BOE failed to pass a flat levy last year. Is Mr. Turek now supporting an under-levy by D181 for next year in order to ensure the Citizens for Clarendon Hills PAC's support and votes should he decide to run for re-election next Spring?
There is still one more D181 board meeting scheduled before the 12/8 meeting at which the board will vote on the tax levy. The next meeting will be held on Monday, November 24 at 7 p.m. at Elm School. Hopefully one or more board members will insist that Mr. Turek put the proposed levy back on the agenda for further clarification and board discussion. Our students' future educational programs, class sizes and capital improvements may all be jeopardized if the BOE under-levies and Senate Bill 16 is approved. If Mr. Turek is unwilling to be fully transparent about the impact of what he is about to approve, another board member needs to demand full disclosure and discussion of this important issue.
Let's see if anyone on the BOE does the right thing.....