NWHerard Says NO to referendum
From The Northwest Herald
D-46: No
Prairie Grove School District 46 will ask residents to approve a referendum March 21 allowing the district to issue $18 million in bonds for a new school.
School officials say the referendum would not result in a tax increase for residents. However, District 46 officials have failed to identify a true need for the building at this time.
We oppose the referendum request.
Although new subdivisions are planned in District 46, Prairie Grove village officials have said that significant building that would affect District 46 is unlikely to occur before the 2008 school year.
Also, the new school might not have access to sewer and water infrastructure. That infrastructure will not be in place until the Tall Grass subdivision is further along. Wait until Tall Grass actually is under way.
The timing of this request is several years too early.
http://www.nwherald.com/MainSection/opinion/314529559565716.php
D-46: No
Prairie Grove School District 46 will ask residents to approve a referendum March 21 allowing the district to issue $18 million in bonds for a new school.
School officials say the referendum would not result in a tax increase for residents. However, District 46 officials have failed to identify a true need for the building at this time.
We oppose the referendum request.
Although new subdivisions are planned in District 46, Prairie Grove village officials have said that significant building that would affect District 46 is unlikely to occur before the 2008 school year.
Also, the new school might not have access to sewer and water infrastructure. That infrastructure will not be in place until the Tall Grass subdivision is further along. Wait until Tall Grass actually is under way.
The timing of this request is several years too early.
http://www.nwherald.com/MainSection/opinion/314529559565716.php
posted by Candidate at
3:44 PM
5 Comments:
Someone posted earlier on this blog and suggested school superintendent Mary Fasbender be known as Mary "Fastspender"...I now believe the name should be Mary Factsbender. Why? The woman is clearly the master of bending the facts and the truth. It is very sad to see the manipulation that it is going on. "Vote yes to save the kids"...Gimme a break. "Vote yes to prevent 176 traffic congestion"...you gotta be kidding! Hey Factsbender, why don't you just cut to the chase and say "Just give me your money and shut up."
Regardless of the outcome of this referendum vote, Factsbender should be removed. Lately, I have asked numerous folks about their thoughts on replacing the school leadership. I must say, there is an abundance of support for this idea emotionally and financially. The legal expense of such action would absolutely pale in comparison to the cataclysmic financial disaster that awaits us in the future with the current D-46 leadership. Here is a question for you...Would you pay a couple of hundred dollars for legal service if it saved you thousands on your taxes, preserved your property value, and produced a functional school board for the community? Together as a community we can make a change. It's time to start thinking about post-referendum actions. The current D-46 leadership has become a cancer in this great community. We must make some changes immediately.
By
Anonymous, at 9:54 AM
Hey Tom, wake up. Fortunately, the entire community does not think like you. Whether or not you like that person's comments, they have a vote, and it counts. In fact, if you are voting "Yes" and they are voting "No", then you both just cancelled each other out. So at this point, neither one of you will be a factor in the final count. Congratulations!
By
Anonymous, at 3:46 PM
Tom,
I agree that the name calling is not productive and has not place in this referendum. I am sick of it.
If you sat down and looked at the numbers, I hope to recognized a few things.
1. The "donated land" is being purchased by the school. Land that is under power lines that the builder cannot use. Not sure it's good for the kids to play under the power lines either.
2. The extra costs of doing this project now include an extra $10MM in interest over the life of the bonds, an extra $250K in temporary septic, and an extra $2.5MM to buy the "donated land". Also, if the sewer is not put in for 2-3 years, the EAV projections will not be reached because there will no house in Tall Grass and the other developments won't be very far along in 2 years. That means the contingency impact fees will be spent on bond interest payments (there is no principal paid off for years). Add it all up and the $8MM in impact fees expected over the life of the development will not go to constructing anything...it will all go to interest payments for the premium bonds.
3. The school can add 9 permanent classrooms behind the library going eastward and 9 permanent classrooms to the junior high. D46 can afford this now. At 25 kids per classroom, D46 can handle 450 kids if necessary prior the HAVING to build. I am not sure we have to wait that long, but at least we'll have a better idea when we need to build. I am sure we should not build now as the first option.
4. D46 talks about cost of waiting in terms of higher interest rates and higher construction costs. What they should look at is the lower interest rates they will get if they wait and get their credit rating improved as well as stay away from premium bonds. These savings will more than cover the projected inflation. Better yet, it will keep the school out of debt it cannot afford.
5. D46 says very little about operating costs. You can be certain that if they build the school, they will be back for an educational referendum in 2-3 years. They will have to because they are spending more than they are taking in trying to operate what they have now. Since the last referendum, cost per student has risen an average of 11% per year for an enrollment that have increased from 1048 to 1054 students. In 2004 they spent $900K more than they took in, even after the huge tax increase from the 2002 referendum.
It comes down to this...do you really think D46 can build and operate a new school within the existing tax rate structure? They can't. And when the community turns down the next requested increase (after they ripped us off on the last one), the classes will be overcrowded and programs will be cut.
We are all for the kids. D46 needs to do what it can afford. That's the best for the kids.
By
Anonymous, at 7:08 PM
Clearly a percentage of the community feels there are serious leadership issues in D-46. Judging from the postings, there are plenty of frustrations with the D-46 school board. Take a look at what is causing it. The attacks are only the symtoms of a root cause or problem. Judging from all the postings, the root cause lies some where in the D-46 school board's actions. Without a doubt, they have angered a percentage community. For us to dismiss it and simply call the anger "unproductive" and immature would be a mistake. I don't think we can just simply dismiss those points of view. These folks share the tax bill with the rest of us. What's the point? We should take a very close look at the current leadership in D-46. There are issues beyond the financial aspects. The current superintendent might not be the best, nor the worst. However, she simply might not be the "Right One" for this community. Want some proof? You don't have to look far. Look at how many blog postings have expressed dissatifaction with the leadership. It's too significant to simply be ignored. Especially when you consider the overall community is not that big. This blog, like it or not, has given the silent voters (a possible silent majority) a chance to speak their minds about school district 46. At the very least, we know where some residents have their emotions invested...and that translates into votes, and calls to action.
It might be time to evaluate the current D-46 leadership situation and consider possible changes or petition. I'm not sold on the current D-46 leadership.
Thanks for reading.
By
Anonymous, at 9:23 AM
Read what happened at other schools that issued premium bonds. State-imposed debt limits are meant to keep schools from getting into financial trouble. Why is Prairie Grove D46 looking for loop-holes to work around these limits?
Grayslake taxpayers may get tax break
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
By Mike Riopell
Source: Daily Herald
Taxpayers could catch a break if Grayslake Elementary District 46 officials decide to give money back from some of its loans.
The district board Monday night discussed giving back money from three years of bond premiums, cash bonuses the district gets up front in exchange for high interest rates.
The discussion follows a Daily Herald analysis that revealed the district was one of many across the suburbs that took out premiums. But if the Grayslake district decided to give back some of the money, they'd be the first in the suburbs to do so following the study.
How much money would actually go back to taxpayers isn't yet known. The board didn't take any action Monday, wanting to learn more about the district's needs before making a decision.
Last year, the district took out $34 million in loans approved by voters in 2004 for construction of a new school in Round Lake as well as several million more to possibly add onto other schools or buy new land.
The district's preschool program is already strapped for space and Gov. Rod Blagojevich's plan to offer preschool to far more children could expand local needs further. Giving back the money could limit the district's options to provide room for those students.
The district took premiums that transcended its state-imposed debt limit. That's not illegal, because by law, those bonuses don't count against the limit.
If the district decided to return some of the money, the decision could be reflected on future property tax bills in the form of discounts. They reviewed some options for doing so Monday.
Board member Jill Rohrer said she sensed public pressure about returning some of the money.
But board President Cheryl Davis said the district must balance any sense of obligation to give back with its need for the space.
"When we did what we did, this board and this administration were not aware of this premium bond situation," she said.
By
Anonymous, at 10:16 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home