From the Journal Star:
The School Board on Monday voiced a consensus seeking what amounts to about $69 million in local property taxes next year, an increase of about 1 percent, but far less than the 6.5 percent increase requested last year…. The proposed levy would add about $18 [to a $100,000 home]…. Prompting that increase is District 150 has 15 schools in need of a mandated 10-year safety survey yet this year and another 11 schools next year.
According to 1470 WMBD:
[Interim Comptroller/Treasurer Dave] Kinney says the levy would allow for about $700,000 more to be collected toward the life safety inspections – which are required by law – but it’s just a start. “With the first eight schools on the list it’s looking like about a $6-million price tag over a five year period,” says Kinney. “It’s not anything we have to address immediately but going forward we know we’re going to have to address it at some point.” …Kinney says the levy alone does not completely solve the district’s budget deficit. “There are going to have to be other decisions made to help not only balance the budget this year but next year, too, “says Kinney.
In other words, once again we’re going to be paying more for less. It will be interesting to see how current school board member Jim Stowell votes on this tax increase, and how that decision affects his run for Peoria City Council.
1% increase? That isn’t even the rate of inflation. Considering the state isn’t paying their bills, I am shocked they didn’t ask for more. I commend them.
C.J.: I would hope that the board approves the collection of revenue needed in order to complete the requires safety inspections, regardless of the political aspirations of one of it’s members.
Regardless, an opponent of Stowell’s can run scare ads either way he votes. Either he puts OUR CHILDREN AT RISK or or RAISES OUR TAXES.
D150 observer, They are always given a raise based on property taxes going up through the normal process of values going up. This is a raise on top of a raise.
Bob: You are wrong. The district is seeking a 1 percent increase in the levy for the life health safety fund. That means it wants property taxpayers as a whole to send to the district 1 percent more money. This means the Peoria county government will look at the aggregate assessed valuation of all property within the district (properties whose value has risen this year and those that have not) and then decide what rate to put on tax bills, and that is what property owners will be changed and it should come out to a 1 percent increase. So it’s NOT a 1 percent increase on top of regularly raising taxes because your home’s value went up.
Every other business and household is learning to cut back on expenses and live more frugally. They should too. They treat the taxpayer like a BOTTOMLESS PIT! The city of Peoria is laying off police officers to make ends meet and Peoria Public Schools is hiring and relocating new ADMINISTRATORS and then going to the taxpayer with their hand out. They’ve already raised taxes 2 or 3 times in the last 2 years and now they are doing it again. Didn’t the District just give the Civic Center $50,0000 for some donuts? The taxpayers should not stand for this, the board members should not approve this and it is extremely disrespectful and a slap in the face to everyone who is struggling to manage their household budget. It is ridiculous that this is even being proposed.
And you can bet that Stowell voting to raise taxes on Peoria homeowners multiple times over will be an issue in the city council election cycle.
They make it sound like this is something new that just came up. They know they have to do this every ten years why don’t they do like the rest of us and put a little money back each month.
*cough*sell$900000worthofhomesfirst*cough*
This would be less offensive if the district would tighten their own belts before asking for more taxpayer dollars. Suggestions: clean closets to rid district of potential financial liabilities (unapproved fieldtrips, cancelled interviews, employees teaching at ICC before last day of school).
Many property owners did not get a 1% raise this year, and some took cuts. Of course, only property owners pay the tax, which is a relic of the past, that needs to be fixed, one way or the other. Personally, i would say only property owners should be allowed to vote for school board members.
If D150 consistently demonstrated that they were using taxpayer money in efficient ways, then I would listen to a tax increase proposal. However, I don’t think “efficient” has been their watchword. I will NOT support this latest exercise is wasteful foolishness.
well said peoriapundit
“Suggestions: clean closets to rid district of potential financial liabilities (unapproved fieldtrips, cancelled interviews, employees teaching at ICC before last day of school).”
Add- Money stolen from school’s activity fund, computer equipment allegedly disappearing from Roy Ricketts Center. Huge legal fees defending the district for making idiotic decisions.
Pundit — That’s true; it does put him in a no-win situation.
Observer — Good point about the lack of state funding. From a taxpayer standpoint, however, it’s frustrating to see our taxes continually go up while services keep getting cut. District 150 has closed a number of neighborhood schools, yet our taxes continue to rise — where is all the supposed savings? The school day has gotten shorter, yet our taxes continue to rise — where is all the supposed savings? The operational cost per pupil in District 150 is $11,669. If there is an average of 18 kids in a classroom, that works out to $210,042 per classroom. If you subtract the average teacher salary of $55,736, that leaves you $154,306 per classroom. I guess I just don’t understand why it isn’t possible for District 150 to maintain their property and educate the children on that amount of money. Where does all that money go?
TR64, you forget futile lawsuits by fired principals. Oh, that’s a no no subject if posters on the blogs believe it’s right. It’s the end of the world. If you think this safety issue with the school district is bad and or mis-managed, wait until you all get a load of the City of Peoria’s sewer problem when the EPA lowers the hammer. Some would bitch about 150 if they hung you with a new rope.
CJ: here you are using simple math to twist your point. They closed a school, (damn get over it) but the services 150 had are still being offered. Anything taught at Woodruff is taught at PHS, Richwoods, and Manual. I guess if you were to sit down and figure fuel for buses, electricity, gas, coal (some cases), light bulbs, toilet paper, paper towels, floor wax, a floor waxer, someone to operate the waxer, grease for door hinges, pest control for bugs, trash collection, lawn mowing, gas for mowers, and on and on. Really? The way you carry on CJ and the way people hang on your every post, maybe they should send their kids to private schools. Wait! I’ll bet they do, they just don’t want their taxpaying money going to the schools. Well, it’s tough, but that is the way it is in every City, county, that has a school district. CJ, where do your kids go to school?
C.J., I’m convinced that technology (used to maintain statistics that no one really heeds) and technological programs mostly used on Wisconsin Avenue account for much of the overspending. I certainly don’t believe the money goes directly to the classroom. Of course, don’t forget the cost of over testing kids. I have the cost of the NWEA tests–given twice a year–but I can’t put my hands on the papers right now. When I was teaching, we had no tests at all (except NCLB)–that wasn’t so good because teachers never knew the approximate reading level of students. Now there are two a year.
Also, part of the “extra” $154,306 per classroom goes for the salaries of administrators and employees that are not in the classroom (still some left over). Now that Woodruff is being used regularly for special meetings, I wonder how much that cuts into the supposed savings for closing Woodruff.
Jim, I can’t wait–if you get on the Council, when will you send your first FOIA? 🙂
It does put him in a no-win situation
It is not a no-win situation. Only a moron would equate voting “no” on a tax increase to a vote against children. On the contrary – voting No on a tax increase means you support a self-sustaining school district that is fiscally responsible to taxpayers and capable of being financially solvent for future generations to come.
The majority of posters here seem to agree that District 150 should NOT get a tax increase. Does that mean we all hate children?
We shall see how futile the fired principal’s lawsuit is…..
Balony!: The point I was trying to make was NOT that anyone who wants lower taxes hates kids. The point was that when election-time comes around, every single candidate who ever made a decision will be accused of being one sort of fiend or another because he or she cast a vote, no matter what the vote was or what would had happened had the vote gone the other way.
What about all the bonds to build the new schools and to renovate Peoria High and other schools and to add on to Lincoln–haven’t those efforts already increased property taxes? The district seems to be presenting this new tax as “not that much,” but is that an accurate assessment of the total cost to taxpayers?
That’s my point FUTILE?
Futile? Like the futile 16 felony counts against whats her name?
I am sure he is correct about the futile lawsuit 🙂 He obviously knew what he was talking about concerning Davis!
“May I offer up an idea? Maybe, just maybe no crime has been committed. Maybe what was seen as a theft or misuse of funds wasn’t and the District by calling the police was covering their asses.” May 6, 2009 2:45 PM
Futile–Which fired principal? There have been two? (McArdle and Shipp). So far I am quite convinced that the Davis case is anything but dead–these cases take years to settle. At least, there is still considerable activity going on to prepare for trial.
On another topic: I just received some information from a Whittier PTO meeting–parents aren’t happy about the overcrowding conditions caused by the Tyng kids–who should be at Harrison by now; at least, that was the original plan. The question about Whittier and the Tyng kids was asked at the meeting with Lathan at City Hall, I asked it at the last board meeting, and it will probably come up at the next meeting. I don’t know why the district has such a hard time answering such simple questions. Whittier has remained the one shining light in the area–I sure hope the district doesn’t just watch it go downhill without taking the necessary steps to prevent the disaster.
I am very concerned about what further tax increases will mean for Peoria. I will be purchasing a house in the area come Spring and so I am looking online to see what is out there. I have a couple houses that I like in Peoria which seem fairly priced (still expensive IMO but. . .) HOWEVER, the taxes are outrageous. If I were moving today, I would not buy these homes because of the taxes. Even excluding District 150’s image from the equation, Peoria is becoming a very unattractive place to make my home due to the taxes alone.
Emtronics — All my kids go to District 150 schools. Even if they didn’t, I have no problem supporting public schools with tax dollars. Public education benefits the entire community. Still, I expect them to spend our tax dollars wisely, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hold our elected officials accountable to do so.
OK. I’m flexible. Don’t clean closets. But then, don’t publish statements saying that student safety, academic achievement, same rules for all, etc. are a priority.
Accountability and transparency. They’re not unreasonable expectations…but are they realistic????????? Anyway, my kids are getting a great D150 education. There are still a few more weeds to pull, though.
New article on PJS states that the Lincoln expansion won’t be completed until 2013 so the district needs to hang on to Irving, but OSF says they need it by June 2011–as promised. Another Oops!
Not talking about Davis. She has been charged with a crime. If found guilty of theft, I am sure she’ll have to make restitution in some form. On the other hand, people suing the District costs money. Lawyer fees above what they pay and settlements if any.
CJ: Thanks for answering my question. I too don’t have a problem supporting the schools with my tax money. As you said, more or less, good schools help the value of homes which benefits the city. I do however disagree on some of the issues some of you raise with District 150. Some make it sound like it’s all out theft there and people out on Wisconsin Ave. are in back rooms counting cash and making false reports and the Board, who serves for FREE and on their own dime, is raked and raked across the coals for every single issue that comes across the table. I can not for the life of me remember one thing this Board has done correctly in anyone’s eyes. I’m sure something has but the constant bombarding of finger pointing and black helicopter issues whether precieved or not is tearing the District into ruins.
How about some positive interaction? Can’t we get together and solve the problems of this District without raising it’s skirt for the whole tri-county area to see?
Now back to the usual posts….
Why raise taxes on gas customers only and let electricity customers skate free? These people have rocks in their head. In years when gas is more costly, nothing is done to “provide is some relief and spread out the pain” as Ardis puts it. But when electricity costs go up, subsidies are legislated and bills go down. My highest power bill for my sh**-box of a house in the hood approaches $600 every February. The millionaires will advise get a new furnace but I’m trapped in this cycle with no way to get one. C’mon boneheads on the horseshoe, help “spread the pain.”
Raise taxes for what purpose? “10-year safety survey” ??????
Yeah, I don’t think so…
And for the 19th time this year, the District 150 bus that is scheduled to pick up our kids for school, has simply not shown up. No forewarning, no excuses – it just doesn’t show up. These people do not deserve one more dime of our taxes.
And how much of that property tax money is pissed away to implement the unfunded U.S. Department of Education curriculum mandates. Half? Three-quarters?
If the school district were to ignore federal laws, then the feds could come in an run the schools directly. Why would this be a bad thing? Currently, the feds run the schools indirectly. The advantage to telling the feds to go away would be that federal DOE money (instead of property tax money) would be used to force the school district to comply with the mandates.
I would consider the refusal to comply a very good deal, and a way to save millions in local taxpayer money.
CJ – to answer your question on pjstar, we are having conversations with interested parties on the sale of the Prospect parcels and we currently are deriving lease income on at least two properties. Conversations involve Park District, City, and others.
jim stowell – glad to hear that a couple of those properties are for sale and even two are being leased. Can/will you share with us how close even the inflated listing price is to the nearly $1,000,000 that King Hinton committed to in buying them without BOE authorization?
Jim:
If the Park District purchases the properties, would that mean that taxpayers actually paid twice for the same properties?
Karrie, what exactly is your point about “paid twice” for the “same” properties? To make a very simple example, if both transactions were for $100k each, how much was the net cost to taxpayers? It’s still only $100k.
Jon — How do you figure? The taxpayers had to pay $100,000 (using your scenario) to D150 so they could buy the house, and now the taxpayers have to pay another $100,000 to the Park District so they can buy the same house from D150. That’s $200,000 by my calculations, unless D150 gives that $100k back to the taxpayers. Are you suggesting that D150, once they sell this property, will abate their tax levy by the amount of the sale?
“Conversations involve Park District, City, and others.”
Jim, I appreciate you responding….are you serious on this?
Our tax money was used by D150 to purchase these properties and now our tax money will potentially be used to buy these back…..when they shouldn’t even have been purchased in the first place?
This is quite a system we have in this city.
I believe that in a transaction there is a buyer and a seller. If the Park district buys it they will spend their money, but the district will get it’s money back. It will be the same cost to the taxpayer as it is now besides. Except maybe the park district can actually use the land for the public good.
There are several conversations taking place, some inter-governmental, some involving different “grants”. I even floated idea of exchanging the property for programming. We won’t ever build on that site and our students need engaging activities that maybe the Park District could help to provide. No taxpayer funds “exchanged”, but both entities “gain”. I do still hold the belief that adding greenspace to the frontage of Glen Oak Park would be good for the community. Squaring off all the way to the corner will take years, but it would enhance the park setting.
“grants” = To a bureacrat – pennies from Heaven.
To the working man – more endless, draining deductions from our paychecks.
CJ – there is absolutely no way, in my example, that these proposed transactions cost taxpayers $200k for a $100k property. The district gets the $100k back on the subsequent sale. It is thus made “whole”. (again, this is a simple example – of course, the district could get less, there are likely carrying costs, etc.)
With the sale proceeds in hand, the district could theoretically do one of two things. One is, as you suggested, levy less than would otherwise be required. The second is to replenish the now empty reserves. Using another simple example, assume the reserves were originally $100k, but then $0 after the purchase. Now the reserves are again at $100k. The school district taxpayers are back where they started – and thus no net cost to them for the purchase. The only cost is the $100k now borne by the park district taxpayers.
Of course, the reality is that there were reserves far greater than the value of the houses, and those reserves are now gone. We ran deficits, which meant that for these past several years, we taxpayers of those particular years were getting, in terms of what the district was spending, more than we were paying in.
Jon, I am confused by your use of the word “we.” Who is the “we” who ran deficits? You seem to be using the word “we” to refer both to those who ran the deficits and to taxpayers. They aren’t one and the same. We the taxpayers weren’t getting more than we (they) were paying in. I still don’t understand your argument against C.J.’s argument. Taxpayer money bought the houses on Prospect, but the district, not the taxpayers, will be “reimbursed” by the Park District, which will have to spend another $100K of taxpayer money. Of course, I know in advance that I “walk into a hornet’s next” by commenting because, in the end, you will blame teachers for the deficit. The district seems to find many ways on which to waste money–at least, the teachers are visible “expenditures” with job duties that are indispensable–one in every classroom. I believe much of the money is spent on technological “frills” that are not absolutely necessary for doing the job of educating children.
Sharon, I think the confusion for you is that you seem to view most things in an “us vs them” context, rather than recognizing how those groups are all part of the larger community/system. Here’s another way of looking at it:
Here’s the Smith family. Daddy Smith (taxpayers) decides to give $100k to both his son (D150) and daughter (Park District). Son buys a house for $100k. He later decides he doesn’t want it, so he’s going to sell it. Daughter likes the house, so she buys it from her brother. How much did the HOUSE cost the Smith family? It’s only $100k.
The Son either has the $100k in hand (savings), or he spent it elsewhere (another house, or a trip to Tahiti, or whatever). Yes, Daddy Smith “spent” $200k, but that $200k got the Smith family a house for $100k for the Daughter and whatever it was Son ultimately used his $100k for – it didn’t cost the Smith family $200k for ONE house.
Again, it would NOT cost taxpayers $200k for the one house. One can’t count only the money going “out” and then ignore the $100k coming back in. Regardless of where the $100k ends up (saved, spent, returned) it is done so for the perceived benefit of the community. One can disagree with HOW it’s spent, but can’t reasonably argue it essentially meant paying twice as much for the same property.
Jon, I guess I should have expected an analogy. You are right–in this case it is a we/they situation. We the taxpayers and they the board and administration. Remember that the “they (Hinton)” didn’t ask the taxpayers if we wanted them to buy the houses on Prospect. I believe that I am correct in stating that that deal was done secretly. In fact, many taxpayers definitely didn’t want to give District 150 the money to buy the houses on Prospect because they didn’t want the school in that location (and didn’t know the school was planned for that location until well after the purchase).
Therefore, in keeping with your analogy, you might say that the “son” stole the $100K from Daddy Smith to buy the house.
If the son hadn’t bought the houses on Prospect (with ill-gotten money), we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the district wouldn’t be trying to unload the houses on Prospect by convincing the daughter (Park District) to buy them. Thus, the Daddy Smith (taxpayers) would still have the $200K, so to speak.
This is yet another example of the wasteful spending in District 150–when they buy something they really don’t need (Edison, Johns Hopkins, etc.).
P.S., I hope you see that your little analogy proves C.J.’s point perfectly.
If you think my analogy proves CJ’s point, then we probably don’t agree on what his point was. I believe CJ’s point was that, using my scenario, the cost to taxpayers for one house was $200k. If you believe that, then you must thus agree that the $100k received by the D150/son from the park/daughter is “free” money – that they/he could use the $100k to have a party, light the money on fire, whatever, and it would have NO cost to the taxpayer/Dad/D150/son/family or anybody. (Please, please don’t tell me that the total cost is now $300k)
Jon, the point, of course, is that the houses were bought for nothing–one of the results of conducting business in secret. District 150 and/or taxpayers received absolutely no benefit from those houses. Did C.J. say the purchase could cost taxpayers $200K if the Park District buys the houses? Then I believe he is right. The problem, Jon, is that you are assuming the taxpayers will receive benefits from this money if returned to the district. I believe that the district often saves money so that it can spend money on more expenditures that do not really improve its primary mission–educating children (which is what the taxpayer expects to get in return for taxes paid).
I don’t believe we have yet discussed the new dilemma of the district–what to do with Irving students until 2013 if OSF sticks to its desire to receive the Irving building in 2011. This is yet another example of poor planning as is the fact that the closing of Tyng has caused overcrowding at Whittier–which is upsetting Whittier parents considerably. Also, does anyone believe that putting 1,000 primary and middle school students at a “new” Lincoln is a good idea?
“The problem, Jon, is that you are assuming the taxpayers will receive benefits from this money if returned to the district.”
You are confusing benefits with costs. My argument has been simply to refute the notion that the COST of the house(s) to taxpayers is double. Whether or not there is any perceived benefit as to what the sales proceeds are used for does not affect the COST. If you take that $100k and literally burn it OR use it to pay for research that directly leads to the cure for cancer, the COST of it is the same – $100k – and it is a cost attributable to THAT particular action (burning it or curing cancer) and not a cost associated with the house.