|
|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 10, 2009 18:58:01 GMT -6
Everyone is talking about transparency. I for one would really like the district to put forward where were are at regarding finances. Another referendum WILL be coming up. I can hear it now - "If you do not approve this referendum, the new school will not open" Anyone have a clue?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 10, 2009 19:41:18 GMT -6
Everyone is talking about transparency. I for one would really like the district to put forward where were are at regarding finances. Another referendum WILL be coming up. I can hear it now - "If you do not approve this referendum, the new school will not open" Anyone have a clue? ?? I'm not even convinced they have a solid handle on -- but yes I'd really like to know also.. ""If you do not approve this referendum, the new school will not open" " as for this statement-- then they better not plan on ever opening it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 10, 2009 20:01:09 GMT -6
I'm willing to call that bluff. Go ahead.. don't open it.  |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Feb 10, 2009 20:06:53 GMT -6
I'm willing to call that bluff. Go ahead.. don't open it. I think a lot of voters would call that bluff. I would expect an all out assault to sell the referendum. Certainly, no band, no athletics, 60kids/classroom (even with the new school) will be the worst case scenarios offered. Of course there will be the concern of losing qualified staff. Which brings me labor negotiations and last Wednesday's article in the Tribune. The one that highlighted the disparity between vacancies and applications for teaching positions in the state. Anyone else see it? While there are shortages in some disciplines, overall, there is a surplus of applicants, and the student population is declining statewide. An example cited was that District 203 has 8,000 applications on file and plan to hire only 85 teachers -- roughly 99% more applications than vacancies. It seems like it might be a bit of a buyer's market out there.... |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 11, 2009 9:57:25 GMT -6
I'll call that bluff as well. With what happened in the stock market yesterday, one can only
wonder how much of an impact this has had on our budget. It will be very interesting to
see what turns out from these teacher contract talks.
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 11, 2009 11:08:35 GMT -6
I'm willing to call that bluff. Go ahead.. don't open it. I think a lot of voters would call that bluff. I would expect an all out assault to sell the referendum. Certainly, no band, no athletics, 60kids/classroom (even with the new school) will be the worst case scenarios offered. Of course there will be the concern of losing qualified staff. Which brings me labor negotiations and last Wednesday's article in the Tribune. The one that highlighted the disparity between vacancies and applications for teaching positions in the state. Anyone else see it? While there are shortages in some disciplines, overall, there is a surplus of applicants, and the student population is declining statewide. An example cited was that District 203 has 8,000 applications on file and plan to hire only 85 teachers -- roughly 99% more applications than vacancies. It seems like it might be a bit of a buyer's market out there.... same here- don't threaten me with not opening the school- because I will not vote for any more money because they didn't spend my money the way they said they would last time- sorry - no more. Fool me once..... |
|
|
|
Post by macy on Feb 11, 2009 13:30:24 GMT -6
I think a lot of voters would call that bluff. I would expect an all out assault to sell the referendum. Certainly, no band, no athletics, 60kids/classroom (even with the new school) will be the worst case scenarios offered. Of course there will be the concern of losing qualified staff. Which brings me labor negotiations and last Wednesday's article in the Tribune. The one that highlighted the disparity between vacancies and applications for teaching positions in the state. Anyone else see it? While there are shortages in some disciplines, overall, there is a surplus of applicants, and the student population is declining statewide. An example cited was that District 203 has 8,000 applications on file and plan to hire only 85 teachers -- roughly 99% more applications than vacancies. It seems like it might be a bit of a buyer's market out there.... same here- don't threaten me with not opening the school- because I will not vote for any more money because they didn't spend my money the way they said they would last time- sorry - no more. Fool me once..... Yes, I agree Dr. Who. I will never fall for the propaganda/scare tactics ever again regarding referendum dollars for district 204. Not only did they not spend our money in the way they said they would last time, they are spending MILLIONS more than the voters approved. In addition to that, they told us they would not need any more money to open the school. Wasn't it just last year the district was stating it wouldn't be until 2011 until we saw an operating referendum? Uh uh, not falling for that again... you are so correct. Fool me once.... never again. |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Feb 12, 2009 8:01:27 GMT -6
An advisory panel is expected to offer suggestions for how Wheaton Warrenville Unit District 200 can reduce a projected $14 million budget deficit.
The district already was facing a multimillion-dollar deficit when the special finance committee was formed last year to suggest possible budget cuts and new sources of revenue.
But a decline in new property tax dollars and state funding could mean the district will have less revenue in its 2009-2010 spending plan.
"We are looking at our actual overall revenue going down next year," said Bill Farley, assistant superintendent of business operations.
"We knew we had to do some things," Farley said. "The problem is that the situation has just gotten worse."
Roughly 80 percent of District 200's revenue comes from property taxes, officials said. The rest comes from the state and federal governments.
District officials already have been informed they shouldn't expect additional state money. In fact, the district could lose about $3 million in general state aid next year.
Meanwhile, the levy - the portion of the district's budget paid for with property taxes - is limited by the state-imposed property tax cap to 5 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is less.
As a result, the levy that funds part of next year's budget will be capped at 0.1 percent, not including an allowance for property that has been added to the tax rolls.
"The CPI (Consumer Price Index) was 5.6 (percent) in July," Farley said. "It was still over 4 in September. So for it to drop that dramatically was just devastating."
At the 0.1 CPI, District 200's total levy is expected to increase by roughly $100,000.
Farley said school districts simply aren't exempt from the economic downturn.
"We're not any different from a lot of the private companies that are having to take action to address what's going on in the economy," he said.
Specifics about the finance committee's recommendations won't be released until after school members hear a report during tonight's meeting, which starts at 7:30 p.m. at Washington Elementary School, 911 Bridle Lane in Wheaton.
School board members are slated to talk about panel's findings on Feb. 25. No changes are expected to be voted on by the board until next month.
This is what concerns me with our district!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by JB on Feb 12, 2009 8:19:52 GMT -6
I think we are projected at $2MM deficit FY '09, but when you have $200MM+ in property tax revenue, a small shortfall percentage wise could end up being a substantial $$ amount.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurker on Feb 12, 2009 13:07:35 GMT -6
I think a lot of voters would call that bluff. I would expect an all out assault to sell the referendum. Certainly, no band, no athletics, 60kids/classroom (even with the new school) will be the worst case scenarios offered. Of course there will be the concern of losing qualified staff. Which brings me labor negotiations and last Wednesday's article in the Tribune. The one that highlighted the disparity between vacancies and applications for teaching positions in the state. Anyone else see it? While there are shortages in some disciplines, overall, there is a surplus of applicants, and the student population is declining statewide. An example cited was that District 203 has 8,000 applications on file and plan to hire only 85 teachers -- roughly 99% more applications than vacancies. It seems like it might be a bit of a buyer's market out there.... same here- don't threaten me with not opening the school- because I will not vote for any more money because they didn't spend my money the way they said they would last time- sorry - no more. Fool me once..... New guy here, been lurking for quite a while (I'm a lurker on green as well, this is the first time I've posted on either board). The conversation on this thread really peaked my curiosity. Here's my question for the regulars: Timing wise it seems to me any referendum won't be put to a vote until well after the new school board is seated, and a pretty big chunk of the board members who are currently in your crosshairs will be long gone. Assuming that after the upcoming elections the school board is "configured" the way you are hoping, and this newly configured board looks at things and comes back to us with a request for an operating referendum, will you change your minds and provide your support? Again, so there is no confusion, the question I'm asking presumes you get the school board the way you want it after the upcoming election. I want to be clear about that. I will now return to my honorable place as a lurker. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 12, 2009 13:29:46 GMT -6
same here- don't threaten me with not opening the school- because I will not vote for any more money because they didn't spend my money the way they said they would last time- sorry - no more. Fool me once..... New guy here, been lurking for quite a while (I'm a lurker on green as well, this is the first time I've posted on either board). The conversation on this thread really peaked my curiosity. Here's my question for the regulars: Timing wise it seems to me any referendum won't be put to a vote until well after the new school board is seated, and a pretty big chunk of the board members who are currently in your crosshairs will be long gone. Assuming that after the upcoming elections the school board is "configured" the way you are hoping, and this newly configured board looks at things and comes back to us with a request for an operating referendum, will you change your minds and provide your support? Again, so there is no confusion, the question I'm asking presumes you get the school board the way you want it after the upcoming election. I want to be clear about that. I will now return to my honorable place as a lurker. Thanks. welcome lurker - good question I can only speak for me -( and I have not only voted yes for every referendum in my 20 years in 204 - I actively worked for many of them) - 1. If the board turns over and those who have wrecked havoc on our district are no longer driving the SB - especially the last few years AND those who take over demonstrate transparency as to how and why major decisions are made and where and why we are spending tax payer monies, then I would re examine my position. This includes explanation of all spent so far on MV as well as financial disclosure of where we stand tax-bond wise ). Now understand that will take a new majority and a new president - and removal 2 years from now ( or resignations sooner) of the remainder -( CB a possible exception ) IF the current board majority and leader stay in place I would not support one more dime... regardless of the supposed need because I do not trust them to use it as they say they will...they have proven this to be a valid concern over time |
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Feb 12, 2009 13:40:16 GMT -6
I think Lurker gets that caller of the day award (great question).
Let's assume that after this election, the School Board is configured in a way where MM and Dr. D no longer have control of the Board. We unfortunately can not turn back time and are collectively still left with the mess that was created by the current board and adminstration's decision to proceed with building MV regardless of the fact that the numbers never justifed a third high school. The current economic envirenment only adds to the inability to fund a school that was never supported by the real student population numbers in the first place.
What do we do assuming the only way to operate MV is to pass a referendum....house an empty school or support an operating referendum.
I have been contemplating this scenario ever since it was apparent that the NSFOC lawsuit was not going to stop construction of MV. I sincerely do not know what the right answer is. Getting past the spite I have for the folks who negligently put our District into this position (and assuming you trust the new Board), do you vote for an operating referendum, or do you stop throwing good money after bad and have an empty third school. Can we lease MV to another institution (ie. College of DuPage or DePaul) until the numbers truly justify the need of a third school OR do we make MV a magnet school (ie. math and sciences) where any District 204 student could apply (which would solve the boundry wars).
I would love to see what everyone's thoughts are on this...
|
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Feb 12, 2009 13:46:00 GMT -6
I'm willing to call that bluff. Go ahead.. don't open it. I think a lot of voters would call that bluff. I would expect an all out assault to sell the referendum. Certainly, no band, no athletics, 60kids/classroom (even with the new school) will be the worst case scenarios offered. Of course there will be the concern of losing qualified staff. Which brings me labor negotiations and last Wednesday's article in the Tribune. The one that highlighted the disparity between vacancies and applications for teaching positions in the state. Anyone else see it? While there are shortages in some disciplines, overall, there is a surplus of applicants, and the student population is declining statewide. An example cited was that District 203 has 8,000 applications on file and plan to hire only 85 teachers -- roughly 99% more applications than vacancies. It seems like it might be a bit of a buyer's market out there.... And don't forget AC for the schools that don't have it - oh brother. Well at least we took the split shift trump threat away from them. Waiting for the creative juices to flow to see what new ones they can come up. No more sno-cones at the sport activities, canceling Family Skittle Bowl night, no more pitching quarters against the walls, cancel grammar school graduation ceremony, whats next ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 12, 2009 13:49:14 GMT -6
Only with a new corner turned in the district would I support it. (New people in charge who would bring and put forth the financial information along with supporting *VERIFIABLE* data to justify decisions made).
The trust is gone with those in control now. They killed it themselves. They have proven time and again that they will put out inaccurate information, put out none, say one thing and then do another.
If they worked for me in the private sector, they'd have been fired long ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by sashimi on Feb 12, 2009 14:07:35 GMT -6
Arch...I will tell you that if one of my employees blantently manipulated the facts like these folks, they would be fired in a heartbeat (ie. the attendance numbers and the famous bridge memo that was so erroneous that the park district felt morally required to issue a statement making it clear that contrary to the District's representations, the District never asked if the Park District would maintain the bridge. In fact, in direct conflict with the memo issued by the District in support of its boundry determinations, the Park District confirmed that it in fact would maintain the bridge if asked by the District---ooops ).
|
|
??
