|
|
Post by researching on Oct 6, 2009 15:19:10 GMT -6
That is a great place to start - at the administration level. A few years ago, they made a very lame attempt to cut administrators jobs. However, since then, they have slowly started to add them back. There are 15 administrative positions in place now. I COMPLETELY agree. Administrative cuts are the way to go. I think they should start with Karla Zozulia. |
|
|
|
Post by researching on Oct 6, 2009 15:29:41 GMT -6
How is it that we have not heard about any of these "committees" until the last few weeks? Why has our district not been working on this all along. I agree - PR firm already in place. This is just a way of saying that we asked the residents what we should do. A little (lot) late in my opinion. I also agree that we are paying top dollar to these people - they should be able to come up with a plan. We knew a long time ago what the potential increase in debt could be. Now, it is worse than projected. Get ready for the usual lines:, no PE, split shifts, etc. We have heard it all before. I think they will be looking for a new angle. What could that be??? Suggestions?  Or maybe we should not brainstorm. They may actually use our thought:) They didn't want anything to put a bad light on the opening of Metea. They are very smart and VERY manipulative. IMO the only solution they have in mind is a referendum. They will "go through the motions" of having committees but in the end everything will ride on passing an operating referendum. I will be voting NO. Unfortunately they know the formula to get the Kool-aid drinking parents to the polls...FUD. It works every time. |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Oct 6, 2009 17:37:44 GMT -6
How is it that we have not heard about any of these "committees" until the last few weeks? Why has our district not been working on this all along. I agree - PR firm already in place. This is just a way of saying that we asked the residents what we should do. A little (lot) late in my opinion. I also agree that we are paying top dollar to these people - they should be able to come up with a plan. We knew a long time ago what the potential increase in debt could be. Now, it is worse than projected. Get ready for the usual lines:, no PE, split shifts, etc. We have heard it all before. I think they will be looking for a new angle. What could that be??? Suggestions? Or maybe we should not brainstorm. They may actually use our thought:) They didn't want anything to put a bad light on the opening of Metea. They are very smart and VERY manipulative. IMO the only solution they have in mind is a referendum. They will "go through the motions" of having committees but in the end everything will ride on passing an operating referendum. I will be voting NO. Unfortunately they know the formula to get the Kool-aid drinking parents to the polls...FUD. It works every time. I agree -- the referendum is coming. Only question is how much and how often. Let's consider whether the district is serious about controlling costs. Last teacher contract was negotiated for about 4%, IIRC. The explanation for only doing a one year contract was something to the effect that it wouldn't be fair to either side to negotiate a multi-year contract during such difficult economic times. In other words, perhaps we can grant even larger increases next year. Does that sound like an administration that seriously wants to control costs? Not to me. A simple wage freeze would have practically balanced the budget. The private sector has renegotiated labor contracts, why not 204? Most people I know are acquainted with teachers who can't find jobs. Admittedly, some are younger and inexperienced, but there is no shortage of teachers -- perhaps in a few specialty fields, but the idea that there will be a mass defection of teachers if we stopped granting big wage increases is ludicrous. In my opinion, the real energy is going toward finding a way to raise taxes. The other stuff is just a way to sell higher taxes. And, sadly, taxes will go up. No matter what people on this board believe, the majority of those who vote will vote for the referendum. We haven't learned a thing from the past. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Oct 6, 2009 17:50:13 GMT -6
That is a great place to start - at the administration level. A few years ago, they made a very lame attempt to cut administrators jobs. However, since then, they have slowly started to add them back. There are 15 administrative positions in place now. I COMPLETELY agree. Administrative cuts are the way to go. I think they should start with Karla Zozulia. I'll assume there was a motion there researching. I second that fine recommendation. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Oct 6, 2009 18:24:22 GMT -6
They didn't want anything to put a bad light on the opening of Metea. They are very smart and VERY manipulative. IMO the only solution they have in mind is a referendum. They will "go through the motions" of having committees but in the end everything will ride on passing an operating referendum. I will be voting NO. Unfortunately they know the formula to get the Kool-aid drinking parents to the polls...FUD. It works every time. I agree -- the referendum is coming. Only question is how much and how often. Let's consider whether the district is serious about controlling costs. Last teacher contract was negotiated for about 4%, IIRC. The explanation for only doing a one year contract was something to the effect that it wouldn't be fair to either side to negotiate a multi-year contract during such difficult economic times. In other words, perhaps we can grant even larger increases next year. Does that sound like an administration that seriously wants to control costs? Not to me. A simple wage freeze would have practically balanced the budget. The private sector has renegotiated labor contracts, why not 204? Most people I know are acquainted with teachers who can't find jobs. Admittedly, some are younger and inexperienced, but there is no shortage of teachers -- perhaps in a few specialty fields, but the idea that there will be a mass defection of teachers if we stopped granting big wage increases is ludicrous. In my opinion, the real energy is going toward finding a way to raise taxes. The other stuff is just a way to sell higher taxes. And, sadly, taxes will go up. No matter what people on this board believe, the majority of those who vote will vote for the referendum. We haven't learned a thing from the past. A few points here sam2, just to clarify. First, the logic behind the 1 year contract raise, reasoned by Metzger, was this: The budget for any year reflects the CPI of two years previous. Here the impact year was 2009 (year taxes are collected) so the CPI year was 2007 where the CPI was 4.1% ( cnx.org/content/m18338/latest/ ). Therefore, they reasoned that budget allowed for 4.1%, actual raise was 2+2 or 4%...there ya go. Next year will reflect 2008 CPI of .1 so we should expect tough negotiations under Metzger's rationale. I expect him to lead the charge. Second, per Haver Analytics, an economics research firm that supplies data to CNBC, 70k teachers lost jobs in the past year due to cuts. When you factor in new graduates that haven't found jobs yet, the pool of candidates should be quite robust. Third, we live in a tax cap district where taxes are only allowed to increase by new growth (new property coming on line) and the lesser of the CPI or 5%. Since there is virtually no growth and the tax cap for 2010 is .1% the revenue from taxes in 2010 will be similar to that of 2009. This means the only way the District will bridge the gap is by borrowing, using up the growth premium accumulated in the past, or by passing a operating referendum to permanently increase taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Oct 6, 2009 18:44:36 GMT -6
They didn't want anything to put a bad light on the opening of Metea. They are very smart and VERY manipulative. IMO the only solution they have in mind is a referendum. They will "go through the motions" of having committees but in the end everything will ride on passing an operating referendum. I will be voting NO. Unfortunately they know the formula to get the Kool-aid drinking parents to the polls...FUD. It works every time. I agree -- the referendum is coming. Only question is how much and how often. Let's consider whether the district is serious about controlling costs. Last teacher contract was negotiated for about 4%, IIRC. The explanation for only doing a one year contract was something to the effect that it wouldn't be fair to either side to negotiate a multi-year contract during such difficult economic times. In other words, perhaps we can grant even larger increases next year. Does that sound like an administration that seriously wants to control costs? Not to me. A simple wage freeze would have practically balanced the budget. The private sector has renegotiated labor contracts, why not 204? Most people I know are acquainted with teachers who can't find jobs. Admittedly, some are younger and inexperienced, but there is no shortage of teachers -- perhaps in a few specialty fields, but the idea that there will be a mass defection of teachers if we stopped granting big wage increases is ludicrous. In my opinion, the real energy is going toward finding a way to raise taxes. The other stuff is just a way to sell higher taxes. And, sadly, taxes will go up. No matter what people on this board believe, the majority of those who vote will vote for the referendum. We haven't learned a thing from the past. All we can do here is try and make a difference- it's worth the effort. |
|
|
|
Post by sam2 on Oct 6, 2009 21:26:49 GMT -6
I agree -- the referendum is coming. Only question is how much and how often. Let's consider whether the district is serious about controlling costs. Last teacher contract was negotiated for about 4%, IIRC. The explanation for only doing a one year contract was something to the effect that it wouldn't be fair to either side to negotiate a multi-year contract during such difficult economic times. In other words, perhaps we can grant even larger increases next year. Does that sound like an administration that seriously wants to control costs? Not to me. A simple wage freeze would have practically balanced the budget. The private sector has renegotiated labor contracts, why not 204? Most people I know are acquainted with teachers who can't find jobs. Admittedly, some are younger and inexperienced, but there is no shortage of teachers -- perhaps in a few specialty fields, but the idea that there will be a mass defection of teachers if we stopped granting big wage increases is ludicrous. In my opinion, the real energy is going toward finding a way to raise taxes. The other stuff is just a way to sell higher taxes. And, sadly, taxes will go up. No matter what people on this board believe, the majority of those who vote will vote for the referendum. We haven't learned a thing from the past. A few points here sam2, just to clarify. First, the logic behind the 1 year contract raise, reasoned by Metzger, was this: The budget for any year reflects the CPI of two years previous. Here the impact year was 2009 (year taxes are collected) so the CPI year was 2007 where the CPI was 4.1% ( cnx.org/content/m18338/latest/ ). Therefore, they reasoned that budget allowed for 4.1%, actual raise was 2+2 or 4%...there ya go. Next year will reflect 2008 CPI of .1 so we should expect tough negotiations under Metzger's rationale. I expect him to lead the charge. Second, per Haver Analytics, an economics research firm that supplies data to CNBC, 70k teachers lost jobs in the past year due to cuts. When you factor in new graduates that haven't found jobs yet, the pool of candidates should be quite robust. Third, we live in a tax cap district where taxes are only allowed to increase by new growth (new property coming on line) and the lesser of the CPI or 5%. Since there is virtually no growth and the tax cap for 2010 is .1% the revenue from taxes in 2010 will be similar to that of 2009. This means the only way the District will bridge the gap is by borrowing, using up the growth premium accumulated in the past, or by passing a operating referendum to permanently increase taxes. I appreciate the clarification. I don't know if there is some sarcasm in your expressed opinion that anyone in the administration will lead a charge to hold the line on salaries in the next contract -- I suspect there must be. It seems to me that the property tax year is somewhat irrelevant. While the current year tax collections are tied to 2007, the admin had the incredible advantage of being able to predict the future with 100% accuracy. Why not use that knowledge to begin to control costs? Certainly, in the private sector we would be looking forward rather than backward when negotiating any contract. This would apply to labor agreements, procurement agreements and supply agreements. Are you saying that the administration was somehow obligated to consider 2007 economics when negotiating a 2009/2010 agreement or are you simply offering an explanation for their actions? ( I understand that you are not trying to defend their actions.) Thanks |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Oct 7, 2009 7:54:19 GMT -6
I agree sam2, re the property tax year issue, little more than tortured logic. Peoples pocketbooks don't run on government time frames. I was at the meeting and just wanted to explain Metzger's logic in voting for the increase. Certainly don't agree with it.
Of course Metzger likes to fit everything in a nice little box that satisfies him. After all someone elected him and since he believes in the republican form of government we should all sit down, shut up and let him rule.... er govern.
|
|
|
|
Post by anteater on Oct 7, 2009 10:25:07 GMT -6
The point about administrators and past efforts to reduce their number is right on. It seems they have eliminated people with the title of assistant superintendent, but have created new positions just below that level paying a comparable salary. I don't think the administrator salaries constitute a "HUGE" portion of the salary budget, but it is a very symbolic one, which they've never seemed to grasp. I'm sure there will be some people trying to hold the line in the next round of negotiations, particularly when compared to the last percentage increase. However, the administrators do have conflicting emotions because their raises are frequently tied to the percentage in the teachers contract.
I'm puzzled by the reference to using the "growth premium" that has been accumulated. If that's what I think it is, I'm pretty sure it's long gone!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Oct 7, 2009 10:26:52 GMT -6
Yes, it's long gone but it also appears that they banked on it being there forever.  |
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Oct 7, 2009 11:13:46 GMT -6
On the district home page, they only list the 15 administrative positions. They used to list ALL
of the postions at the district level. So basically, we have no clue how many there are.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Oct 7, 2009 12:55:15 GMT -6
The point about administrators and past efforts to reduce their number is right on. It seems they have eliminated people with the title of assistant superintendent, but have created new positions just below that level paying a comparable salary. I don't think the administrator salaries constitute a "HUGE" portion of the salary budget, but it is a very symbolic one, which they've never seemed to grasp. I'm sure there will be some people trying to hold the line in the next round of negotiations, particularly when compared to the last percentage increase. However, the administrators do have conflicting emotions because their raises are frequently tied to the percentage in the teachers contract. I'm puzzled by the reference to using the "growth premium" that has been accumulated. If that's what I think it is, I'm pretty sure it's long gone! You are right anteater, the growth premium (the amount taken in from new homes coming on line, not subject to the tax cap) for all intents and purposes, is gone. The empty lots left to be developed amount to one of the average years of development in the past and are not material wrt the development done in the past. Bottom line, taken together, the taxes from developing the remaining lots isn't much of a blip on the radar. |
|
|
|
Post by rew on Oct 8, 2009 6:04:38 GMT -6
Speaking of empty lots, the district has not sold the 25 acres. The proceeds were in the MVHS budget. How have they made up that shortfall? I recall MM quoted saying he would "never, never, never" use operating funds for building construction. So where did they "come up" with the extra $?
Also, I cannot find a soul in the district that knows anything about the legal fees paid to the BB attorneys. Have we paid them? Is there an IOU out there? It's like POOF! the whole matter just disappeared.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Oct 8, 2009 13:05:00 GMT -6
Speaking of empty lots, the district has not sold the 25 acres. The proceeds were in the MVHS budget. How have they made up that shortfall? I recall MM quoted saying he would "never, never, never" use operating funds for building construction. So where did they "come up" with the extra $? Also, I cannot find a soul in the district that knows anything about the legal fees paid to the BB attorneys. Have we paid them? Is there an IOU out there? It's like POOF! the whole matter just disappeared. How did they make up the shortfall Rew? ipsd204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=mvhsfd&action=display&thread=2622 Read this thread, The gist is you and everyone else are paying $17m in interest to fund the shortfall.(Referendum $124.6m + $17m = $141m. As to that 25 acres, read the next post, an email. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Oct 8, 2009 13:08:38 GMT -6
Mike,
First, regarding the recent issue of $13 million. From the pdf presentation I see that the total is composed of $8.12 million which I assume is the balance available under the 06 referendum. Could you tell me about the $5 million from debt certificates? Why does the District need this money, what will it be used for and what is the authority under which the District was able to issue bonds to obtain this additional $5 million?
The $8.12M does represent the remaining authority from the referendum. We anticipate the amount of this issue being significantly less than this amount. We are currently working on that determination. We are also investigating new bond opportunities that have become available within the Federal stimulus package.
Debt certificates, although similar to bonds, are different in one significant way. The bonds are paid from the operating funds of the district and therefore there are no tax levies associated with them. The funding for the Metea project includes the sale of the 25 acres on Commons Drive. The debt certificates are designed to bridge the time necessary for the market to improve and we can sell the property.
Section 17(b) of the Local Government Debt Reform Act authorizes governing bodies of governmental units, including school districts, to issue certificates of indebtedness to, among other things, acquire and improve real property. These certificates of indebtedness can be secured in any manner as the governing body determines, including pledging the proceeds of the sale of land, as provided for in Section 13 of the Local Government Debt Reform Act.
Second, going back to the 07 bond sale. Why were they issued at a premium? Did anyone request this? If so, under what authority? In general, I would like to get as much information as possible on this.
The first issue in July of 2006 was issued at $60,725,000 rather than the $62,330,000. We gave bidders the option to bid at par $62,330,000 or up to a maximum bid of $64,199,900, which is 3% more than the par amount. This is a common practice within the bond market. We received 12 bids, all bid with a premium. Essentially, the market set the premium. At that time investors buying these bonds preferred to buy bonds at a premium. Long term rates were perceived to be low at the time, and investors preferred a higher coupon to enable the bonds to be sold more fluidly in the secondary market.
The second issue of $55,750,000, issued in July of 2007, was issued at a premium of $6,968,893. The District realized $62,345,081 for the project after all issuance costs were paid. At that time we requested bidders to bid at a premium. This was done after discussion with the Board in open session, and enabled the District to retain authority to issue more bonds if this was deemed necessary. We received 7 bids on the issue and we were able to issue the bonds at a premium price because investors were willing and interested in higher coupon bonds.
The remaining authority has been part of the funding plan since the land options were being considered and openly discussed. Our financial advisors have indicated that the full amount of the remaining authority could be issued and still stay within the bond amortization targets set as part of the Board’s commitment to restructure the district’s bonded debt, as discussed during the referendum. We do not anticipate issuing the full $8.12M, but some amount less based on what is needed to complete the project.
Such premiums are authorized by Section 10 of the Local Government Debt Reform Act and their use is controlled by Section 10-22.14 of the School Code. Section 10-22.14 allows the premium to “be used for the purposes for which the bonds were issued or, instead, for payment of the principal indebtedness and interest on those bonds.”
Project Budget – We are currently working on a Metea Valley High School project budget update for the Board. Once presented to the Board it will become available to the public.
David A. Holm, Asst. Superintendent for Business
Indian Prairie CUSD 204
780 Shoreline Drive
Aurora, IL 60504
630-375-3070
dave_holm@ipsd.org
From: MACrockett [mailto:macrockett@wowway.com]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:07 PM
To: Holm, David
Subject: $13.12 million bond issue and 07 bond issue
Hi Dave,
I have a couple questions.
First, regarding the recent issue of $13million. From the pdf presentation I see that the total is composed of $8.12 million which I assume is the balance available under the 06 referendum. Could you tell me about the $5 million from debt certificates? Why does the District need this money, what will it be used for and what is the authority under which the District was able to issue bonds to obtain this additional $5 million?
Second, going back to the 07 bond sale. Why were they issued at a premium? Did anyone request this? If so, under what authority? In general, I would like to get as much information as possible on this.
Thanks,
Mike.
------------------
The District intends to borrow against the 25 acres as a funding source for MVHS if I read Dave's explanation correctly. If you add the referendum of $124.6m + the $17m + 5m, it looks to me MVHS has a $146.6 budget allocation at this point.
My request for current costs on MVHS has not been addressed to date.
As to the legal costs associated with BB, you can always FOIA them.
|
|
Or maybe we should not brainstorm. They may actually use our thought:)
