|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 1, 2010 21:02:07 GMT -6
"The Illinois State Board of Education proposed a $14.7 billion budget for next fiscal year, a figure that accounts for state and federal funding to local districts and is the same amount as the current year."
"What's not included is nearly $1 billion in federal stimulus money "
"Our children are in a school building burning and there are no first responders," Chapa LaVia said. This is starting to sound like a family of 400 pounders that just got done gorging themselves all day on Thanksgiving day and are then bitching that there is no more ice cream left for breakfast. Time for a new year's resolution and a diet. The all-you-can-eat Obama Buffet ran out of chow and had to shut down. [/lunacy] They're going to need that $1 Billion over at FHFA to extend the HARP program ...refinance underwater loans up to 125% of LTV, thereby putting America further in the hole. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release
FHFA Extends Refinance Program By One YearWashington, DC -- Federal Housing Finance Agency Acting Director Ed DeMarco today announced the extension of the Home Affordable Refinance Program, (HARP), a refinancing program administered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to June 30, 2011. The program is a key component of the Administration’s Making Home Affordable Program announced last February. The HARP program expands access to refinancing for qualified individuals and families whose homes have lost value. The program was set to expire on June 10 of this year. “FHFA has reviewed the current market situation and the state of mortgage insurance availability and has determined that the market conditions that necessitated the actions taken last year have not materially changed,” said DeMarco. “ Accordingly, to support and promote market stability, and to encourage lenders and other mortgage market participants to fully adopt the HARP program, including the implementation of the October 2009 expansion of loan-to-value ratios (LTVs) to 125 percent, FHFA is authorizing the extension of HARP until June 30, 2011.”In 2009, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased or guaranteed more than 4 million refinanced mortgages. Of this total, 190,180 were HARP refinances with LTVs between 80 percent and 125 percent. The HARP began in April 2009 and has grown over the past few months. For more information on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refinance activity, see FHFA’s monthly Foreclosure Prevention & Refinance Report. Additionally, homeowners can visit www.MakingHomeAffordable.gov for additional information on the program. ### The Federal Housing Finance Agency regulates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 Federal Home Loan Banks. These government-sponsored enterprises provide more than $6.3 trillion in funding for the U.S. mortgage markets and financial institutions. |
|
|
|
Post by casey on Mar 3, 2010 8:10:26 GMT -6
An important, long and interesting email I received from a friend (pared down from the orginal email). I'll add the rest later but there should be discussion with much of the below. There are some very strong points made:
Before we cut frontline teachers, can we close under-utilized buildings (we supposedly have a high school's worth of empty seats at the ES level), cut administrative salaries/staff, operating salaries/staff, cut pension/medical benefits that are out of line with private/public companies (examples: eliminate automatic escalations for already retired people, 100% medical premium payments for some, eliminate end of career bump ups to get higher pensions, add co-pays as well as requiring employees to pay 50% of insurance premium payments where applicable, pay for performance, end of tenure - something no company has and only colleges should have, etc.) - rather than cutting education programs, special needs programs, the younger frontline teachers (who have the latest technology and education training), sports, music and artistic classes?
Is the district appreciating the fact that the tax cap and Consumer Price Index is there for a good reason - meaning, that when the economy suffers, then cuts must be made to meet the taxpayers' budget, or ability to pay taxes based on the ability to earn money to pay taxes?
Is D204 using proper risk management with respect to a referendum failure, meaning the planning for the very high probability that a property tax increase will fail, rather than marketing, building voter fears, hoping it will pass, then worrying about the fallout when it's too late, and bigger cuts that harm education delivery must be taken?
Is D204 already using reduced reporting requirements and credit lines with banks that have been legislated by our local congress people (to the glee of the banks one would imagine), that will allow districts to use credit lines to bridge budget gaps, rather than taking the medicine now, and thus incurring much higher debt for the our district than already is nearly half a billion dollars in debt today?
Why can't the district take an immediate 10% across the district cut in salary and benefits, and close 3 elementary schools in the next 6 months, for a savings of approximately $25+ million for the next fiscal year - a figure closer to the likely gap - which is always much higher than the residents are told it seems?
What is the real situation regarding the over $50 million in state funding that D204 expects to get at some time in the future, given that if the state cuts the figure in half, we could be another $75 million in the hole within 3 years?
How has the district accounted for the anticipated drop in tax revenues from the reduction in the equalized assessed value (EAV) anticipated to be even greater this year, given the expected higher percentage of residents planning to challenge their assessed values after being "tricked" this past year by the never-discussed rule that allows the assessor to not inform property owners of their rights in a hard copy letter when the assessed value does not change (in 2009 the assessor did not change the assessed values even though selling prices have dropped two years in a row), and thus the assessed value should drop even further when the full impact of the last 2 years is accounted for in the EAV?
Does the district naively think that the state government is not picking winning and losing districts for funding decisions based on their assessment of each districts "ability" to pay - meaning the residents of "richer" districts will pick up the tab?
Does the district fully realize that at times like these, the squeakiest wheel or first districts winning their state funds, also win in the longer run, and what arguments/actions are we building/taking to overcome this situation?
What is a "Cabinet"?
|
|
|
|
Post by casey on Mar 3, 2010 8:15:14 GMT -6
This is my favorite question! I thought the same thing when I read KB's quote about her "Cabinet". Help us all if she thinks she's running 204 like our government. Of course we are running our IPSD 204 like our government and that's the crux of our problem. We are so screwed. IMO, we need an expert to come in from the OUTSIDE (not some hand-picked SB/SD cronies) and take a top-down, bottom-up approach and look at everything. We need help and unfortunately I don't think we can trust our SD or SB to provide it. We need someone with true financial sense to help. No cheerleaders here. |
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 3, 2010 8:38:30 GMT -6
I agree that the lack of assessment notice was deceptive and wrong (and I got into an argument over it with the Naperville assessor), but the drop in EAV will have no effect on overall tax revenues. If everyone's EAV went down 10%, the district would still levy the same amount of taxes and it would simply be spread across the tax base as usual. Homeowners who successfully appeal their assessments would see somewhat lower taxes but the rest of us would see increases to offset that reduction. That adds to the frustration...not only do we have to live with high taxes, but then we have to worry about our neighbors getting an unfair advantage over those of us who don't want to take the time preparing an appeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Mar 3, 2010 8:43:24 GMT -6
When the CPI came in at 0.1, I was thrilled...most people would agree that it's almost ideal. However, to those whose budgets are based on perpetual increases, it was apparently a "disaster."
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Mar 3, 2010 9:12:08 GMT -6
When the CPI came in at 0.1, I was thrilled...most people would agree that it's almost ideal. However, to those whose budgets are based on perpetual increases, it was apparently a "disaster." Agree, Asmodeus. Going a step further, why is the Tax Cap based on the CPI? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to tie it wages/salaries? Why should the District be able to consistently pass on higher costs if wages and salaries aren't going up. According to the BLS in December compensation has been flat for the last decade, and in looking at the CPI components, taxes is not one of them. |
|
