|
|
Post by twhl on Feb 25, 2010 9:24:57 GMT -6
DW / Mike,
For a refresher, can either of you provide details of exactly what is going to happen in 2014 to D204's financial position and how that affects each of the districts tax payers? An explanation of how D204 manipulated our financial resources and the shell game that they used would also be helpful. I think we also need to be reminded about the refinancing piece too.
Thanks -
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Feb 25, 2010 10:51:59 GMT -6
twhl, here is what I posted under the "signs" thread a few days ago. It summarizes what I believe to be the material events (and short comings) of the last 10 years. I'm sure Doc has a more complete history as I could have cared less about this stuff, and did, until January 2008.
Before that I paid absolutely no attention to it, unfortunately. Once I started to look, however, I found what I considered to be inconsistent and unprofessional decision making regarding our finances as well as misrepresentations, at the very least, by our Board. That has been the sole focus of the time I spent on this matter.
Re finances, even before the State reneged on its responsibility D204 was on a slippery slope as material growth was over and the funds from "growth taxes" had topped out, meaning we had to rely on the tax cap to provide the ability to increase taxes (you can see this in the PMA docs from Dec 2008). Otherwise referendum.
So based on current trends, the District must find approximately $7 million per year to continue paying costs. That amounts to a $30 million referendum every 4 years.
Much of the detail I speak about below in found in my section of this Board under finances. I discuss at length the $17 million in additional interest we are/will pay to provide the gap financing for MVHS.
You can also read my recommendations to the Board regarding steps to take, which I posted about 5 months ago, and my caution about relying on State and federal funds:
(Conclusion:
Reliance on Federal and Illinois State Government assistance is not advised.
Reliance on the taxpayer is also not advised.)
If there is something specific you want to know let me know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can assure you Curt, I will make an informed decision without those signs. That informed decision includes the following:
District 204 has a history of poorly conceived decision making and the ability to honestly communication with the residents of this school district.
The freshman centers are a prime example. They are sufficient for future growth ...no they aren't. NIU projections state otherwise... we are going to have over 11k high school kids soon! District officials say around 9k. Citizens group decides to split at 10400 saying the NIU number is ridiculous (so why 10400? on faith? who knows). Result...build it and they will come.
2005 Referendum fails. Why? Call in the consultants! $17500 later, the survey says residents don't want a third high school, they would rather add to existing facilities (lets ignore that minor detail) and if there is a high school we need to tell the people where the high school and boundaries are going to be so ... here you are, BB ...we promise... (ignore also they we spend freely on "experts" but we don't feel any compulsion to ask professionals to assess what our capacity needs are or how to satisfy them (again, also ignore what the community prefers, what do they know!)) Condemnation succeeds! We can buy BB!
...sorry, we've decide it should be put where the entitled want it, ignore all those representations we made…the court says it‘s legal. So we sign the MOU on 11/15/2007 to purchase that land that we rejected just a few years ago as unsuitable for environmental reasons and distance from the student population... but that decision was made when we were being held accountable...before the referendum...the majority of those approving the new site were the very same people who rejected it initially...imagine that!
Any way, for two months we sit silently and use district dollars to site the new school before we even tell the public we have agreed in principle to buy it! Then bammmm 1/15/08 we vote and approve the new site! Thirty days later, bammmm here are your new boundaries! Don't bother commenting...this is a done deal, whether you know it or not. 30 days after approval of the site we are done, in half the time that we sat silently getting our ducks in a row.
In April, before we close the deal to purchase the agreed upon site for $19million, we get an offer to sell the 248th street land for $12 million cash. Call comes in from the broker representing the owner and the bank holding the note. Forget it, we have what we want warts and all (and high pressure gas transmission lines at no extra cost…well at least not yet).
It doesn't matter that the 248th street land is cheaper, closer to the student population density, or now, buy this time, that we also have the lasted projections that show the original enrollment figures have continued to track a peak enrollment around 9k...now almost 4 years later. Lets ignore all of that as well.
It doesn't matter that NV is essentially new and WV is 33 years old (a baby relative to Central and North). It doesn't matter that peak enrollment is about 5 years away. It doesn’t matter that we have current capacity of 10,400, more seats than required at peak.
It doesn't matter that when you build a new school (even if you don't really need it) there will be a major dislocation of the kids...and when you build it where so few are...there are going to be some long bus rides for the unfortunate ones (bring a lunch, who cares!)
It doesn’t matter that growth in the District has ground to a halt and that growth revenue crested several years ago. Nor does the tax cap matter. We can rely on our citizens to pass the new referendum.
It doesn’t matter than we rely on the State, which has been in a precarious financial state for what seems to be an eternity, for $30+ million in funding.
Lets push forward and build! Oh, the new cost is $140+ million, and don’t worry, we have it taken care of. We issued part of the referendum bonds in 06, even before we had a court date for condemnation….ok, well before… and we issued more in 07 at a premium for a quick up front pop in cash. By the time we the school is done, we will have accumulated the funds, approximately $17 million, to fill the referendum gap!
We don’t have to tell you that though, or even why we issued well before necessary or at a premium, in the case of the 07 bonds. We also don’t have to tell you that you will have to pay $17million more in interest costs by the way…
Ignore all the legal costs, the expedite and change orders, and where the budget is on MVHS. You are on a need to know basis, and you don’t need to know! Ignore the waivers of our strict attendance policy. Medical…
Ignore that we seem to have ignored the overwhelming evidence that we were on a slippery slope with our future cash flow.
Details…
Regarding
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 25, 2010 11:07:29 GMT -6
like I can improve on that synopsis-
twhl - Mike has a better handle on how the bond issues work and how they were manipulated ( although legally) to put us $17K further in debt that we agreed to be, even based on the 10,400 lie we were given to vote on. He has detailed synopsis in the history files here and he can point you to specifics you may want or need.
Mike maybe you can give the readers digest version of 2014 for TWHL again though ?
TWHL--if there is anything specific you want to know about how we got here based on meetings/ decisions/ back door deals, orange shirt marches, who the 'players' were/are and what they contributed to this mess etc..I was involved virtually every day from 2006 forward, just ask -- before that like Mike and so many othjers- I just 'trusted' what went on..to quote the Who "we won't Get Fooled Again".
Also Mike maybe you know off the top of your head, but a large chuck of the bonds we owed from previous building I believe we due to be paid off, maybe this year or next- Arch & I were talking yesterday tryting to remember. Of course that money was rolled out and now belings to my children to pay off. Do you remember howmuch and the previouss' retirement ' dates?
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Feb 25, 2010 11:57:53 GMT -6
like I can improve on that synopsis- twhl - Mike has a better handle on how the bond issues work and how they were manipulated ( although legally) to put us $17K further in debt that we agreed to be, even based on the 10,400 lie we were given to vote on. He has detailed synopsis in the history files here and he can point you to specifics you may want or need. Mike maybe you can give the readers digest version of 2014 for TWHL again though ? TWHL--if there is anything specific you want to know about how we got here based on meetings/ decisions/ back door deals, orange shirt marches, who the 'players' were/are and what they contributed to this mess etc..I was involved virtually every day from 2006 forward, just ask -- before that like Mike and so many othjers- I just 'trusted' what went on..to quote the Who "we won't Get Fooled Again". Also Mike maybe you know off the top of your head, but a large chuck of the bonds we owed from previous building I believe we due to be paid off, maybe this year or next- Arch & I were talking yesterday tryting to remember. Of course that money was rolled out and now belings to my children to pay off. Do you remember howmuch and the previouss' retirement ' dates? Doc, bonds amortization schedule here: ipsd204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ba204&action=display&thread=2599 I think i did this in March 2008 so I am sure they have done some refinancing. As for 2014 not sure what specifically twhl is asking for. Here is recent "austerity plan" www.ipsd.org/Uploads/news_26655_1.pdfI'm sure PMA did another presentation in 2009 but I haven't seen it yet. Here is the one from 2008 that shows pre-State mess: winsome.cnchost.com/MAC/PMAProjections12-8-08.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Feb 26, 2010 8:09:31 GMT -6
like I can improve on that synopsis- twhl - Mike has a better handle on how the bond issues work and how they were manipulated ( although legally) to put us $17K further in debt that we agreed to be, even based on the 10,400 lie we were given to vote on. He has detailed synopsis in the history files here and he can point you to specifics you may want or need. Mike maybe you can give the readers digest version of 2014 for TWHL again though ? TWHL--if there is anything specific you want to know about how we got here based on meetings/ decisions/ back door deals, orange shirt marches, who the 'players' were/are and what they contributed to this mess etc..I was involved virtually every day from 2006 forward, just ask -- before that like Mike and so many others- I just 'trusted' what went on..to quote the Who "we won't Get Fooled Again". Also Mike maybe you know off the top of your head, but a large chuck of the bonds we owed from previous building I believe we due to be paid off, maybe this year or next- Arch & I were talking yesterday trying to remember. Of course that money was rolled out and now belongs to my children to pay off. Do you remember how much and the previous' retirement ' dates? I have to admit like most many of the graphs and charts I do not fully understand - they just look like BIG #'s both negative and surplus. I guess what I am trying to learn is if my taxes are: $X, and next year they will be 2009 + $y, then @2010 +$z the following, why is 2014 slated as the year in which we anticipate seeing a HUGE increase and what % more than we have today? Just a rough order of magnitude to put it in to perspective. Lastly as I recall we financed MV by selling notes that we have to pay back with interest and the pitch from the School Board / D204 was you wont see any increase in taxes and might actually see a decrease but we have to spread the payment terms over a longer period of time. * Question # 1 - was the status quo on taxes temporary and is going away in 2014 ? * Question # 2 - how long is the MV loan for ? (meaning the amount owed will not be going away anytime soon) |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 26, 2010 9:01:40 GMT -6
That decrease was because some of the repayment was abated until a certain time down the road (hint).
|
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Feb 26, 2010 9:33:38 GMT -6
like I can improve on that synopsis- twhl - Mike has a better handle on how the bond issues work and how they were manipulated ( although legally) to put us $17K further in debt that we agreed to be, even based on the 10,400 lie we were given to vote on. He has detailed synopsis in the history files here and he can point you to specifics you may want or need. Mike maybe you can give the readers digest version of 2014 for TWHL again though ? TWHL--if there is anything specific you want to know about how we got here based on meetings/ decisions/ back door deals, orange shirt marches, who the 'players' were/are and what they contributed to this mess etc..I was involved virtually every day from 2006 forward, just ask -- before that like Mike and so many others- I just 'trusted' what went on..to quote the Who "we won't Get Fooled Again". Also Mike maybe you know off the top of your head, but a large chuck of the bonds we owed from previous building I believe we due to be paid off, maybe this year or next- Arch & I were talking yesterday trying to remember. Of course that money was rolled out and now belongs to my children to pay off. Do you remember how much and the previous' retirement ' dates? I have to admit like most many of the graphs and charts I do not fully understand - they just look like BIG #'s both negative and surplus. I guess what I am trying to learn is if my taxes are: $X, and next year they will be 2009 + $y, then @2010 +$z the following, why is 2014 slated as the year in which we anticipate seeing a HUGE increase and what % more than we have today? Just a rough order of magnitude to put it in to perspective. Lastly as I recall we financed MV by selling notes that we have to pay back with interest and the pitch from the School Board / D204 was you wont see any increase in taxes and might actually see a decrease but we have to spread the payment terms over a longer period of time. * Question # 1 - was the status quo on taxes temporary and is going away in 2014 ? * Question # 2 - how long is the MV loan for ? (meaning the amount owed will not be going away anytime soon) I'll let Mike do the calc's on this as he is better at it but as I understand it the principal loan for MVHS comes thru in 2014. We're not paying for a lot of it now..we are paying old debt that was restructured. Many costs were 'deferred' until 2014 so that 'otherss' could pay for it also per M2. Also one caveat - we paid $6.4 M for the 25 acres we own and that was included in the MVHS cost amazingly enough as an asset of $5M. read below -- that.s $5M more if it doesn't sell and our real estate agent - err finance director may have to eat his words on the market value for sure now. I know we have the schedule of repayment and the huge bump in the archives, I am searching for it ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Board member Christine Vickers opposed taking on the debt, fearful of relying on selling the land before 2014 to repay the principal loan. "I understand that right now, that's where we are, that we would take those monies out right now here today as a bridge or a delay for that, but my sense tells me we are putting a risk on the table on whether or not we'll ever be able to put those monies back," she said. "We don't have any guarantees or assurances that we will sell the land for $5 million, let alone to cover the full purchase price that we paid in 2005." Holm said the only other option is take the money out of the district's operating funds now and risk not being able to pay other bills and payroll. "The question is 'now or later?'" Holm said. "And I would also say that there is real value to the land. It's certainly not worthless, and the question is: 'When can we sell it and for how much?' But I think there's reason to believe it's worth every bit the $5 million." |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Feb 26, 2010 10:04:52 GMT -6
like I can improve on that synopsis- twhl - Mike has a better handle on how the bond issues work and how they were manipulated ( although legally) to put us $17K further in debt that we agreed to be, even based on the 10,400 lie we were given to vote on. He has detailed synopsis in the history files here and he can point you to specifics you may want or need. Mike maybe you can give the readers digest version of 2014 for TWHL again though ? TWHL--if there is anything specific you want to know about how we got here based on meetings/ decisions/ back door deals, orange shirt marches, who the 'players' were/are and what they contributed to this mess etc..I was involved virtually every day from 2006 forward, just ask -- before that like Mike and so many others- I just 'trusted' what went on..to quote the Who "we won't Get Fooled Again". Also Mike maybe you know off the top of your head, but a large chuck of the bonds we owed from previous building I believe we due to be paid off, maybe this year or next- Arch & I were talking yesterday trying to remember. Of course that money was rolled out and now belongs to my children to pay off. Do you remember how much and the previous' retirement ' dates? I have to admit like most many of the graphs and charts I do not fully understand - they just look like BIG #'s both negative and surplus. I guess what I am trying to learn is if my taxes are: $X, and next year they will be 2009 + $y, then @2010 +$z the following, why is 2014 slated as the year in which we anticipate seeing a HUGE increase and what % more than we have today? Just a rough order of magnitude to put it in to perspective. Lastly as I recall we financed MV by selling notes that we have to pay back with interest and the pitch from the School Board / D204 was you wont see any increase in taxes and might actually see a decrease but we have to spread the payment terms over a longer period of time. * Question # 1 - was the status quo on taxes temporary and is going away in 2014 ? * Question # 2 - how long is the MV loan for ? (meaning the amount owed will not be going away anytime soon) twhl, let me answer Q2 now and Q1 later ipsd204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ba204&action=display&thread=2599look at the bond amortization schedule (link) as it existed in late 08. The MVHS referendum proceeds were taken down (bonds issued) in 06, 07. Row 9, GO2006A represents an issue of $60.625 million, row 7 GO2007B represents an issue of $55.75 million. Under the year column are the levys (the amount to be paid the following year to amortize that particular issue (pay principal and interest). So we are already paying for and amortizing the MVHS bonds and have been since 2006. It is from issuing those bonds in advance that the district derived the $17m (in the form of interest income and bond premium) to fill the funding gap for MVHS (I talk about this in detail in the financials thread in my section).The amortization schedule changes as new bonds are issued (GO) and old bonds are refinanced (that is what the rows where the series begins with RS represent...refinancing of earlier issued bonds). The big refinancing was in aug 07 RS2007B where $59.29 million was refinanced. What refinancing can do, among other things, is push principal and interest payments further out into the future to lower the current payments, just like if you refinance your home. Finally, you can follow the rows for the 06 and 07 issues and see that they are currently scheduled (from last i looked) to amortize till 2024 and 2025, respectively.One other thing i want to add, your tax bill for D204 is really two components. The biggest part is for operations and the balance is for debt amortization. The amount the district collects each year is roughly 90% for operations and 10% for debt amortization. |
|
|
|
Post by twhl on Feb 26, 2010 10:42:57 GMT -6
Thanks Mike - Id be redundant if I said you have a great handle on this stuff and Holmes and the rest of the Admin and Board start sweating every time you bring this stuff up. They were hoping that no one can make sense of it which is almost true. Id also like to suggest you run for the Board again. I think that will spoon feed you a platform and cause to run on once all this garbage comes to light and people really take notice. I bet they were in an absolute panic when you put your hat in the ring.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 26, 2010 10:44:48 GMT -6
Do they have authority to pass an emergency taxation without a public vote?
If so, under what circumstances?
|
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Feb 26, 2010 22:01:33 GMT -6
I have to admit like most many of the graphs and charts I do not fully understand - they just look like BIG #'s both negative and surplus. I guess what I am trying to learn is if my taxes are: $X, and next year they will be 2009 + $y, then @2010 +$z the following, why is 2014 slated as the year in which we anticipate seeing a HUGE increase and what % more than we have today? Just a rough order of magnitude to put it in to perspective. Lastly as I recall we financed MV by selling notes that we have to pay back with interest and the pitch from the School Board / D204 was you wont see any increase in taxes and might actually see a decrease but we have to spread the payment terms over a longer period of time. * Question # 1 - was the status quo on taxes temporary and is going away in 2014 ? * Question # 2 - how long is the MV loan for ? (meaning the amount owed will not be going away anytime soon) twhl, let me answer Q2 now and Q1 later ipsd204.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=ba204&action=display&thread=2599look at the bond amortization schedule (link) as it existed in late 08. The MVHS referendum proceeds were taken down (bonds issued) in 06, 07. Row 9, GO2006A represents an issue of $60.625 million, row 7 GO2007B represents an issue of $55.75 million. Under the year column are the levys (the amount to be paid the following year to amortize that particular issue (pay principal and interest). So we are already paying for and amortizing the MVHS bonds and have been since 2006. It is from issuing those bonds in advance that the district derived the $17m (in the form of interest income and bond premium) to fill the funding gap for MVHS (I talk about this in detail in the financials thread in my section).The amortization schedule changes as new bonds are issued (GO) and old bonds are refinanced (that is what the rows where the series begins with RS represent...refinancing of earlier issued bonds). The big refinancing was in aug 07 RS2007B where $59.29 million was refinanced. What refinancing can do, among other things, is push principal and interest payments further out into the future to lower the current payments, just like if you refinance your home. Finally, you can follow the rows for the 06 and 07 issues and see that they are currently scheduled (from last i looked) to amortize till 2024 and 2025, respectively.One other thing i want to add, your tax bill for D204 is really two components. The biggest part is for operations and the balance is for debt amortization. The amount the district collects each year is roughly 90% for operations and 10% for debt amortization. mr. crockett... curious what the tax increase would be in 2014 on a 300,000 dollar home? Or is it too soon to know? |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Feb 27, 2010 0:32:45 GMT -6
Call me Steckdad, 630-416-6441. I'll be glad to give you the answer. Otherwise please, don't bother me.
|
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Feb 27, 2010 7:51:35 GMT -6
Do they have authority to pass an emergency taxation without a public vote? If so, under what circumstances? Arch, I am not aware of any powers of that nature that vest in the School Districts. If it does exist it would be spelled out in the School Code. |
|
|
|
Post by macrockett on Feb 27, 2010 8:00:21 GMT -6
* Question # 1 - was the status quo on taxes temporary and is going away in 2014 ? mr. crockett... curious what the tax increase would be in 2014 on a 300,000 dollar home? Or is it too soon to know? Lets just put the answer to Q1 along with the question posed by the Metzger clone, aka Steckdad. The simple answer to your first question twhl is to look at the bond amortization chart and see the total to be collected each year per the levied amount. Remember taxes are collected the year after they are levied, i.e., levied 2009, collected 2010, etc. Beyond that the debt portion of our taxes is dynamic, constantly changing as different groups of bonds are refinanced and the payoff terms changed. Both interest rates and principal retirement can change. You can see by the "RS" line items that refinancing is happening all the time. To me what is relevant is the size of the accumulated debt to the revenue used to pay it off. Similar to what you hear on the federal level, "debt to GDP." I haven't seen the FY 2009 Audited financial statement which should have been released by now, but I imagine debt is approximately $300 million at the moment. Another thing to remember is your portion of the debt is about 10% of your D204 tax. The "big dog" is the operating budget. Finally, what is important to me is strict fiscal management on the part of the Board and the Administration. The resources of this District, just like any District, are finite. If you spend those resources to satisfy "wants" rather than needs, be they high schools that aren't absolutely necessary to satisfy our capacity needs, or salaries, benefits and other concessions to satisfy the union, the result is the same, those resources won't be available for programs, materials and additional human resources to provide the best education possible for our children. How many examples do we need to see (in the paper every day concerning our School Districts, CPS, Chicago, our State, the Federal Government and the cuts to come) before we realize "you can't have it all." In the end, there must be balance, but the priority, imo, must be our children, not bricks and mortar and not the teachers union. |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Feb 27, 2010 8:33:06 GMT -6
Do they have authority to pass an emergency taxation without a public vote? If so, under what circumstances? Arch, I am not aware of any powers of that nature that vest in the School Districts. If it does exist it would be spelled out in the School Code. I hope there aren't, but previously on the topic of BB litigation it was mentioned (though could have been wrong) that someone thought they could pass whatever judgement onto the taxpayers without approval; like some kind of emergency funding need or something... Hopefully that was wrong. |
|
