|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 18, 2006 7:30:12 GMT -6
D-204 administrators say referendum possible in '09By Britt Carson staff writer Despite a solid financial year, administrators in Indian Prairie School District 204 say a referendum is still on the horizon. The school board voted to put the tentative budget on display Monday. Dave Holm, assistant superintendent of business and finance, said the 2006-07 budget represents a lot of hard work and fiscal responsibility. "Overall I would classify this year as a solid financial year," Holm said. "However, there are signs that the district is changing financially and we are still on track to look at a referendum in 2009." The proposed 2006-07 budget has a $2.6 million surplus. However, Holm said that will continue to decrease because of the district's heavy reliance on local sources of revenue. The $242 million spending plan represents an $11.5 million increase in salaries, which includes money spent on new staff that had to be added for increasing enrollment. The budget also includes $105 million from new property. Holm said the amount of general state aid has remained relatively flat. He said although the district's enrollment is growing, the amount of revenue from property taxes is also growing and the tax cap limits how much the district can collect. The entire budget will be on the district's Web site at www.ipsd.org . The board will hold a hearing on the budget during its Sept. 25 board meeting and if there are no objections, board members can vote to approve it at that time. The board also talked about meeting with the superintendent search firm of Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates. The board hired the firm at its last meeting and wants to start the process as soon as possible to find a replacement for Howie Crouse who will retire in June 2007. Board members tentatively scheduled Aug. 29 to meet with Bill Attea, principal at the firm, to start the process
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 18, 2006 8:07:51 GMT -6
Hopefully, this comes as a suprise to no one.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Aug 18, 2006 8:21:01 GMT -6
Your over a barrel now. The question will be How Much?
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Aug 18, 2006 16:20:34 GMT -6
Why are you asking that question bc? The school district has excellent communication skills and I'm sure that they communicated the amount at some point and you just weren't listening. Or maybe you just don't understand the issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Aug 19, 2006 7:23:42 GMT -6
Eagledad- No it is not a surprise. That is on of the reasons I voted no because I knew they would be coming back for more money. My question is that they keep throwing money at this program and that program even after the parents in the district have told them no. But due to contract negotiations, they not only agreed to a salary increase but time off for planning. Who will be monitoring the program to report back to the taxpayers that this additional $150,000 is well worth it?
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Aug 19, 2006 13:49:39 GMT -6
Guess what, the majority said "yes" to a 3rd high schoool, not "the parents in the district have told them no." as reflected in your warped reality.
We as a community voted to support our children and their future in the third school, and we as a community will back it with the funds needed to operate it on an ongoing quality fashion, despite the attempts of some to undermine it at every turn.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Aug 21, 2006 10:07:51 GMT -6
I believe that BC was referring to the "dashboard" idea. The parents clearly were against that, but according to what I have read, the district is adding planning time and hiring substitutes at the elementary level.
And just because someone voted "no" on the referendum does not mean they don't support education or the operation of the district in a quality manner. It may mean that they don't like to see money spent unwisely.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 21, 2006 10:58:31 GMT -6
I don't think people were against dashboard. They were against losing the classroom time.
|
|
|
|
Post by cantretirehere on Aug 21, 2006 13:28:29 GMT -6
Welcome back lacy!!!! When you said this: And just because someone voted "no" on the referendum does not mean they don't support education or the operation of the district in a quality manner. It may mean that they don't like to see money spent unwisely. You are absolutely right! |
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Aug 21, 2006 14:01:52 GMT -6
Just because someone voted "Yes" for the referendum, does not mean they like to waste money.
|
|
|
|
Post by blankcheck on Aug 21, 2006 14:27:43 GMT -6
When the SD put out there about starting classes one hour later the parents said no. And Lacy & CRH, thanks . I do not like seeing money spent unwisely, and I do support education. I have been involved in my childrens education (volunteering, PTA ect) since we moved here 12 years ago. I am not trying to undermine anyone. However, I feel it is my right (and duty) to question the spending in this district. Although you may see my questions as being part of CRAFT, they are not. Again, I really do not understand that group. Having said that though, if there are groups out there questioning the motivations behind school districts to avoid useless spending, more power to them. It is through groups/parents questioning and holding the district accountable to the taxpayer that help to keep things in check. Could you imagine where our taxes would be if we did not do this?
|
|
|
|
Post by 204parent on Aug 21, 2006 14:45:51 GMT -6
blankcheck,
I agree. We can be spend money wisely, and still provide a great education for our kids. If someone thinks the district is wasting money on something, they should be able to discuss it without being accused of being part of CRAFT.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 21, 2006 16:37:17 GMT -6
blankcheck, I agree. We can be spend money wisely, and still provide a great education for our kids. If someone thinks the district is wasting money on something, they should be able to discuss it without being accused of being part of CRAFT. Well it seems that most of the people here that were against the third HS were using CFO/Craft arguments. Always blame the SB or the teacher's union. I am not advocating this but , lets cut the athletic programs and channel that money towards education, then we will see who is far what around here. What would you rather have a Football program for the SD or a piece of ducational software that will track and alert teachers and admins when a child is falling behind or needs special attention. |
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 21, 2006 17:42:17 GMT -6
The answer for most of us with students in the program is we of course want both. I am sure omeone will say well cut football...but the point is our kids need the extra curricular activities, they need the best educational opportunites we can provide... and the SB did what they needed to do to follow the path of pursuing the dashboard apporach and all that goes with it. As I got very involved in understanding that dashboard and the approaches tied into it ( did all of those who don;t like it ? ) - one understands that there is no guarantee with any new approach - but new approaches have to be looked at and preliminary feedback is positive.. so they are doing the only thing they can do at this time and do it with extra time...I understand why people were opposed to the last time and staggered start times especially since they had so little time to react.
|
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Aug 21, 2006 21:04:12 GMT -6
Well it seems that most of the people here that were against the third HS were using CFO/Craft arguments. Always blame the SB or the teacher's union. /quote]  ? What does "using CFO/Craft arguments" mean? I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. And that means that some of the time I agree with the school district and some of the time I don't. BTW, I don't believe that the teacher's union regularly acts in the best interest of students. Are you a member, Bob? |
|
?