Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Abe Lincoln PTA is out of line.

  1. #31
    Forum Regular mamattorney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    435
    I'm not outraged either. As far as I know, the district has never been asked to evaluate its finances in this way and/or to potentially cut the budget. I think it's a good thing to look at all these different scenarios.

    I can see both sides, though in my opinion, I don't think that the "pro full levy" contingent needs to be quite so zealous and spammy on Facebook. Write the school board, speak at meetings, make an occasional post on Facebook - do what you feel you have to do, but flooding my feed with multiple posts daily about the issue on more than one school related group is just too much (though I recently learned how to block people whom you aren't friends with, so I am now living in "uninformed" bliss).

  2. #32
    Forum Regular Bob Solak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by mamattorney View Post
    do what you feel you have to do, but flooding my feed with multiple posts daily about the issue on more than one school related group is just too much


    I am "on" Facebook but I am not really ON it, if you follow me, so I don't know what my "feed" is. I usually only go there when something over here prompts me to. I was just getting annoyed at the number of emails Facebook was flooding my Yahoo account with. Can I shut those off somehow? (sorry, I'm willfully Facebook ignorant). I blame Perplexed for telling me I *had* to be on that thing.

    And I didn't know what Venmo is, either.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by mamattorney View Post
    I'm not outraged either. As far as I know, the district has never been asked to evaluate its finances in this way and/or to potentially cut the budget. I think it's a good thing to look at all these different scenarios.

    I can see both sides, though in my opinion, I don't think that the "pro full levy" contingent needs to be quite so zealous and spammy on Facebook. Write the school board, speak at meetings, make an occasional post on Facebook - do what you feel you have to do, but flooding my feed with multiple posts daily about the issue on more than one school related group is just too much (though I recently learned how to block people whom you aren't friends with, so I am now living in "uninformed" bliss).
    This is me. Then I begin to wonder how in the world do they have so much time that they can obsess so diligently on board issues AND make mountains out of molehills.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #34
    Forum All Star DTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    2,720
    Quote Originally Posted by mamattorney View Post
    I'm not outraged either. As far as I know, the district has never been asked to evaluate its finances in this way and/or to potentially cut the budget. I think it's a good thing to look at all these different scenarios.

    I can see both sides, though in my opinion, I don't think that the "pro full levy" contingent needs to be quite so zealous and spammy on Facebook. Write the school board, speak at meetings, make an occasional post on Facebook - do what you feel you have to do, but flooding my feed with multiple posts daily about the issue on more than one school related group is just too much (though I recently learned how to block people whom you aren't friends with, so I am now living in "uninformed" bliss).
    The administration made some cuts in their budget back in '08-'09? due to a supposed impending shortfall in state funding. The shortfall never came, which led to the surplus the board ended up abating in the bond fund a couple years after that. Additionally, the question was always asked, "build a budget from the ground up showing what you need, not just basing it on what you think you can levy." Of course, that never appeared from the administration.

  5. #35
    Forum Regular mamattorney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by DTM View Post
    The administration made some cuts in their budget back in '08-'09? due to a supposed impending shortfall in state funding. The shortfall never came, which led to the surplus the board ended up abating in the bond fund a couple years after that. Additionally, the question was always asked, "build a budget from the ground up showing what you need, not just basing it on what you think you can levy." Of course, that never appeared from the administration.
    I remember that abatement, didn't know the genesis of it. I remember feeling a little bait & switched with the abatement because the D41 taxes jumped a bunch the year after. That's when I learned that they had levied the full amount, so even though it felt like I was going from A to C, it was really: A, B (with abatement, so no noticeable increase from A ), then C.

  6. #36
    Forum Regular Bob Solak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by mamattorney View Post
    I remember that abatement, didn't know the genesis of it. I remember feeling a little bait & switched with the abatement because the D41 taxes jumped a bunch the year after. That's when I learned that they had levied the full amount, so even though it felt like I was going from A to C, it was really: A, B (with abatement, so no noticeable increase from A ), then C.
    They also abated out of the Bond and Interest Fund, which allowed them to use the pre-abatment levy as the basis for the following year's tax cap calculation. Had they abated from the Education Fund, it would have lowered the basis for the following year's tax cap calculation. So the abatement was nice, just not as nice as it could have (arguably should have) been.

    I know we've posted about this here before but it bears repeating. The levy voted on in December 2017 forms the vast majority of the Revenue side of the budget that will not be formulated by the Administration until spring/summer 2018 and will not be voted on by the Board until August 2018. This timeline is mandated by law. As you can see, it is ***-backwards to how any budget should rationally be constructed, namely, come up with a budget and THEN levy for the amount you need. I've always felt that the options to combat the problem are to: 1) create multi-year budgets so that you can "best-guess" the levy, or 2) max the levy and then be truly committed to abating what you later determine was not needed. There are pros and cons for each method. I would lean toward a combination of the two, using conservative estimates to create multi-year budgets followed by Ed Fund abatement when possible.
    Last edited by Bob Solak; 12-14-2017 at 08:59 AM.

  7. #37
    Forum Regular mamattorney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    435
    And speaking of the state and surpluses - when they starting running these numbers, it was discovered that there is a $5 million surplus this year in the D41 coffers, due to this and that, but mostly funding from the state that was unexpected. So, that adds another element to the mix . . .

  8. #38
    Forum All Star DTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    2,720
    Quote Originally Posted by mamattorney View Post
    And speaking of the state and surpluses - when they starting running these numbers, it was discovered that there is a $5 million surplus this year in the D41 coffers, due to this and that, but mostly funding from the state that was unexpected. So, that adds another element to the mix . . .
    yup.

    It looks like the District had a budget surplus of $5.4million at the end of june 2017. Some was because they took in an extra 1.4 million in one year and saved a bunch on salaries/expenses (2.8million). Something similar happened when the previous surplus occurred. But this time the board is looking at reducing the expense budget as well as the operating levy, which of course gives up "millions of future dollars for our children". So, of course PTA/Nelson want to maximize the levy. I don't know what the actual proposed reduction is, but that is what is being discussed.

  9. #39
    Long time no post. I knew something was going on when I started getting spammed again about how many loaves of bread my kids education was worth or whatever it is now (glad I now know how to block her).
    I gotta say that I was a full levy person until that $5m in savings came through. I am not quite sure how you justify the full levy with such a hefty bank account. Unless they had to cut programs due to a levy shortfall, but I do not see plans for that.

  10. #40
    Forum Regular Bob Solak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    267
    Apparently, QBOne, your kids will have bread to eat.

    D41 adopts "flat" levy.

    Currie said the district should levy for what it needs.

    "We've discovered that we have $5.4 million that we didn't spend," Currie said. "This is 20 percent of the budget and leaves our reserves at 41 percent. That seems like a really good position to be in. We also aren't completely zeroing the levy. We are capturing approximately $500,000 in new construction dollars, so that is more money that is coming in. I think it is important that we align our budgets to people's incomes here in Glen Ellyn. We have to respect the taxpayer in Glen Ellyn."

  11. #41
    Forum All Star DTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    2,720
    I get why Nelson and Bruno voted no, but did Jason give any reason?

  12. #42
    Forum All Star ackerman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,809
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Solak View Post
    Apparently, QBOne, your kids will have bread to eat.

    D41 adopts "flat" levy.
    The petition at change.org has no validity and shouldn't be mentioned in the article. I would assume that many-most are not D 41 residents-voters and would question if it is even 500 different people.

    That being said, at least Eric did an article on something that is NEWS, a board willing to draw a line and think of it's taxpayers. The DH? MIA.

  13. #43
    I took the graph out of the story, as it would be difficult if not impossible to confirm that all of the petition supporters live within the school district boundaries.

    Thanks for your feedback.

  14. #44
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    268
    Eric - Was "Village Trustee Pete Ladesic" speaking in that capacity at the Board meeting......come to think of it, was there someplace else he needed to be that night?

  15. #45
    Forum All Star DTM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Mile High
    Posts
    2,720
    He spoke at the very beginning during the public hearing on the tax levy.

    Link to that video is here:



    The Buttimer (a.k.a. D41 - 411) lady is a real hoot. To enjoy her pearls of wisdom fast forward to the 20 minute 47 second mark. Also during the regular public participation at the 47 minute 30 second mark she gives out incorrect statements such as, "Illinois is the worst state in school funding."

    Illinois taxpayers know that is not the case and I would encourage her to review the latest census data which shows Illinois 4th in the nation in terms of total education funding.
    Last edited by DTM; 12-21-2017 at 11:55 AM. Reason: added video link

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •