Today's Daily Illini:
Members of the Illinois Student Senate are opposing an upcoming referendum.
This November, Champaign County ballots will have a referendum item asking voters to raise the sales tax by one percent to benefit school districts.
Sean Mills, co-chair of the Senate's governmental affairs committee, said property owners in Champaign will get a rebate from the tax, but students do not generally own property. Students will have to pay the sales tax but will not get the rebate that other residents will receive, he said.
Discuss.
When I was a student, I voted against tax increases as well. I know how that goes. It certainly seems that we are locked into a no-win situation no matter how we try to improve the schools. The last referendum to increase property taxes was voted down, and another attempt at the same effort would most likely meet the same end. I have heard it said that throwing more money at the schools is not going to help; those who say that would most likely vote against any tax increase that benefitted schools (yes, I realize that I am generalizing and there are exceptions).
But what do you do? We cannot vote down all ideas. There has to be at least one idea that we can all rally behind. Heck, we get one president even if 49.9999% of us vote against. =)
Curious if those who support the new sales tax are organizing an effort to speak with the students, or at least the Illinois Student Senate.
"It certainly seems that we are locked into a no-win situation no matter how we try to improve the schools."
Partly that's because for many people "improve the schools" has become synonomous with "increase funding for schools."
If this tax increase fails, perhaps it's time to look at showcasing to the community improvements in the schools which don't necessitate a tax increase, and then use those improvements and the stewardship that provided them to justify asking for more resources.
Let's not forget that students' parents are already paying for the schools in their own communities. The logic of a sales tax here is that we can, in part, export the burden to non-local students and their parents. This opposition is a good sign. These kids are smarter than I thought they were.
There is no school funding approach that will work if it amounts to taking more money from the collar counties to fund schools downstate. We have to be prepared to pay our own bills.
This will be the first tax referendum for schools that I will vote against.
amen, Anon.
The sales tax proposal also exports some of the burden to our neighbors in the counties around ours, who don't have big retail centers, but do have their own schools.
I understand that Unit 4 put its contract on the table for the teachers to vote on, and from the reports last night, they're giving 4.5% increase in salaries for the next three years. Where will this money come from? In this economy how can the Board justify such a large increase? Mr. Tomlinson, if you're out there, can you shed some light on this?
I heard Mssr Tomlinson and Culver "answer questions" about the sales tax increase today. They were careful *not* to advocate, as this would be a violation of ethics law. I came away with two major points.
1. Unit 4 needs/wants $200 million in new buildings and improvements over the next ten or so years, including a new high school at $80 million, plus.. The 1% sales tax increase raises $70 million over the next 20 years.
2. There is no guarantee of property tax relief from future board actions. The current 4.5% per year teacher pay increase will need to be funded from somewhere. Perhaps the lottery (winning it, not sharing in the income from it).
Lets tax rental receipts on buildings over eight units, and put it to those snarky college students who don't want to pay for our new schools.
Was there any suggestion as to where the raises were going to come from?
The raises were already projected in the 2009-2010 budget that was approved by the board and the three year budget that has already been presented to the board.
Before contract negotiations begin we do try and figure out how much the district can afford and prioritize that within the overall budget. There will be no additional taxes and someone said above that the sales tax will be used to pay for the raises. NOT TRUE! The sales tax cannot be used for anything but facilities.
Dave Tomlinson
In response to anon 447 regarding the rotary discussion...
We were asked what the overall facilities need was. In 2005 a facilities study was done by an outside architecture firm. One of several that have been done over the years. That study should an approx $160M need including the 75-80M for a new central high school. The $200M figure came from that figure. The longer we ignore facilities needs because we put a larger and larger percentage into the ed fund, the higher the cost will be in the future.
As for the high school, I cannot count the number of times I have been asked about our high schools and specifically even said that I am constantly asked "Why can't we have a high school like normal community" I said an $80M figure because normal community was over $70M several years ago.
If the taxpayers want a new high school, than I am all for it. As long as it is in the framework of an overall long-range capital improvment plan. That is exactly what we are trying to do and we will continue to try and plan for the future!
Will future boards eveer ask for $200M, I hope not because that would also not be in the best interest of the district.
We should all remember that everytime we compare are facilities with another district, look at the corresponding tax rate. Normal Unit 5 is at least $1.00 per $100 higher than unit 4's
Dave Tomlinson
Education is not about buildings, or equipment or hardware. Its not about equal opportunities or even deciding where one sends their children. The biggest responsibility is with the parents at home, and with the individual students. Yes we all as a community have some responsibility too. Education is about discipline and it's also about love and loving enough to dare to discipline no matter what the price to be paid for doing the right thing. You have multiplied staff beyond measure simply because too many of our teachers and admin staff are clueless wimps, pussies and bimbos who can't keep order in the schools. Praise the Lord that we do still have a remnant that do "get it".
Unfortunately the education business has turned into a noisy and demanding bloodsucker, pursuing meaningless quests like liability protection and covering their collective arses, while the quality of education plummets and people flee the public ed system like rats leaving a sinking ship.
One of the reasons that ya keep coming back and begging for more money is that the school boards are truly clueless and incompetent, not to mention goofy, spineless and secretive. No one with a lick of common sense ought to be voting for a tax increase until there is more accountability and transparency. Until then, the correct response to this new Regressive and business-killing tax on industry and disposable income is either NO, or Hell NO. Take yer pick.
Rebate, my ass.
"If the taxpayers want a new school its ok with me". You call that leadership? Enough.
Jesse James had a gun. These people just say "It's for the Kids" and we are all supposed to reach for our wallets. What did ya do with that last zillion or so ya got from us on threat of loss of our homes, you blood sucking taxeaters?
What do you mean Pension? A good Pinchin' is sure enough what is needed. Maybe some ass-kickin' too.
Wow. That's a good pick-me-up for the new day. What a dumbass. (Sorry for the personal attack, but considering the original poster basically just spent a full, factless page to call everyone else dumbasses and worse, what can you do?)
"NOT TRUE! The sales tax cannot be used for anything but facilities."
What about the interest of money sitting in the bank account from the sales tax? I thought I heard that Urbana School District funded an entire new school on the unrestricted interest from their past referendum. This could be a substantial amount and opens the door to stupid politics that has nothing to do with school facilities and has nothing to do with the quality of education.
Not to feed the comment from regnad Kcin,
But what are you talking about? This conversation regarding buildings was solely within the framework of a FACILITIES TAX. everyone knows that education is not about buildings.
I work for the taxpayers and all who don't pay property taxes that fund schools, so yes if the taxpayers want a new high school, see the need for a new high school, have had input to the capital development plan for a new high school... than yes I am all for it..
Dave Tomlinson
Fred Giertz piece printed in the N-G is excellent and worth a reread. He did not, however, make the point that indirectly this proposed sales tax increase will be used for other school district expenses, not just via the interest earned on the monies. If some of the Unit 4 monies no longer is directed to physical structures for the district, then this money will be redirected to possibly salaries, continuing education, etc. So this tax referendum has many hidden aspects that are not part of the overall discussion along with how future boards will make decisions about the potential tax monies by locking in being committed to this forever. The fact that there is no sunset clause in the legislation is most disturbing.
Pattsi Petrie
"If some of the Unit 4 monies no longer is directed ...."
Or even directed at all. I can't imagine a special interest feeling that their issue is more important than another issue and using well-designed loopholes to their advantage. Yes, I can imagine.
The idea that it is "just for facilities" is ridiculous, as Pattsi correctly points out.
I am astounded by the repeated coy vacuity of Tomlinson.
Rest assured that Tomlinson and his ilk will "permit" all sorts of interesting things to happen with your money.
"I was only doing the will of the taxpayers, who really wanted to be fleeced."
Given that the Dow is now down to 8200 and still dropping, I am astonished that we continue to hear from our local government bodies that they need more money and will continue to press for it: so far this year we have heard from the school districts, the township, the forest preserve, and the city. I'd be interested in knowing where they think the additional money is going to come from. I was particularly perturbed by the comment from the teacher who was quoted as saying they were worth and deserved the 4.5% raises--as if somehow the rest of us are not. People are actually losing jobs, losing their homes, losing their savings, and all our local governments and public employees can talk about is how they need and deserve more.
Not that I generally lack thought or intelligence, but since we both know what vacuity means we should probably thank those teachers in public schools who taught us to read :)
I have NEVER said that the interest from any money deposited in a bank from ANY account the school district has does not earn interest and yes that INTEREST can be used in other places. We have no plans to use the interest for anything but facilities. We also don't plan to have the money very long to even earn that interest as we intend on fixing what needs to be fixed as quickly and smartly as we can.
Consider the double standard that is being advocated. If we had fund balances in any of the funds that we didn't in turn invest to earn interest, you would be saying why aren't you using the tax dollars to earn more. Yes I know that some think there should be zero fund balances at the end of the year... which would be fine except we would have a very poor bond credit rating based on that fact alone. Welcome to public financing. Good use of money, low debt ratios and a fund balance to cover 2 months of operating expenses are all what get us a AA rating.
CD comments above, I thought I answered in an earlier post about already budgeting for those raises. Just so you all know we VERY conservatively budget in Unit 4. for the last two years we have started with projected deficits and ended up with surplus at the end of the year due to smart budgeting and tight spending control. I sometimes wish people would look at that fact.
Dave
"I am astounded by the repeated coy vacuity of Tomlinson."
Enough of the personal attacks, RK. Tomlinson doesn't have to come on here and answer questions, and I'm not going to let you insult him for doing so. Criticize his arguments and statements all you want but any more personal attacks will be deleted.
Mr. Tomlinson, I completely understand that you have budgeted for the raises. However, I suspect that was done when the economy was going great. Are you saying because they were budgeted for, you can't now go back and tell the union that we are in tough economic times and can't afford 13.5% over three years? Just because you budget for something doesn't mean that you have to spend it. And I'm getting tired of hearing from public employees that they need more--we all need more--the difference is that those of us in the private sector don't have a tax well to dip into when we need more. We either dip into savings or do without. Why can't the government and public employees understand that?
Are you saying because they were budgeted for, you can't now go back and tell the union that we are in tough economic times and can't afford 13.5% over three years?
It's a contract. Are you supporting the idea that governemental bodies should be allowed to go back and re-write contracts when it suits them?
Why can't the government and public employees understand that?
Why can't private sector people like you understand that when the economy is great, and raises/bonuses/etc. are flying around left and right in the private sector, the public sector is still getting the same raises they get in bad times? When I was working in the private sector, and the economy was doing great, I saw a 33% increase in my salary over two years. Compare that with my wife, who works public sector, and was seeing the same 2.5% average raise each year no matter the economic climate.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
"It's a contract. Are you supporting the idea that governemental bodies should be allowed to go back and re-write contracts when it suits them?"
How one negotiates a union contract could be a good indicator in determining if they are a good steward of taxpayer money.
So everyone gets a 13.5% over three years no matter what? Can I presume the union supports the sales tax?
Another good read about this tax referendum is the guest editorial by Diane Visek in the Sunday N-G. She covers many of the points covered by the IP posts along with one I mentioned many months ago, but has not again been part of the discussion. She points out that the state has set a precident of cutting back on funding when another such source is put in place. Her example is the state lottery and the commitment of these monies toward education. What the state did was cut back on the amount of educational funding given to all educational entities. Historically, this has a high probability of happening if the tax referendum passes. The state will view an increase in revenue, though dedicated to physical improvements, as the reason to cut back further the amount given to education. This will create a rather interest cunundrum since the tax referendum monies can not be used for salary increases, professional development, etc. What will school districts do then to cover those costs? Districts will be tax rich for physical structures, but tax poor for paying teachers. And as I argued, passing this referendum gives the state the excuse that there is no reason to restructure how education is funded via property taxes.
Pattsi Petrie
Pattsi, that is a very interesting point. It seems to me that the problem, in a financial context, is not quite an issue of local funding (via local taxes), but rather that Springfi.... err, Chicago, is cutting back way too much. And to fix that problem, we need to hit up our representatives and somehow vote some accountability back into the government. How does that happen?
Several points to toss in here
First, I am very vexed by some of the attacks I have read regarding Dave Tomlinson. Dave and I do not agree on all items - put I have found him to be an individual who has the best interests of the students of Unit Four at heart. He is not a person who is willing to play games with public finances. He spends countless hours in an unpaid position and gets to deal with Board members like myself.
Second - some of the statements made here are rather amazing - the idea that a school district could finance a new school off the interest that they have made from their investments would require the district to make from 8 to 12 million dollars in interest - which would require them to have investments in excess of $50 million dollars - and if you had that much invested in spare cash - why not pay for the new school out of that cash? State law does not allow a school district to build a school without public approval in a referendum - so having money stashed away does not not help,
There is a concern that some districts may want to move funds about especially interest which can be legally transferred between accounts - but it should be the responsibility of school boards to see that does not happen. Boards are responsible to their voters - and there are elections every two years for that reason
The state funding of education is an issue that will require someone to be willing to stand up in Springfield and address this issue - Rick Winkel tried but failed - and I don't see anyone else - its the third rail of Illinois politics - everyone knows that something needs to be done - no one is willing to be the one that starts the process.
As to the comment today that the districts of Champaign County should do the noble thing and ignore this source of funding because its a incomplete solution makes little sense to me. To ignore a possible source of funding - especially one that the voters must approve is not something that this School board - or any School Board should ignore - especially when one looks at the current condition of School funding. If this is the first step that forces the state to address its issues - then it may be one of the best things that we can do.
My .02
Greg Novak
Greg Novak
Dianna Visek has an excellent commentary in the NG but I did not find a link to it online
When the U of I students rebate that portion of my property tax subsidizing their MTD buses, I'll vote against the school tax.
Local Voter--part of the student fee is directed to the student MTD passes. Pattsi Petrie
subsidizing the MTD
What a foolish, wrong thing to say. The students and others at the UI pay for the transportation, they help subsidize us locals, not the other way around.
I don't think it's a contract until it's ratified by both sides. I was unaware that the public sector employees were receiving bad raises in flush times--perhaps you could point out what years reflect such poor raises. Regardless, now is not the time to give out 13.5% raises over 3 years when people are losing jobs and homes, and then also coming to us to ask for more sales taxes, etc. This cycle of constant increasing taxes has to stop at some point. Apaprently our local governments are willing for all of us to feel the economic pain but aren't willing to share in it.
To Champaign Dweller--as to your not being aware that public sector employees were receiving bad raises in flush times, all one has to do is look at the UIUC budget and the raises for the staff over the past decade(s) as an immediate example of raises consistently below the cost of living, which resulted over time in a salary decrease. This has been discussed on this blog and there have been articles in the N-G.
Pattsi Petrie
This is a classic example of wiggling around to find a solution that fails to approach the real problem.
The real problem is not with the school boards, but with the State Legislature and Governor. They fail to fund the education as required by Constitution. Maybe Dave can shed a little light on how much money it would be to school districts if the State could be relied upon to simply provide their share as required by law. Please address that if you would Dave, a very close friend of mine was a School Superintendent for many years, so I have a pretty good idea about the shortfall and payment delays or simply non payments.
The proper place for pressure, is not on the local citizens but on the local representatives and senators and Governor to just pay the damned bill to schools and screw other "pork sandwiches". There is an opportunity to make a statement in November to these representatives by voting for someone else who actually does vote against useless spending and actually jeopardizes their career by saying I am putting schools first and my party's needs second.
I would have felt much better about this issue, if it had included very specific language that ACTUALLY reduced the property tax along with creating the sales tax increase.
Candidate for Mayor of Urbana
Rex Bradfield