Referenda

Interesting article in yesterday's News-Gazette:

For months, Champaign County Board members have mentioned asking voters to increase their taxes through a November referendum as a possible fix to nursing home expenses weighing on its budget.

With the recent creation of an advisory board and the subsequent hiring of a St. Louis consulting firm, the talk has died down as a deadline for putting the measure on the ballot nears.

I still think they'll put it on the ballot:

Other quotes:

Betz expressed doubt that the home could generate enough funds not only to sustain itself but also to come up with millions to pay back the county general corporate fund.

"The management contract has no possibility of solving the outstanding loans issue and we should not kid ourselves into thinking that it does," he said.

Ugh.

And:

Urbana Democrat Ralph Langenheim, one of the strongest supporters of a tax increase, put the home's problems in a nationwide political context.

"The blunt truth is: Every Republican national administration since Reagan has mounted repeated efforts to repeal the reforms and programs enacted by Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson," he said. "These efforts have reduced Medicaid reimbursement to the home below cost; they have also reduced support for Medicare. This is the principal cause of our nursing home's gigantic deficit."

Of course! Those damn Republicans are the reason that CCNH is lost $1.5 million this year.  None of those Democrats at the state level, and certainly none at the County level, have absolutely anything to do with it.

One more:

Mahomet Republican John Jay said he supports the nursing home but not a tax increase.

"I do not believe a tax increase will solve the nursing home problems. It would only postpone the problems. We must remember the nursing home already receives an $800,000-per-year subsidy. We need to give the new nursing home board a chance to fix the problems. Just throwing money at it will not fix the problems," he said.

I hope, for the amount of money that we're spending on a County Nursing Home, that patients are being cared for who cannot receive care elsewhere.

Today's News-Gazette:

Board member Robert Toalson confirmed Wednesday that the board will consider a 2-cent tax increase, which would raise about $700,000 for the district. But he said he would wait until the meeting to discuss details.

Discuss.

UPDATE:  More in today's NG:

But board member Robert Toalson noted that, in its 60-year history, the board has never before asked voters to increase taxes.

He said the board had considered putting taxes to a vote in other years, but deferred to school and park districts that were seeking tax increases.

The board's president, Ruth Wene, said the district has profited in the past from long-range planning, including the acquisition and transformation of the Middle Fork Preserve, where the meeting was held.

Board members noted that for the owner of a $100,000, home, the tax increase impact would be $6.67, or "a couple of Starbucks coffees" in Herrick's words.

(Disclosure:  I serve on the Board of Directors of the Forest Preserve Distrct's Foundation.)

City of Champaign Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy, who is asking voters for a property tax increase this fall because she feels she doesn't have enough money to provide general assistance to township residents, somehow submitted a budget which inlcuded several thousand dollars in legal fees despite the City of Champaign providing free legal service for the Township.

Tension was higher than normal as the town of the city of Champaign Township debated their budget for Fiscal Year 2008-09 Tuesday night.

Though the township board eventually passed the budget, debate ensued about a $9,000 line item, of which a large portion was called "a supreme waste of money." An amendment was eventually added re-appropriating the $9,000 of the $688,668 budget. Originally, $3,000 of that money was allotted for professional fees such as membership to the Township Officials of Illinois, while the other $6,000 was appropriated for legal fees, which a number of the Board members had a problem with.

The legal fees were said to be used for outside legal counsel, despite the fact that the city of Champaign currently allows the township to use their attorneys.

"It sounds like there could be a fight on the horizon," said Board member Tom Bruno. "I don't want to suggest we get separate legal counsel if that's not the case. It seems like a supreme waste of money."

Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy said the counsel was not going to be used for any legal action brought up against the city of Champaign but rather to get advice about how to properly run the township and utilize its resources.

"This is not about a lawsuit," she said. "What (the board members) are doing is polarizing the issue."

Sheesh.

The IRV advisory referendum will not be appearing on this fall's ballot in Cunningham Township after being defeated again last night.

It doesn't appear that Urbana voters will get a chance to weigh in on whether they would like to see city adopt instant-runoff voting for city elections.

At a special Cunningham Town meeting Monday night, a decisive majority of those in attendance, 98 to 43, rejected a proposed advisory referendum about whether the city should adopt instant-runoff voting for municipal primary and general elections.

Democratic regulars, along with some Republicans, jammed the 6 p.m. meeting and outnumbered instant-runoff-voting proponents headed by Urbana resident Durl Kruse. Any township resident who is a registered voter was eligible to attend.

I must admit that I find it both a little strange and very admirable that nearly 150 people care enough about an advisory, non-binding referendum effort to show up at a Township meeting on a beautiful summer evening.  The picture of the crowd voting at the meeting is just awesome.

Today's News-Gazette:

The Cunningham Town Board voted Monday night in special session to put one advisory question on the fall ballot but refrained from filling the ballot with two other questions.

The Urbana City Council, acting as the town board, was expected to put three questions on the Nov. 4 ballot to forestall an effort by local activists to force two advisory referendums in November, since three is the maximum number of referendum questions allowed.

The ballot question the board approved Monday will ask if motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians in crosswalks should be restricted from using cell phones.

The other two questions would have essentially asked voters if they support the status quo in regard to the local election system and in providing township financial and assessment information to the public. The board deferred action on the election question until after a town meeting June 30 and directed staff to come up with proposals to improve financial transparency.

Discuss.

The fighting over advisory referenda in Cunningham Township is getting more and more vicious:

Two Cunningham Town Board members have called a special town board meeting for 7 p.m. Monday, where the board (which also serves as the Urbana City Council) will consider placing three advisory questions on the Nov. 4 ballot.

The meeting will be in the Urbana City Building, 400 S. Vine St.

The move could wind up pre-empting a special town meeting that had been scheduled for June 30, where two advisory ballot questions were going to be considered by township residents.

And:

"Isn't that really dirty?" Kruse said. "I can't believe they would stoop that low to prevent the people from discussing issues.

"Our meeting should take precedence," he added. "We're going to have to get an attorney. This is really crazy."

But Prussing said the move by the town board is fair and that it is Kruse and others who keep bringing the issues up after being defeated.

"I think they're misusing the township," she said. "I don't want to have to be called into a special meeting every month to talk about the same stupid thing. These meetings take time and energy and money to conduct. If they're making the contention we need discussion, we'll put it on the ballot."

Discuss.

I've obtained this memo sent to Champaign County Board members outlining the announced plans of each of the County's school districts if the proposed one percent sales tax increase for education facilities passes in November.

There's no real new information in this, but it is a very useful summary of plans.  You can read the whole thing yourself, but you'll note that every district which has existing debt is currently promising to use sales tax revenue to abate or eliminate that debt (and reduce property taxes as a consequence), although the amounts vary.

Key information to remember (taken from the memo):

Each of the Boards of Education of the 14 school districts in Champaign County has passed a resolution requesting that the Champaign County Board put the question of imposing a 1% sales tax for school facility purposes for submission to the voters of Champaign County at the November 4, 2008, election. If this resolution passes and the County Board implements the full 1% sales tax, the revenue can be used for the following purposes:

• Pay for projects as you go
• Leverage revenue for current needs (use revenue to pay for bonds)
• Retire existing debt issued for capital purposes (abate taxes)
• Any combination of the above

Discuss.

long post with with hopefully some answers...

I have been reading with interest the continual comments about the County Wide Schools Facility Tax. It has now been approved by every school district in the county by, I believe, a unanimous vote by each individual board. I certainly see that there are myriad questions about the tax and just as many perceptions good and bad about the potential for the tax.

Though I cannot speak for any other school district besides Unit 4, I will try to answer some of the comments that have been asked on this blog...

1. Why go for the Max 1%? 
   Frankly, I don't think the ILGA intended for the TAX to be used as a mechanism for Property Tax relief. I think they intended to try and help school districts by providing another mechanism to fund capital projects. I may be wrong in that belief, but that is what I think. That being said, when the districts in Champaign County got together at the Regional Office of Education to discuss this tax, the key thing that we in Unit 4 talked about was that we would not support this new tax without some kind of relief for property owners. We feel that it is imperative that any reductions that can be made are made. IF we were to ask for 1/4%, we would be able to abate the same 9-10 cents /100 EAV that we are allowed to with this tax (AGAIN IT IS ONLY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEBT AND FACILITIES ISSUES, NOT SALARIES). That abatement in Unit 4 is approximately $15M. That is all the debt we have out and al we can abate with this potential revenue source. People can say all they want that it is not enough and I would totally agree. However, it is all we can do.

   If our only goal was to abate property taxes, then we would simply go for 1/4%. actually it begs the question if we are not going to do anything new other than pay off one type of debt with a different revenue stream, why would any district do that. In order to have construction bond debt, a district had to ask the voters for approval for property tax increases to begin with. Why would a district go back to the voters to ask for approval to do the same thing with a different source of income. Doesn't make sense to go back ask for something you already have

   This revenue source can be used for additional stuff, hence the 1% request. In Unit 4, we can dramatically increase the efficiency of our bldgs and put in A/C. Everyone of us works in an air conditioned environment and I often wonder why teachers and students should be asked to do something different than what we all do... We can also satisfy the consent decree requirements for the additional seats north of university ( yes I know that not everyone agrees with this, BUT it is a legal settlement that past boards agreed to and it is not open for contestation in court). We can update the infrastructure to support the computers needed for today's learning environment. We could build a school south of University if needed. More to come later on this subject. 
   If another district wants to post about their plans, that would be great.

2. Why are you doing to reduce the cost of doing business?
   Since I have been on the board, we have delayed a textbook adoption by one year, saving the interest on $700,000. We have refinanced debt at a much lower rate saving several hundred thousand dollars in interest payments. The night I was elected the previous board cut $2M in annual expenditures, We have bought lower priced energy through co-op arrangements, we have not filled at least 15 positions that I am aware of off the top of my head that have been vacated and we decided not to fill them to save money. Just a name a few of the items...

   Each year staff throughout the district ask the board for programs to increase this or that. The vast majority have been met with good idea, but we can't afford it right now. Even this week we were presented with middle school athletic program additions, last month it was additional foreign language offerings.

   All of these ideas are terrific and the vast majority need to be added as soon as possible. However, they can only be looked at as part of a total budget package. An individual request for $100K in expenditures seems insignificant in a $95M operation, but we get 10 such requests/ideas a month. Those add up to a major deficit.

   2 months ago the board was asked to give a list of programs we would like to add because they are things that community members have asked us to do. That "dream sheet" combined with staff requests added up to close to $28 Million dollars for year!!!! Obviously there is no way we can or will approve that kind of increase.

   On another note, Schools are highly regulated about how we spend and collect taxes. The hold the line/reduce costs items are typically found in the Education fund/Transportation areas. Taxes are levied into individual funds and increases are limited by PTELL. Those hold the line/reduce costs are not generally found in the O and M and Health Life Safety areas. These are generally low Levy's and are not near enough to pay for recurring costs as facilities get older and older. Look at some of the facilities in Unit 4 and the county and you can see just how much cost reduction there is when it comes to stretching the maintenance dollar. Those folks are masters of stretching a dollar for building issues.

3. This is simple a "Bait and Switch"For some this is a tax increase. (those who don't own property in Champaign County)

   For others this will be a tax decrease (those who own property in a district that plans to abate some portion of the property tax bill related to construction debt and who don't spend as much on the retail goods) I suspect a good portion of the 'middle" class will fall in this area at least in Unit 4)

   For others it will be a wash. It will reduce property taxes and you will spend enough on taxable items to negate the property tax savings.

   If anyone is saying that some will not pay additional money in their total tax package (property, income, sales, etc) they are wrong. Some will pay more and some will pay less, most will probably pay about the same... those are the facts.

   However, for the same amount for the property owner, the schools throughout the county could be greatly improved.

   If facilities don't matter, than why do so many people ask me why we can't have facilities like Normal Unit 5? I am asked that often.

I am sure that I will have more later. Especially a detailed plan about how we in Unit 4 will spend this revenue if approved. Including a mechanism for accountability.

If you have any questions, you can feel free to contact me at tomlindw@comcast.net or 217-202-6841

Dave Tomlinson, President
Champaign Unit 4 Schools Board of Education

Another school board goes on the record supporting a massive tax increase, hoping to distract voters by talking about miniscule property tax relief.

Board members voted 5-0 at a special Wednesday meeting to support the tax. Members Val Woodruff and Tom Harpst were absent.

The 1 percent tax has enough support for the Champaign County Board to put it on the November ballot.

Board member Max McComb wanted to know when the district would reveal a plan for what it would do with the tax money if it passes, especially related to property tax relief.

If this were really about property tax relief, then the districts should ask for a smaller sales tax increase which is more nearly the equivalent of the property tax reductions being promised.

But it's not about property tax relief.  It's about getting the maximum possible tax increase, much larger than necessary to provide the maximum allowable property tax relief.

Both Champaign Unit 4 and Rantoul Township High School boards have voted to support a November ballot question asking voters for a one percent sales tax increase to support education.  Both Districts are using a miniscule amount of property tax relief to mask their request for the largest-possible tax increase, as have most other area school districts, and most media reports are emphasizing the property tax relief as if it somehow offsets the sales tax revenue which will be generated.

It will be interesting to see if the County Board puts the full one-percent increase on the ballot, or if they settle for a smaller amount.

And it will be interesting to see how long the "this is about property tax relief" storyline is allowed to play out before people realize that the sales tax revenues of a one percent increase are several times larger than the maximum amount of property tax relief allowable.

The Township Board (City Council) has granted Supervisor Linda Abernathy's request to put another tax increase for City of Champaign Township on the ballot.

Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy said the increased tax income would allow her to increase benefits to 50 disabled people receiving general assistance/transitional assistance from the current $150 per month to the state-recommended $223 per month. The additional funding would also allow her to create a $42,000 emergency assistance fund whereby extremely poor residents could receive a $225 grant once a year to deal with an economic crisis, effective July 1, 2009.

Abernathy asked voters in November 2006 to approve a 5-cent increase in the district's overall tax rate. But voters rejected that proposal by a 2-1 margin.

She said she proposed a smaller increase this time around because she recognizes that residents are feeling the economic pinch.

"People are feeling the burn, the pinch," she said. "I wanted to do something minimal enough to survive the shortfall, but not so extensive to turn the voters off."

At least she reduced the amount of increase she was requesting this time.

Unsurprising:

The Urbana school board passed a resolution Tuesday night calling for a 1 percent countywide sales tax to be put on the November ballot.

With its vote, 11 school districts in the county have now passed such a resolution. Those districts represent almost half of the county's school enrollment, said Jane Quinlan, superintendent of the regional office of education. State law provides that districts representing at least 51 percent of the county's school enrollment can place a tax question on the ballot by approving a resolution such as Urbana did.

A county policy committee will discuss the proposed sales tax at a meeting tonight.

The Urbana school board also passed a resolution Tuesday pledging to use a portion of the money it would receive if such a tax passes to abate property taxes. The resolution states that the district would use $1 million annually to pay off building bonds.

"It's the first step in moving away from a total reliance on property taxes," said Urbana school board President Mark Netter.

From today's News-Gazette:

Board member Valerie Woodruff said she's been approached by individuals who don't know much about the tax but are automatically opposed to new taxes.

But when board members explain that it could provide some property tax relief, "they're good with it" said board member Max McComb.

But one of the forum's attendees, Lea Ehrhardt, said she's not so sure that property tax relief will happen.

"The lottery was supposed to help pay for education. It didn't work," she said. "It looks like a good deal but it doesn't seem to happen that way."

She and two other attendees, Eric Thorsland and Joe Tandy, all said they'd like to see some sort of clause in the legislation that provides for an end to the tax unless it's reapproved by voters.

People are right to be skeptical.  Even in the best-case scenarios, residents of two school districts in Chamapign County would get absolutely no property tax relief, and residents of other districts would get much less property tax relief than this new tax would generate.

Urbana and Mahomet-Seymour school districts are also now supporting a countywide sales tax for education construction.

Urbana:

In Urbana, which would get an estimated $3 million from a 1 percent sales tax, school board members unanimously supported the sales tax in a recent straw poll.

"It's a move away from the property tax. This is what a lot of people who are involved in education have been asking for," said board President Mark Netter.

The Urbana board will consider a two-part resolution when it meets at 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at the Burkholder Administrative Service Center, 205 N. Race St., U.

The first would ask the county board to place a 1-cent sales tax on the November ballot. The second would stipulate that the first $1 million be used to reduce the district's bond and interest tax levy.

M-S:

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. Monday at Middletown Early Childhood Center, 101 N. Division St. in Mahomet.

The board will use its regular study session time to answer questions about what the tax, which would pay for building improvements, could mean for the district.

"We think it's kind of a big decision," said school board President Ned Hahn. "It's a decision that ultimately is going to come to the voters in the entire county and I think (the forum is) in the interest of transparency and trying to help the people in the community understand what it's all about."

...

The sales tax includes several options for financing and projects districts can spend it on.

Mahomet-Seymour school board officials intend to outline them during the forum.

Discuss.

The Unit 7 School Board has fallen in line behind a countywide sales tax for education capital projects.

Unit 7 school board President Fred Koss reported that he and Superintendent Michael Shonk had attended a meeting at the Regional Office of Education with representatives from districts throughout Champaign County.

"There was virtually unanimous support for the sales tax," Koss said.

Shonk said he has been asked what Unit 7 would do with the revenue.

"My intent would be to pay down our bonded indebtedness," Shonk said.

Shonk added that could be combined with a new construction project such as renovating, expanding or replacing the 50-year-old Unity High School.

"I thought we were 12 years down the road with this (high school project), but it could be as little as eight, depending on what happens with this," Shonk said.

Shonk plans to send information about the proposed sales tax to both county board members and members of the Champaign County Farm Bureau.

"The key to the whole thing is property tax relief," Shonk said.

Actually, the key is promising a tiny amount of tax relief in the hopes that voters will support a much larger increase in sales taxes.

Another step forward.  At this point, the only question is how large of a sales tax increase will the County Board put on the ballot.

The Champaign school board will vote Monday on a resolution stating its commitment to lowering property taxes by way of the countywide sales tax. It meets at 7 p.m. at the Mellon Administrative Center, 703 S. New St., C.

The resolution does not ask for the sales tax question to be placed on the November ballot. That action will come in May, said school board President Dave Tomlinson.

"Our No. 1 priority is property tax relief," Tomlinson said.

If the tax is put on the November ballot and passes, the Champaign district would use some of the revenue to pay off the bonds used to finance building Barkstall and Stratton elementary schools, renovating the building that houses the Early Childhood Center, and making improvements at Central High School. The district owes about $15 million on the bonds, Tomlinson said.

A state law passed last fall allows school districts representing 51 percent of the school enrollment in a county to request a ballot question. If voters approve the sales tax, the revenue is divided among school districts according to enrollment. They can use the money to build new buildings, renovate existing ones, do safety or energy conservation work, or pay off building bond debt.

If a 1 percent sales tax were passed in Champaign County, and spending remained the same as in the last fiscal year, the tax would bring in about $17 million, of which $6.8 million would go to the Champaign district. That means it could issue about $70 million in bonds. The district might use the tax revenue to build new elementary schools, renovate buildings to add air-conditioning, add technology infrastructure and make them more energy-efficient, or do life-safety work, Tomlinson said.

At least they're talking about property tax relief, but the amount for Unit 4, for example, is miniscule compared to the amount that sales taxes will be increased.

It appears that, in Champaign, the Ron Paul/Libertarian folks outorganized the AWARE folks last night.

The people of Champaign have spoken, and they said they want to know more about what their local government does.

At the annual town hall meeting of the Town of the City of Champaign Tuesday night, the electors voted to add a referendum that will allow for more transparency of how the government spends tax money. It will appear on the election ballot on Nov. 4.

The referendum, written and proposed by Champaign resident Scott Schmucker, has been adopted in other states around the country as well.

"An action like this is just common sense," Schmucker said. "People should be aware of how their money is spent, to have the transparency and accuracy they expect from local government.

The referendum was passed 62-9, and members of the City Council showed their support as well. Council members Gina Jackson, Dist. 1; Marci Dodds, Dist. 4; Tom Bruno, At-Large; Karen Foster, At-Large; and Mayor Jerry Schweighart, who acted as moderator for the night, all voted for the bill.

The township also voted against a bill that would put a referendum dealing with a national issue on a local level. The proposed bill would have shown Champaign's support to ban torture by government bodies.

I'm not sure what happened in Cunningham Township (City of Urbana), where all efforts to put referenda on the fall ballot were defeated.  Anyone there know what happened?

UPDATE:  Here is the NG article:

In Cunningham Township, Democratic Party regulars packed the annual town meeting Tuesday evening and voted down efforts by local activists to place three different advisory questions on the Nov. 4 ballot.

...

The surprise move by Democratic Party regulars in Urbana left many local activists steaming, including members of the Anti-War, Anti-Racism Effort, an anti-war group, as well as some local Green and Libertarian party members.

...

Urbana Mayor Laurel Prussing made no apologies afterward. She said local Democrats had been discussing showing up in force in recent days and succeeded in doing so.

"I think we just took our township back," she said. "The people going to these meetings (in the past) represented just one viewpoint. This was a much broader group."

Very interesting.

From today's News-Gazette:

The impact of the budget cuts will be felt throughout the park district, but among the places where change will be most readily apparent is Crystal Lake Pool, which will see $18,000 in cuts.

Previously open from Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day, the district is proposing to delay the opening and hasten the closing, to coincide with when the Urbana school district is in session. That would mean a June 4 opening and a Aug. 17 closing, a reduction of roughly three weeks.

Additionally, hours will be shortened. Previously open until 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday and until 7 p.m. on Sundays, the pool will now close at 5 p.m. The pool will open at noon on Saturdays and Sundays now, instead of 10 or 11 a.m. Adult lap swim and water aerobics will continue to be available from noon to 1 p.m., but 7 a.m. adult lap swim hours will be dropped.

Mayes said it's hard to justify evening hours at Crystal Lake Pool, given the budget crunch.

"The attendance disappears at 5 p.m.," she said. "On a really hot night we might have 100 people, but typically a few dozen."

City of Champaign Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy still seems to think that her referendum from this February, which didn't mention anything about a tax increase, somehow means that people really want to give her more tax dollars.

City of Champaign Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy is expected to recommend tonight that a tax referendum should be placed on the Nov. 4 ballot to increase the amount of money the township is able to provide to the extremely poor.

Abernathy, in an e-mail to supporters, said she will recommend that the town board place on the ballot a question asking voters to increase the township's tax rate by 2 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. The district's current overall tax rate is 3.5 cents.

Discuss.

City of Champaign Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy is asking for another tax increase referenda.

City of Champaign Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy said she's considering pushing for a November tax increase to help the cash-strapped township, after city voters on Tuesday indicated they strongly support helping adults living in extreme poverty.

The question Tuesday asked whether township voters should urge the town board to restore general assistance levels to help people living in extreme poverty. It passed with 70.6 percent of the vote.

"I think it is an absolute victory for the poor in our town," Abernathy said. "I think it does speak to the will of the people in our town. It was incredibly encouraging."

In fact, Abernathy said she's now likely to ask the town board, whose members also make up the Champaign City Council, to place a tax increase on the Nov. 4 ballot. She said she would likely seek to increase the township's tax rate by 5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. The township's tax rate in 2007 was 3.57 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, the lowest in the area. Cunningham Township's tax rate, by comparison, is 19 cents.

Good for her.  I doubt it will pass, given concerns about her ability to administer the funds she has.  And I also wonder why she thinks there's any correlation between overwhelming support for Tuesday's referendum, which did not mention a tax increase, and support for doubling the Township's tax rate.  The last tax-increase effort she led was defeated overwhelmingly.  I see no reason, absent administratve improvement in her office, why a future effort would be any different.