The new District 428 Board of Education is off to an impressive start. School board President Tom Matya, Vice President Tracy Williams, and former President Mike Verbic did not think it wise to set a precedent of spending one-time money on paying down any operational deficit.
Front Row: Nina Fontana, Cohen Barnes, Tom Matya; Back Row: Mike Verbic, Tracy Williams, Jessica Lyons, Michael Lord
According to the IL Capital Development Board the state issued a school construction grant to Dist 428 in October 2010. The state share ($21,156,874) was a matching percentage amount to the local share ($39,291,338). See page 16 on this PDF. It is likely that the local share was obtained from construction bonds authorized by the $110 million referendum.
Construction grants authorized by the Capital Development Board are governed by the Joint Committee of Administrative Rules – Section 71. That document appears to prohibit use of such grant money on any on-going operational costs (Section 40.130-b).
Matya asked board members to speak to community members and gather more ideas for discussion at the next school board meeting July 19.
So let’s discuss…
Click here to email school board members directly.
Click Here To Submit A News Tip Or Story
4 Comments
I’m disappointed to see my earlier post not posted.
I was told the other evening by a current school board member that the Facility Planning Committee (FPC) is being charged by the school board to make a recommendation fo the $21.2 million. I’m not sure if I am going to participate in this discussion as a current member of the FPC. I do believe however that a good majority if not all of this money should be used to relieve property tax burdens on homeowners and be used to pay down the $110 million school referendum. I also believe that the school board should do.everything in their power to back out of all of their TIF obligations with the City of DeKalb.
The school district has lost many dollars due to their involvement with TIF and the “whole” statement from the city is far from being 100% of the dollars that were contributed in the school districts name. Many dollars that many property tax payers thought were going to the schools and the kids went to downtown pavered parking lots and downtown businessmen that waited for tax dollars to fix and appreciate values on their properties instead of using their own money.
Paying down the referendum bond would save taxpayers close to $43 million in potential interest payments that are anticipated. Sell properties that are vacant today as a result of restructuring or at least try to rent them. Administrative pay freezes and elimination of bonuses would be a great start along with cutting several positions that seem to be redundant with other administrative positions.
I am truly deliberating whether to actively participate in the FPC discussion as I believe that the fate of the $21.2 has been decided already. The FPC discussons and final recommendation to the former school board was a farce and voting stacked to a predecided decision. The FPC was intended to be a citizens voluntary committee but was top heavy with school board members and school district paid employees. This must be addressed before any discussion begins on how the district shall use the $21.2 million. To me, there is no problem with school officials and employees answering questions and providing necessary information to FPC members but to vote on a recommendation seems to me to be a bit of a conflict of interest especially when the superintendent is sitting in the same room voting himself.
My last concern is why should one go out and spend the time pouring out his soul and fighting for the rights of the tax payers when we have seen such low turn outs at recent polls? If voters don’t care, why should one stick out their neck? Yes indeed, there are questions to be resolved.
Sometimes the spam protection we’re using zaps comments it shouldn’t. Multiple links will do it every time. Apologies…
Mac-I asked about restrictions on spending many times and presented the Administrative Rules to the old board some months ago. Andrea Gorla asked the state and has been told that because we already built and spent the necessary matching funds on qualified academic facilities according to the rules, the $21 million is now unencumbered.
I argued back then that legislative intent was sidestepped, but still that money can apparently be spent on anything.
It annoys me that by building an academic facility larger than our needs (Capital Development grants are determined on size/need), we qualified for and obtained “excess” money which now can be spent on anything. Something about it just doesn’t sit right, although it may be entirely legal. We have perhaps found a loophole in the system.
What if the state, after threats from other districts, comes looking to be paid back? Likely? No. But it bothers me and makes me want to be very careful with how that money is used. We had better figure a way to make that unused space at the high school useful in some academic way. If we could collaborate with another educational unit and “spread the wealth” somehow, so much the better.
I think there are more than a few good reasons to proceed very slowly and carefully in deciding where this $21 mill should go.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A written statement from the Capital Board that the funds are unencumbered should be on file and available for public inspection.
Matya’s experience in philanthropy administration should prove valuable here. One time grants are never to be used for ongoing operational expenses.
I’d like to see as much of it as possible go to debt retirement but if there are leaky roofs and life/safety issues at the non-referendum schools some might be needed there.