Signed WWEA Teacher’s Contract Includes Changes that were NOT Approved

 

The WWEA contract was finally posted on June 26, 2018 – the day after I FOIA’d it for the second time.
On that day, the web page Rammer provided said “Last Modified Today at 6:07 AM”

The signature page (pdf page 39 of the contract “Wheaton Warrenville Education Association (WWEA) 2018-2022”) is dated 5/10/2018.
It was already signed when I put in my first FOIA (On May 12th) – WHY WAS I DENIED a copy in the May 21st FOIA response?

What took so long to post it?

Did not spot in the Contract

Not in the highlights, and have not spotted in the contract, but the Daily Herald had the starting pay for a first year teacher with a BA.  “A first-year teacher now makes $44,525. Under the new contract, that teacher will make $45,416”
Also the Daily Herald had a cost estimate. Neither the contract, nor the approved highlights had that.

 

It is so wrong to approve a contract without having the actual contract to read – especially since new un-approved perks have been slipped in.
It was also wrong to approve across the board raises for all.  Any raise for those who already have 20 years of experience is legalized THEFT!  The school district is killing us with property taxes, and increasing the pension debt.  Illinois is Bankrupt & K-12 schools are the number one cause driving the entire state off the fiscal cliff. – Jan Shaw

 

Sick Leave Changes

4.12 Sick Leave (PDF page 8)
What is meant by “…, may donate up to three (3) of the those days to the Sick Leave Bank.”?
For whom? What general sick leave bank? And this was NOT approved!  It should be pulled.

 

10.7 Sick Leave (pdf page 24)
Extra sick leave days are now based on years of service rather than the number of days in the bank.
Those who actually use sick days will get more days this way.
Those who use none will take a minimum of 20 years (rather than 19) to reach the magical 340 mark. In the contract that ended 2015, all full-time employees received 15 sick days per year.  It took at least 23 years to accumulate 340 days for 2 years of service credit for pension computation.
This change was NOT in the approved highlights. It should be pulled.  In my opinion, extra sick days should NEVER have been given!  They were never approved for the 2015-2018 contract!

 

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (a line has been added):

wwea2018 sec4;12

 

From the WWEA 2015 – 2018 contract (old):weea sick leave

 

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (new):

wwea2018 sec 10.7

 Quantity/Cost of extra Sick Days

The new UN-Approved method will give more than twice as many employees extra sick days and will allocate more than double the number of extra days!
Projections based on FOIA date using Old (approved method) will give a total of 1,940 extra days to 295 teachers.  The new method will give a total of 4,393 extra days to 728 teachers.

The extra days will allow for more days off (and cost the district for a Substitute teacher) or they may be used to pad service credit in computing the pension for life. Thank goodness the district no longer lets employees cash in unused sick days t the current per diem rate.

 

Article V – teacher rights and responsibilities

Added to  5.1A, & 5.1B Dropped some of 5.2B – Not in Highlights

From the WWEA 2015 – 2018 contract (old) line removed:

wwea2015 sec5.1B

 

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (new):

wwea2018 sec5;1AB

 

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (new):

wwea2018 sec5;2B

 

Term Life Insurance

There are changes to 11.6 Term Life Insurance – Not in Highlights

From the WWEA 2015 – 2018 contract (old) line removed:

wwea2015 sec11.6

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (new):

wwea2018 sec11.6

 

Post-Employment Compensation

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (new):

wwea2018 sec12.11D

 

Early Retirement Option is NO longer available

From the WWEA 2015 – 2018 contract (old) ERO removed (change in state law):

wwea2015 se12.2

 

Pay Scale – Compensation

From the WWEA 2015 – 2018 contract (old) “lanes” are based on education “step” is number of years of service.  The chart for last spring

wwea2015 step lane spring2018

 

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (new): The charts have ben removed.  Instead, one fewer lanes, Lane changes are worth a constant amount (rather than percentage), No more “steps” but everyone receives the same percent increase (steps are baked into current salary which drives future salary) – This change was in the approved highlights.

wwea2018 sec11.1

Based on FOIA, 2017-2018 school year Count of employees in salary ranges
1132      Employees had a salary rate in the range $1 to $39,999 school year.
.              (This includes substitute teachers and support staff)
202        Employees had a salary rate in the range $40,000 to $49,999
140        Employees had a salary rate in the range $50,000 to $59,999
163        Employees had a salary rate in the range $60,000 to $69,999
134        Employees had a salary rate in the range $70,000 to $79,999
182        Employees had a salary rate in the range $80,000 to $89,999
146        Employees had a salary rate in the range $90,000 to $99,999
82           Employees had a salary rate in the range $100,000 to $109,999
84           Employees had a salary rate in the range $110,000 to $119,999
29           Administrators had a salary rate in the range $120,000 to $129,999
.              (+ pension contribution paid by taxpayers)
5             Administrators earning $157,276.00 (+ pension contribution paid by taxpayers)
1             Administrator earning $171,683.00 (+ pension contribution paid by taxpayers)
1             Superintendent earning $238,586.00 (+ pension contribution paid by taxpayers)

Micro Credentials added

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (new): Extra money for directly applicable education  – This change was in the approved highlights.

wwea2018 sec11.11F

 

Contract Dates

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (new):

wwea2018 sec13.11

 

Signature & who negotiated

From the WWEA 2018 – 2022 contract (new):

wwea2018 signatures

 

Tom Terranova woeks for the IEA (not the district). He represents the union. Bryce Cann is CUSD 200’s district union rep.  CUSD 200 pays his salary as a teacher, but does he teach any courses?  The others on the “union side” are teachers.
On the Admiistration side are administrators and principles – No school board rep, no taxpayer rep. Frequently, perks given to teachers will also be given to administrators.
WHO represents the taxpayer?

Since there are changes made, but NOT approved, the board should either change the contract to match what was approved.  Or take a new vote to approve what they signed. Technically, what they did, does NOT appear not legal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CUSD 200 Public Relations Cost & Admin Raises

At last night’s [6/13/2018] CUSD 200 school board meeting the board approved (6-1) new administration contracts as part of the personnel report. The lone “no” vote was from Jim Gambaiani who voted “no” because he sees it as too much money with all the other recently approved and proposed spending.

To taxpayers, I’m sure our biggest issue is taxes that go up faster than inflation, while home values don’t.  The state has major financial issues.  The only way to ever get it under control is to hold the line on spending.  CUSD 200 shows no sign of cutting anything.

They approved a 2% raises for all administrators with one exception – Erica Loiacono, the “communications Director is receiving almost 10%.”  No cuts to any benefits.  I spoke and gave written details to the board:Loiacono_pay_history

Note: the job of Public relations which morphed into Communications Director (with an assistant) did not exist prior to 2010.  In the past, the district sent 1 to 4 mail pieces per year to keep residents informed.

One of the meeting presentations was by Erica.  She presented what she is doing to engage the community. There is a weekly Friday email update, frequent Facebook posts, including live videos from the classroom (did parents sign permission for their child’s picture to be place on the web for anyone in the world to see?), district hosted meetings and she mentioned wanting to do a mailer again.

Engage 200 was mentioned by someone as a major success. I thought Engage 200 was an attempt to manipulate the public.  Several people pushed backed rather than going along with the desired results, and in the middle, then superintendent, Dr Harris resigned.  He claimed it was for more money.  I think after the  failed 2013 referendum, and then the Engage 200 not being “a well oiled-machine” (a phrase Ms. Loiacono used in an email to describe Unicom’s effort in a neighboring district) that Dr. Harris saw the writing on the wall and knew he could not pass a referendum. So the superintendents played musical chairs and in 2014, District 200 hired Dr. Schuler .

 

With this in mind, a few links to related history – Community engagement

 

Public Relations spending – There has been thousands spent over the past few years.  It’s for the adults, not for the students.  What does this say about the district’s priorities?

 

What’s in a contract? Salaries and benefits

 

CUSD 200 still plans to build a new Jefferson despite school code requiring a referendum, and having just obligated the money in reserves for salaries and benefits:

 

Jefferson – what needs fixing?

CUSD 200 is now looking at a New Jefferson Pre-K building building (without referendum) because they tell us it is a better use of money than fixing the existing building.

I found a 2017 Jefferson Early Learning – Ten-Year Safety Survey Report.  Total estimated cost to fix all remaining Life safety issues is less than $2 million.

In the mean time the district has paid for architects to produce new building plans in

  • 2007 (decided to do a referendum for Hubble – Jefferson waited),
  • 2012 (for 2013 referendum),
  • 2016 (for 2017 referendum)
  • 2018 (they have decided to ignore the law requiring a referendum)

Why don’t we just fix the existing building?

 

Attached to the agenda for 3/8/2017 is the
“Jefferson 10-year safety survey report.pdf”
Total estimated cost to fix all Life safety issues is less than $2 million.

see it:  Jefferson 10-year safety survey report2017

“Life safety” found in old minutes:

March 2017 minutes

Acceptance and Approval of Ten-Year Life Safety Survey – … as presented.

 

There was a question with regard to the ten-year life safety survey. This was in reference to the impact of Jefferson having violations and outstanding life safety items to be addressed. Mr. Farley noted that once the items are noted, there is a timeframe that the items need to be addressed by the district. It was noted that the items listed are consistent with prior surveys. The ten-year life safety survey is a mandate in Illinois. [The estimated cost to address the life safety items for Jefferson is $1.8M.]

 

June 2013

  1. Approval of Life Safety Extension for Jefferson Early Childhood Center – This item was moved to Action Items.

Once a Life Safety Amendment has received all necessary approvals, a school district has three years in which to complete the projects identified. If the projects are not completed in that time frame an extension of time request form must be filed with the Regional Superintendents Office. These reports are due by July 1. When life safety amendments have been completed as certified by the district architect, they are also submitted to the Regional Office of Education to close the amendment items.

Legat Architects has been inspecting District 200 buildings for life safety compliance. They have compiled a list of outstanding amendments that require filing of the extension form with the Regional Office of Education. With the exception of the Jefferson amendment, all outstanding life safety amendments have been addressed through the referendum work at the schools. The following amendment is still outstanding:

June 2011

  1. Approval of Life Safety Extension – Recommend the approval of the life safety extension as requested.

 

 

June 2010

  1. Approval of Life Safety Extension – Recommend the approval of the extension as presented.

 

June 2009

  1. Approval of Life Safety Extension – Recommend approval of the life safety extension as presented.

 

 

June 2007

  1. Approval of Life Safety Extensions – Recommend the approval of the application to the Regional Office of Education for extension of the Life Safety projects at Jefferson School as presented.

 

March 2007

  • Since the last report, several FOIA requests have been received. They include the following: copier and fax bids, candidate petitions, life safety surveys, architect presentations, employee contracts, Board Meeting minutes, and the contract for the Herrick Road Property and related documents.

 

Feb 2007

  1. Approval of Ten-Year Life Safety Surveys – Recommend approval of the safety survey as presented.

 

June 2006

  1. Approval of Life Safety Extension – Recommend the approval of the application for a Life Safety Extension of Time for Jefferson School.

CUSD 200 video: board approves lease certificates and $1.5 million to an escrow account

School districts have decided that if they call the funding a “lease” then the part of the school  code requiring a referendum for each new building can be ignored.  If you haven’t been following this, see:

dupagewatchdog.org/2018/03/cusd200-plans-to-build-new-jefferson-against-taxpayers-will/ and

dupagewatchdog.org/2018/03/cusd-200-approves-financing-taxpayer-opinions-dont-matter/

Note: This is happening in Lisle as well

Lisle CUSD 202 is planning a new $39 Million PK-5 School. It was acknowledged by District as a clever scheme to avoid a ballot referendum.  They expect to break ground in June and finish in August 2019.   Their scheme sounds like CUSD200’s scheme, even includes the same players: PMA & Zion Bank.

My goals

  1. STOP CUSD 200 from going ahead without a referendum!
  2. Stop this for the entire state (the law is the law)

 

CUSD 200 Feb. 14, 2017 Board video

33:30 new early learning center (Jefferson) discussion starts

37:00 Bob Lewis of PMA starts presentation on how lease financing works and the documents the board will be approving.

39:00 can enter into a lease according to school code and mentions the ability to lease (no reference to need or lack of need for a referendum)

He gave the board sample agreement (also attached to the agenda)

44:00 when lease is complete, you can buy the building for a $1.

49:00 Bond Counsel (Chapman and Cutler) draft of legality of bonds Note: it avoids the question of  referendum

49:35 Bob “the first one I worked on was back in 2010, that was not the first one done.  The law was amended, I want to say back around 2000… the deals that have been done the last couple years, no need…

53:00 Jim Gambaiani asked, “can we lease something before it exist?”

Bob Lewis rambles… does not really answer.  Does note that he is not a lawyer.

54:00 Jim Vroman: “we have control over… the building”

55:50 Dr. Schuler – Says he will be asking our own general council to look as well.

57:00 Chris Crabtree: where do we get the authority to do this?

Dr. Schuler – school code…. “a court can make a determination on the law, how the law is applied.”

You can tell by the discussion that they are concerned about their authority to do this without a referendum.

 

CUSD 200 March. 14, 2017 Board video

 

22:50  Harold Lonks ask the board to table the vote on the new building until they have  an opinion on its legality.  He points out that the exception had to do with building the building – not the financing of that building.  And he read the floor discussion when the bill was passed.  A lease cannot be used to avoid referendum.

“…I want to make sure, Representative, that we’re not circumventing the right of the voters to say, ‘I don’t think that you ought to buy that building.’”

And Rep Crotty (bill sponsor) replied

“That is not in the Bill….When we’re talking about leasing, many school districts lease a building maybe for a dollar an hour just to be sure that that is not something that needs to be done with referendum.  So, we’re not changing that part.  And if there are added dollars needed for a school district, they most definitely have to still go through referendum.”

42:38 The board’s discussion and approval of the lease certificates

46:00 Dr. Schuler reads the beginning of one paragraph from 10-22.36

“Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, no referendum shall be required if the purchase, construction, or building of any such building (1) occurs while the building is being leased by the school district or (2) is paid with (A) funds derived from the sale or disposition of other buildings, land, or structures of the school district or (B) funds received (i) as a grant under the School Construction Law…”

The key phrase they are counting on is “occurs while the building is being leased by the school district.”  But, how can they lease a building that does not yet exist?  Furthermore, the “lease certificates” are being structured like bonds not a lease.  the only thing that is different is the name.  And the clear intent when the term “lease” was put into the law was NOT to circumvent the need for a referendum.  In Feb. the board members were clearly concerned about this.  In March, they all were OK with it.  What happened between meetings?

Notice the district never has legal counsel at the meetings.  Everyone is taking Dr. Schuler’s word that he has checked with the district lawyer and that the lawyer actually looked at the law.  They have nothing in writing!

On March 27 I received the following reply to my FOIA:

Ms. Shaw,

On March 20, 2018, you requested the following information:

a copy of the legal opinion regarding section (105 ILCS 5/10-22.36) of the school code substantiating Dr Schuller’s claim that a referendum is not required if a new building is “leased” for 20 years including an initial payment made in advance of the building being built, then purchased for $1.00 at the end of the lease. 

There are no documents responsive to your request.

Regards,

Robert A. Rammer, Ph.D.

Assistant Superintendent
Wheaton Warrenville Community Unit School District #200
P: 630-682-2015
F: 630-682-2326

51:00 they discus the initial lease payment. (Dr. Schuler & Jim Mathieson) The Initial lease payment of $1.5 million will be made in the next 30 days and will be held in escrow. If we do not go ahead with the project, any money not spent out of the escrow account will come back to the district.

Does not commit us to go forward until we have final numbers [Cost of the building].

53:30 Jim Mathieson – “…I just to be clear, we have our legal attorney, we have two banks involved, or at lest one, Zion Ban…  the lease holder  and in addition… each one of those parties is looking at this for legal purposes…”

Jim Vroman and Chris Crabtree have quick comments.

At 58:00 Jim Mathieson “…if this is challenged and delayed… if we don’t do it now there will be inflation and higher interest rates.” Justifying why they are in a hurry.

 

1:01:28 Rob Hanlon mentions that he feels comfortable with the legality.  “We seem to be the target of commentaries”

1:03:40  Brad Paulsen has a question about the payments that go up incrementally

1:04:33  Bob Lewis, PMA – “what you see there in the lease payments are the principle components. The interest component as is increases the overall.”
[Is that normal in a lease?]

JIm Mathieson

1:05:20 Brad Paulsen – runs through some history, feedback … says he’s excited about this solution.

1:09:00 Jim Vroman – He mentions the school code, and that he is comfortable with this

1:11:27 vote passed 7-0.

 

Final thoughts

1. What good are laws if there if public bodies choose to ignore them?  The LAW matters.  And the Law clearly requires a referendum for new construction.

2. They have yet to determine how much the new building will cost or if they can afford it.  Yet they have authorized placing $1.5 million in escrow that can be spent by PMA and Zion Bank to set up this agreement.  If they choose not to go forward, they will be refunded moneys not spent.

3. The district has  been spending everything they receive every year (no surplus).  What is in reserves comes from a state grant received about 5 years ago that was set aside for capital improvements.

4. They have not made any spending cuts, in fact gave Dr. Schuler a raise and new perks in his recent contract.  In justifying the 2017 referendum, they had estimated a need for $6.5 million per year to maintain all buildings.  When that expense is put into the 5-year plan the district will be in the red every year.

5.  I have told the district that if they cut enough from the salary and benefits to afford this (at least $2 million the first year) then I will help pass a referendum.

 

CUSD200 plans to build new Jefferson against taxpayers’ will

It is on the agenda for the next board meeting.

  • DATE:  3/14/2018 TIME:  7:00 PM
  • LOCATION:  WWSHS (1920 S. Wiesbrook Road, Wheaton, IL 60189)
After asking via Referendum twice,
And being told “NO” twice,
Wheaton-Warrenville, CUSD200 is looking to build a new Jefferson pre-school WITHOUT a referendum.
On Wed, 3/14/2018 the board plans to approve the issuance of “lease certificates.” The “lease certificates look, walk & act like bonds (not more than $14 million, not less than $10 million).  They are justifying this based on Section 10-22.12 of the School Code, which allows a school district to lease a building.
They are totally ignoring and avoiding Section 10-22.36 of the School Code which requires a successful referendum for any new construction unless paid for by donations, grant, or sale of other property. Their plan is to pay for the whole thing with the lease, and make the final $1.00 with money that is donated or comes from a grant.
This is obviously not in keeping with the intent of the law, and based on the verbatim discussion of the Illinois House when Section 10-22.36 of the School Code was last changed, is not in keeping with the intent of the law makers.  I have brought this to the attention of the board and the administration via email, and via public comments at the January 17, 2018 board meeting.  I also spoke at the March 7, 2018 finance committee meeting.
The community has said “NO” to the referendum twice, came out en mass to say “NO!” to adding an entire pre-school wing to Monroe Middle School (and gutting Graf Park).  It is time to tell them that they must do this via referendum.  And if they want the referendum to pass, they must cut the bloat from salaries and benefits so that the district can afford to do it out of current funds – starting with the Superintendent setting an example by agreeing to remove the recently added perks to his contract.
If I am the only one saying “NO!” they will proceed in authorizing the Initial Rental Payment of $1,500,000.
Please, if you live in the district, and believe the LAW should be followed, contact the D200 school board at board@cusd200.org or better yet, show up at the board meeting at make your public comments.

At the Last Finance Meeting 3/7/2018

 On 3/7/2018 I attended the CUSD 200 Finance meeting.Bob Lewis of PMA presented the lease agreement – sounds just like a Bond or financing agreement, except

  • they call it a lease
  • the district does not take the title for the new building until they pay $1.00 (with grant or donated money) after all “lease payments are made”
  • The district cannot raise taxes to pay this one.

When asked what part of the school code gives them permission, PMA referenced 10-22.12.  I asked why 10-22.36 does not apply.  Bob  responded “I don’t know what that is.”

 

During public comment I asked our superintendent, Dr. Schuler if he has something in writing from a lawyer as to why the district does not need a referendum.  He assured everyone that he spoke with the district lawyer and this is legal – nothing in writing.

In the pursuing discussion, it was implied that bond council looked at the legality.  But, bond council simply looked at the legality of issuing lease certificates.  The district’s general council should look at the requirement for referendum.

Did anyone actually look at the legality of leasing a yet to be constructed school, on school property, using “lease certificates” for funding without taxpayer approval as required by 10-22.36?

 

(105 ILCS 5/10-22.36) 

Sec. 10-22.36. Buildings for school purposes. To build or purchase a building for school classroom or instructional purposes upon the approval of a majority of the voters upon the proposition at a referendum held for such purpose or in accordance with Section 17-2.11, 19-3.5, or 19-3.10. The board may initiate such referendum by resolution. The board shall certify the resolution and proposition to the proper election authority for submission in accordance with the general election law.

The questions of building one or more new buildings for school purposes or office facilities, and issuing bonds for the purpose of borrowing money to purchase one or more buildings or sites for such buildings or office sites, to build one or more new buildings for school purposes or office facilities or to make additions and improvements to existing school buildings, may be combined into one or more propositions on the ballot.

Before erecting, or purchasing or remodeling such a building the board shall submit the plans and specifications respecting heating, ventilating, lighting, seating, water supply, toilets and safety against fire to the regional superintendent of schools having supervision and control over the district, for approval in accordance with Section 2-3.12.

Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, no referendum shall be required if the purchase, construction, or building of any such building (1) occurs while the building is being leased by the school district or (2) is paid with (A) funds derived from the sale or disposition of other buildings, land, or structures of the school district or (B) funds received (i) as a grant under the School Construction Law or (ii) as gifts or donations, provided that no funds to purchase, construct, or build such building, other than lease payments, are derived from the district’s bonded indebtedness or the tax levy of the district.

Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, no referendum shall be required if the purchase, construction, or building of any such building is paid with funds received from the County School Facility Occupation Tax Law under Section 5-1006.7 of the Counties Code or from the proceeds of bonds or other debt obligations secured by revenues obtained from that Law.

 

You can find these portions of school code by  starting at ilga.gov/

  • Click on “Illinois Compiled Statutes”
  • Click on “CHAPTER 105   SCHOOLS”
  • Click on “105 ILCS 5/ School Code.”
  • Press <ctrl-f> and Search for “10-22.36”

 

2001 modification to the law

The original law (105 ILCS 5/10-22.36) prior to 2001 stated that no referendum was required if the district used funds from the sale of other buildings or funds received as gifts or grants, provided that no funds were derived from the district’s bonded indebtedness or tax levy.  That was clear.  However, in 2001 the language was changed to add subsection (1) “while the building is being leased by the school district” as well as the clause “other than lease payments”.

The change was made by

  • Public Act 92-0127
  • Bill number: SB1035 of the 92 general assembly
  • Passed in the General Assembly May 01, 2001.
  • Approved July 20, 2001

In the transcripts for the House on 5/1/2001,

ilga.gov/house/transcripts/htrans92/t050101.pdf

on pages 49-52 Rep. Black asked

“…I want to make sure, Representative, that we’re not circumventing the right of the voters to say, ‘I don’t think that you ought to buy that building.’”

And Rep Crotty (bill sponsor) replied

“That is not in the Bill….When we’re talking about leasing, many school districts lease a building maybe for a dollar an hour just to be sure that that is not something that needs to be done with referendum.  So, we’re not changing that part.  And if there are added dollars needed for a school district, they most definitely have to still go through referendum.”

Those who passed it understood that it does NOT allow lease to own in order to avoid the referendum!

 

(105 ILCS 5/10-22.12)
Sec. 10-22.12. Lease of property for school purposes. To lease, for a period not exceeding 99 years, any building, rooms, grounds and appurtenances to be used by the district for the use of schools or for school administration purposes; and to pay for the use of such leased property in accordance with the terms of the lease. The board shall not make or renew any lease for a term longer than 10 years, nor alter the terms of any lease whose unexpired term may exceed 10 years without the vote of 2/3 of the full membership of the board.

 

See previous articles:

CUSD 200 can’t afford a new Jefferson Pre-school

Last year CUSD 200 produced a serrries of videos about the referendum.  This one discusses what happens if the referendum fails (which it did).

In it, Dr. Schuler says that if the referendum fails the model shows the board would need to set aside $6.5 million per year to maintain existing buildings.

 

At the Financial meeting on 1/31/2018 the staff presented a five year financial forecast

Wheaton 200 5Cast Presentation 1-31-18.pdf

On page 4 it says “Revenue by Source – Operating Funds Budget Total = $163,442,000” for FY 2018 Budget.  On page 10 “Expenditures by Object – Operating Funds Budget Total = $162,953,842.” Looks good, Revenues exceed expenditures.

But, one major omission – They did not include $6.5 million for anticipated capital expenditures that would be needed if the referendum failed.  It shows 1.94% (of $163 million) which is about $3 million for capital outlay. The predicted $6.5 million per year to maintain the buildings will result in a negative $3 million rather than surplus $0.5 million.

The district does NOT have the money to build a new Jefferson (financed by reserves and future revenues), maintain the other 19 schools and give the staff their anticipated annual raises without cutting any benefits and without raising taxes.  And yet, that is what district staff is recommending the board of education approve.

The next board meeting is Wed. Feb. 14, 2018.  Let’s see what the board decides.