There was an informational tour and meeting at Hynes school this past Monday regarding these referenda, (there are two of them, one for 9 million dollars in bonds and one for 1+ million dollars in operational expenses). During the presentation it was observed by a member of the audience that there was no provision in the plan to put money in reserve to replace the equipment that the district says needs replacement. The business managers response was that it was not part of the plan. The superintendent stated that the way "things were set up in Illinois" it is expected that school districts will come to the voters for more money about every 7 years. She also stated that although "informal" discussions have been held with the teachers' union, no formal request was made for the union to negotiate reductions in compensation is return for foregoing layoffs, reductions in staff or elimination of programs. In other words, the union members have no skin in the game.
Many parents in the area send their children to parochial schools. It would make sense that those schools face the same challenges that district 67 does. St. Peters school in Skokie has a video at http://www.stpeter-skokie.org/School.aspx that addresses their way of solving those challenges. It is worth a look.

Once again, MG residents have a clear and stark choice facing them on March 20th: They can choose to make a modest, well-researched investment to grow our property values and the educational quality and reputation of Morton Grove, or they can choose to save a few bucks on their property taxes and watch as more young families and businesses abandon Morton Grove for Glenview, Skokie, Wilmette, or any number of other communities that have repeatedly demonstrated a desire and willingness to invest in their future.

Let's not kid ourselves: the quality of Morton Grove's schools is the biggest, and perhaps only, deciding factor for families choosing to arrive, stay, or leave the village. It's not the forest preserves. It's not the park district. It's not how brilliantly the snow is removed compared to neighboring villages. These are great things, but it's not why people move or stay here. School quality and reputation is the #1 reason MG will either experience a significant boost or decline in property values.

If some individuals wish to wage war on teacher unions or debate whether or not educators deserve a salary that's on par with the private sector, let them do so, but voters cannot and should not let the District 67 referendum - its first in almost two generations - become a proxy for this argument.

Every property owner will reap the rewards of voting YES on March 20th.

It's not just "for the children." It's also for everyone in Morton Grove who would like our community to grow and our housing prices to stay up. If you don't think that it affects people's buying decisions, think again. Recently, I had a close friend tell me great news that he's moving to the Chicago area with his young family. He asked me if Morton Grove was a place he should look and specifically asked about the schools. I had to tell him the truth, that if it were me, I would wait until after the referendum vote or look at district 70. I have kids, too, and I wouldn't knowingly move into a situation where the schools were not well supported by the community, even if the schools have good historical track records. Please vote YES on March 20 to support the District 67.

5. Teacher contracts are up in 2013. Again, another major issue pending bad decisions.

6. Lots of cuts could have been made over past 10 years, but instead, leadership let's this come to a boiling point and then are completely against creative solutions that even a 6 year old could come up with. E.g. use parent volunteers instead of paying teachers stipends for clubs, other older students for tutoring, etc.

OK, I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears. So, waste of time.

I, too, am concerned with school bullying, but without any data I'm pretty sure that withholding funds and reducing teachers and resources won't solve that problem. As far as hearing how "GREAT" the school is, perhaps Matt R should re-read the well-written LTE that he is responding to. It clearly points out some of the current serious problems the schools are dealing with right now. Those issues will not get better without passing this referendum.

Throwing Money Doesn’t Fix the Problem.
More money hasn’t yet fixed the problems. Not now, not during the Great Depression, not during the Panic of 1893. We need smart, efficient spending, contract and pension reform/scaling back, and we need businesses, (and schools), who made poor decisions to be allowed to fail.
The proponents of the referenda SAY that they have a plan. I'm not sure this plan is going to do anything but add more debt to our "running tab." Those who argue that we should just move forward and add to the tax burden while doing nothing, or worse, ignoring the missteps and errors of the past, are guaranteeing that the same, (or worse), problems will raise their ugly heads in the future.
Perhaps a more radical approach is in order. Perhaps the school board and school administration should emulate the taxpaying families in Morton Grove and learn to live within their means.

I was reading this letter by Kristina Otte, who I think is the nice young person who operates the Farmers Market who also supportied the new library last year. In one way I very much agree with her. We have to support education, whether you have children in schools right now or not. But those people running the schools must realize that they are responsible to the parents and grandparents working to support their families too. There should be more accountability to homeowners who are paying their tuitions. If so many things were in disrepair in the school buildings, why weren't they fixed? Maybe teachers could all take a little less money so more of their co-workers could keep their jobs and keep taxes from going up? We didnt' need to spend money on a new library, maybe we don't need to raise taxes for the school either? If everyone pulled together, maybe a good solution could be found? I feel there is too much "me first" these days and less dedication like I saw when looking at the recording from Saint Peter's School, which gives me hope there is a way. Please take a look (http://www.stpeter-skokie.org/School.aspx)

I don't like tax increases either, and I feel for the families that this might strain currently. However, I see the most vocal people on this site and the local papers complaining that village services, education quality, etc. need to remain high, or even improve, but don't even think of raising taxes. The school district, village, county, etc all rely on our taxes to pay for the services they provide. In a down economy, the commercial contribution goes down, and our personal contribution goes up. The District has made changes to make do with less but are out of options. I have reviewed their proposals and have challenged it myself. This situation did not happen overnight and has taken many years. Unfortunately, many of us were not aware of it until now when it needs to be shown. The district started discussions on this years ago. Please review the information to make an informed decision based on the facts and not based on opinions. Please don't assume that we're where we are today based on the irresponsibility of the past.

I support the full referendum and hope that others will too.

Our family has 3 children in Hynes Elementary School. I usually read patch and watch the bantering back and forth wondering why people even bother to post, since most of the bantering seems to be by entrenched advocates on each side that blindly (or very enthusiastically) support their cause.

With that said, I feel the urge to post. My family stands to be affected by the proposed referenda regardless of outcome. If it passes, the negative impact is that my taxes will probably increase 700-1400/year...depending on the “oh so enjoyable” (replace with vulgarity) reassessment process, but that’s another story. On the positive side, all of the extras that D67 offers will remain in place and much needed maintenance will be possible. If it fails, my taxes don’t increase, but certain critical changes at the school will not happen. As stated above, it seems like a simple decision. I have 3 children, so we are talking about 230-470/year/child. Not really that bad.

Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. I am an aggressive opponent of blind support of incompetence. I have to admit, I was very ignorant of most of these issues up until a few months ago and only I am to blame for this. For years, my family assumed that the decision-makers had everything in control and were safe-guarding the operations of the district and how tax dollars were spent. We loved our teachers, our children loved going to school, and all was well in D67 land.

Flash forward. I attended what I think was the first coffee informational session. Leaving that session, I don't think anyone attending it would vote in favor of the current proposals. Why? First, the leadership displayed a complete lack of knowledge over very basic, but fundamental issues. These are the people making decisions on what to cut, etc., yet, they can’t tell us what parents pay per child to attend. Second, as has been pointed out, the leadership seems completely unwilling to compromise, problem-solve, or think out of the box (relatively). A couple of the parents in the room came up with a solution to basically save almost all of the proposed cut program (well, many of them) if the referenda isn’t passed, but no one wanted to hear or discuss it. Third, the parents in the room seemed more knowledgable and emotional about these issues than the leadership. I asked a number of questions at this session, which could not be answered at that time, but now appear in the supplemental chalkboard handout that has been distributed. Questions like past fund balances, enrollment trends, referenda ballot language (that one was answered), etc. Lastly, as the superintendent was describing all of the items the bond referendum is to fund, she listed a few critical items as “We NEED to fix XXXX”. But very quickly, most of the list was presented as “We would LIKE to XXXX”

I pointed this out to her at the time and she had no response. Literally, no response. She just shrugged. I agree with the “NEEDS”, not most of the WANTS. If you read that list, it may seem that they are all “NEEDS”, but if you were there, it was obvious that most of them were “WANTS” with other solutions available.

I have a lot of strong feelings on this matter, such as that the district DOES need additional revenue, that a bond is NOT an answer, that some of the people making decisions SHOULD NOT BE making them, and that the current proposals could easily be re-worked to be approximately half the size if you only include what is NEEDED and not what is WANTED, as well as tapped volunteers for lots of the activities and programs. I feel that if you had some real thinkers get involved with problem-solving skills, other solutions could be generated. However, not to say that I could have done anything, I do blame myself for not being aware of these issues earlier, not running for school board, not joining the committees formed this year to work on these issues, and for blindly believing that all was in hand.

So, based on my personal apathy in these matters, I guess I really can’t blame others. I do blame the leadership in some regards, if you look at the fund balance over the past years, they should have made drastic changes the first first time a drop was predicted. I feel like they waited until it was too late, made bad assumptions, and now here we are.

I've spent the last 20 minutes reading every comment, and I have to say I find the reasons listed for not supporting a referendum are pretty weak. Sure, I would rather not pay more taxes, but at least I know that this money would be spent on something critical and concrete. Most of the naysayers seem to have issues with past leadership... what they should and should not have done over the last 40 plus years. Like they say, hindsight is 20/20.

To me, this whole issue is akin to needing a new car. You 've been driving the same old car for decades, running up the miles and watching the rust spread. It costs more to maintain than its worth. Sure, I'm gonna complain about the situation, and even blame myself, my mechanic, and everyone on earth for skipping a oil change here and there, for not washing and waxing every few weeks, etc etc etc. In the end, it doesnt solve the issues. You can either bite the bullet and fix the problems, or keep on putting things off and hope it doest leave you stranded and in trouble.

You cant put off your problems forever, they will catch up to you. Your choice is to face them at the time of your choosing, or let them push you into a corner.

I would like to just make one more point. The current operating budget of the district is approximately 7,000,000. With the rate hike, it will be more like $8,200,000 - $8,400,000. With 587 kids in the district, that is $14,310 per child per year.

What is my point? That number tells me that this ship isn't near efficient. What am I basing this on? Well, let's say they shutter the doors of the district and give each parent that money. Every one of us could send our kids to Loyola Academy, and that includes books and fees. You could send your kids to one of the other nearby private schools for almost half as much. That just doesn't seem right and tells me that funds could be managed better.

further, i myself am a loyola grad. All of us came from wealthy or at least well off families. the school always had significant donations from alums and benefactors. It is misleading to say we could send an additional 600 kids across 9 grade levels to loyola for the equivalent amount of money. you would need new buildings, teachers, equipment, etc... in other words the same things the referendum is aiming to provide.

You had mentioned an impression of "pork" and inefficiency. what do you consider pork? as far as inefficiency, it seems throwing money year after year into maintaing ancient equipment is inefficient.

i have no problem with a bright young kid tutoring either, i just dont expect them to do it for free, and i wouldnt expect that same kid, as bright as they may be, to be as dedicated as a real teacher, and as consistent. we are talking about volunteers. who is to say no one shows up when your child needs a tutor?

like they say, you get what you pay for. we may pat ourselves on the back for getting some free volunteer work, but we cant reasonably expect it to be consistent nor sufficient.

i think its great that you have actual ideas. i am the same way. the other two posters angry about the referendum seemed to be in denial and punishment mode.
i also prefer not cutting any programs, and would have no problem of coughing up some time or money to assist in anything my child needs, but i realize not every family is as fortunate as me.

as far as the bus drop off, sure thats a want, not a need, but having spent years as an architect working on school projects, i should point out that it is possible you can get that upgrade at a "discount". without seeing specifics or construction drawings, one assumes that the construction vehicles and equipment needed to do the other work could create this extra access as to keep out of the way of the public. its better for security and mixing kids and contractors. the more workyou get into one project, the bigger the savings because security issues, insurance, cleaning, restoration, etc are shared.

its like one stop shopping vs driving all over creation to save a dollar or two at different stores. what you may lose in up front cost you save in time, hassle, gas money, and a lot of other intangibles.

Thanks Dan! You conveyed my point better than I. I am the last person to "kick the can down the road", I prefer to hit things head-on. I think this might be a source of disagreement. My opinion is that blindly supporting these current proposals is just that, kicking the can. I would much rather see radical changes and re-structuring. Who knows what the next emergency is going to be? But, if we make things as efficient and cost-effective as possible, then the district will be in better shape to weather such an emergency. We shouldn't run a balance budget, we should run a surplus to bank funds for the next rainy day.

Lou, I completely understand and respect your insight in regards to grouping construction projects together at a cost savings, however, I just feel like it is too much. I would rather see us get past the "emergency", restructure things/operations/contracts, etc., and then start tackling the "wants" when we are in a position to do so. They want to borrow 8 million to basically patch the schools together and really not make any advancements in the facilities. A few months ago, there was a proposal for 20 million to build a new facility. Not that I supported the sale of Golf (and please let's not dig that back up), but along your line of thought, I would much rather spend 20 million on a new school than 8 million on the current one. We just need to find the 20 million :) (not borrow it).

I don't know Albert P nor I think does he know me. So I am a little taken aback that he so easily claims that I am the "same old anti-referendum, anti-investment, anti-progress commentators bring up the current library board" Do not presume that you know me or speak for me. If you want to rehash the library issue from last year, that is your privilege. But as memory serves me here, a big majority of the people who voted did elect those who saved us all from increased taxes without any loss of services. Maybe those so eager to spend other people's money should really be sure the costs are justified this time too. Now that would be a really good lesson for us all to learn, maybe with a little common courtesy when writing notes here too.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so as an outsider I have the luxury of looking in without emotional involvement. What I am seeing here is a few of different things.
One is the emotional "We must pass this referendum or we will lose our wonderful schools", argument.
One is the "I don't need any more taxes taken from me argument".
Then there seems to be a group who were supporting the $30 million new library and are now arguing for this referendum.
Finally, there seems to be a center core of reasonable folks who are weighing the pros and cons while trying to find a solution that works for all rather than making debating points or furthering political agendas. I hope, for the sake of all who live in district 67 that the reasonable folks prevail and that those who are emotionally invested would remember to be civil in their discourse.

With respect to costs, it's difficult to compare to private schools, specifically the catholic schools in the area. All private schools are subsidized by donors. Catholic elementary schools are supported by their church parish. These same schools do not have programs for special needs children, and their starting teacher salaries are about $15-20k less then public school salaries. The archdiocese of Chicago posts their grade scales online. Many of the teachers consider it a vocation and accept the lower salary, but often work second jobs. It's really difficult to compare our school to the surrounding private schools since they are not evaluated on the same public scale.

For the Loyola Academy example, tuition is $13,125, but then their website says that's $2500 short of what it costs for the education. They raise at least another $5 million in donations to support the school. It's on the website. They are often in the Champion about their black tie affairs. Our own PTA had a great auction last year and raised $15,000. We're just in a different place for donations to supplement school, and parent participation just seems to be difficult, especially in the PTA.

http://iirc.niu.edu is actually a great source for public school comparisons. For 2011 Golf 67 spent $13,787 per kid as gross operating expenditures...that's all salaries, expenses, and maintenance. That does seem like a lot and I was curious what others looked like. Parkview runs about $12,051. Niles 71 (Culver) runs $14,229. Sorting through Cook county schools with similar sizes and similar testing performance, it looks like most fall in the $12-15,000 range. Most spend about $7000-9000 per kid for teacher salaries, and about $5000-7000 on facilities maintenance to hit that total. Most are not too different.

What distinguishes the $12,000 to $15,000? From what I can tell, the pupil to teacher ratio makes the difference. So we should just cut teachers, right? It doesn't look that easy. Having more kids per class and the same number of teachers will reduce costs. That way you spread the costs out over more kids. Unfortunately, the district is stuck with how many kids you have. So if you have a grade with 60 kids, do you have 2 classes of 30 or 3 classes of 20? It seems much more subtle than that. Golf 67 runs 14.5 pupil:teacher while Parkview runs 16.7. Their costs are lower than ours. I picked 10 schools and plotted pupil:teacher vs gross expenditures, and it's a surprisingly straight line. It's a small difference of 2 kids per teacher. Cut a teacher per grade, that number will jump by about 10. Yes, more efficient spending, less efficient learning.

In the current budget, $7.16 million goes to salaries and $1.38 million goes to facilities, so over 80% of the budget is for people. To cut $1000 per kid, that's an 8% cut in the people budget. We won't get that from the next contract negotiation. I don't know the specifics of our teacher pay levels, I struggle to see that we grossly overpay versus other districts. That's for the administration to work with the union next year. Every industry basically ends up paying the market rate for their employees. My employer does that, and most others do it too by subscribing to the regional market data and paying that. Otherwise, people leave for the better paying jobs. Pay less, and you end up with unhappy employees with high turnover.

The precursor to this referendum started a couple years ago with Greg Buchanan. He saw the numbers. He asked for volunteers from the parents, teachers, and community to come up with options and make a recommendation to the board. I participated in that group and the numbers were a bit alarming. The facilities are in tough shape. Neglected? No, but we've put off replacing many things for many years and now it's due. I don't have my old packet, but the boiler maintenance for both schools is around $300,000 per year. That's about $500 per kid per year. They are the originals. We don't have the money to replace, so we had to just maintain. Replacing those will save a lot of money. From the coffee I attended, those savings were not

In the current budget, $7.16 million goes to salaries and $1.38 million goes to facilities, so over 80% of the budget is for people. To cut $1000 per kid, that's an 8% cut in the people budget. We won't get that from the next contract negotiation. I don't know the specifics of our teacher pay levels, I struggle to see that we grossly overpay versus other districts. That's for the administration to work with the union next year. Every industry basically ends up paying the market rate for their employees. My employer does that, and most others do it too by subscribing to the regional market data and paying that. Otherwise, people leave for the better paying jobs. Pay less, and you end up with unhappy employees with high turnover.

The precursor to this referendum started a couple years ago with Greg Buchanan. He saw the numbers. He asked for volunteers from the parents, teachers, and community to come up with options and make a recommendation to the board. I participated in that group and the numbers were a bit alarming. The facilities are in tough shape. Neglected? No, but we've put off replacing many things for many years and now it's due. I don't have my old packet, but the boiler maintenance for both schools is around $300,000 per year. That's about $500 per kid per year. They are the originals. We don't have the money to replace, so we had to just maintain. Replacing those will save a lot of money.

From the coffee I attended, those savings were not incorporated into future years budgets. Plus the new boilers are more efficient so you'll get additional savings.

That facilities committee used a consultant to review the schools and come up with recommendations. Those recommendations are what's in the Comprehensive List of Facility improvements on the golf67.net site. The consultant made a list of "must haves" and "nice to haves" and provided budgetary estimates. Only the must haves are part of the $9.7 million request. The nice to haves had some extra items that didn't provide much payback or savings to the budget.

Are the "must haves" all really must haves? Maybe not. Anyone can argue them. But there was a reasonable explanation behind all of them, and more than what's in the description on the list. So don't take it at face value. These were budgetary estimates, so probably +/-50%. I've worked on similar projects. You start off evaluating your options and ideas, and get high level estimates. Next, you put more rigor and define your project, and have better estimates. Then you engineer it and go out for detailed bids. Will these projects cost exactly that estimate? Probably not, some will cost more, some less. We'll need to go after the key items first, like the HVAC that is $3.3 million out of $9.7 million, then continue on the priorities, like the lunch room. The office work is for safety, to make sure all visitors check in and can't slip by.

Sorry, let me try this again. Posts were not in order

(1 of 4) Jeff. Great comments and information. Thank you for your insight and opinions.
I have to admit, in retrospect, my comparison to loyola academy was not the most appropriate baseline. After my posting, I did some research and I think you and I found the same numbers. I used the IIRC and focused on Parkview, since it is probably the best comparison.
Golf: http://iirc.niu.edu/School.aspx?schoolID=050160670021002 
Parkview: http://iirc.niu.edu/School.aspx?schoolID=050160700022003
Parkview spends $12,051/pupil 
Golf/Hynes currently spends $13,787/pupil
With the referenda on tax rate (not bond), they would like to add $1,140,000/year which is $1,982/year/pupil. That means we need $15,769/pupil to education are children which is $3718 or 30% more per pupil in comparison to Parkview. Again, these numbers do not include anything about the bond which is for building maintenance, etc. However, Parkview has gotten their ship in order so that they can handle these items in the operating budget. I know they have had referenda in the past, but that now allowed them to operate a tight ship.
I went back and looked at exactly what Parkview did, and here was their ballot question:
"Proposition to increase the maximum annual tax rate for educational purposes at 2.53% on the full, fair cash value of taxable property instead of 1.78%, the present maximum rate."

(2 of 4) So, unless I'm mistaken, parkview raised their tax rate to 2.53 (ours is now 2.20 and they want to raise it to 2.70). An article from Patch in 2010 states that SD 70 used 5 million of funds generated from the referendum to make capital improvements.
This is my main point. SD 70 did it the right way. They realized that they needed to up their income to pay for both operating and capital projects, and they did this all with MUCH less that what the current proposal is. Not only do we need to have tax increase higher then what they did, we also need an additional 8 million dollar loan that will cost the MG taxpayers something like 20 million over 20-30 years (insert precise numbers here).
I hear all of your points and opinions. I just wanted to make sure that all numbers are on the table. When I say that I think things really need to change, I am referring to the fact that one MG school district must pay 30% more per child for education.
Parents of each district often make comments joking about each other’s district, but in truth, they are both great districts and no one is going to run to one over the other. The ONLY thing we had going for us was full day kindergarden, but that should not be the main issue here. It may be a casualty, but not a champion of the cause.

(3 of 4) I’ll end with this. My campaign message would be that I believe that the school needs drastic restructuring of their budget, finances. etc. I still disagree with you about the Wants vs Needs, but that is option. I truly wish the school could find a way to live only with the rate increase measure, change the way they operate to generate the 10 million surplus that parkview has with the need for a bond, and continue to educate our kids. Lastly, I do fully blame leadeship. Inaction of the past has created this scenario. We should have done a rate increase back when SD70 did theirs and avoided all of this.

(4 of 4) Sorry, one more thing. I know you may start arguing why we should or reasons why we have to pay 30% more per child to education the kids, but again, that does not include the bond. Parkview rolled the same type of costs of our bond into their tax rate increase. If we did the same thing, that adds another $1391/year/pupil to what we are spending (this number comes from extrapolating the proposed referenda tax increases for both and then the projected income generated by the rate increase measure). That means we are now spending $17160/pupil/year. Well, at least for 20 years (found that number) until the bond is paid off. That means we now need to pay 42% more per child than Parkview. Something just isn't right.

Bottom-line is that these proposals will either pass or not pass and I suspect that their success will be 100% dependent upon the ratio of emotional : rationale voting. However, either way, I fear the outcome. If they pass, well, I feel like the can has been kicked down the road and when the next emergency comes up, we will be in really bad shape. If they fail, then I think that is when the real debate/battle will begin, since the district is holding this over our heads and threatening to cut everything without consideration of options of saving these programs (regardless if they are run as cost centers as previously discussed or by volunteers). I guess we'll know the next fork in the road in march.

Have we gotten to the unspoken variable in the equation? Jeff G posted data that may be the real issue to be addressed in finding a permanent, long term solution. As he stated – “In the current budget…over 80% of the budget is for people”. In a posting from another string of comments from January - “Revenue for SD67 was $7,491,000 and expenses $8,338,000, resulting in a $847,000 shortfall this year alone. About 75% of the staff are now making more than the average household income of residents, with many earning in the six-figure bracket…in over six years the CPI index (cost of living) went up an average of 2.7% annually. Yet, in the same time span, teacher salaries rose 8.3% and administrators by 11.7% per year (and we're not even talking pension contributions or medical insurance premiums)”. A report by the IL State Board of Education shows that only 12,000 new teachers per year are needed to fill available positions. Yet over 30,000 new teachers were certified. Maybe the taxpayers in the district should hold off on any referendum this year and wait for 2013 and negotiate to find us quality teachers at a better price - which may also allow funding for building item repairs and upgrades? Adam has made many thoughtful and insightful obersvations - maybe the leadership of D67 should consult with those in D70 and come back with some better options in the future and not force us down the wrong road next month instead of their all or nothing approach.

I want to thank Kristina & Jeff G for all the positive comments & feedback, there are others on here that WOW are completely out there. Bottom line is we NEED the money, it is a problem, a really big problem, the proof is there, we are behind all the other school districts in regards to money. The education my 8 & 6 year old receive is the very best, is it worth it ? YES !! Every single penny. Matt R makes a lot of negative comments & is very insulting to the administrators as well as the posters, that does not help the problem. And why are bringing up a bullying situation into a financial matter ?They are not coming to us all the time, AGAIN its been 43 years. There would have been an uproar had it been 5, 10 or 20 years ago. We have ALL benefitted without the referendum in 43 years, past present & future !! We would loose way too many programs & lessons that make our schools great. Lets fix our situation now. Then they can start improvements. Its all about the kids , YES, but all the Morton Grove residents have benefitted from the education provided from the school district for all these years.The main issue is not the bus turnaround/entrance, its not the 1 hour a day tutoring, its the building structure, the leaks, the cracks, the HVAC system.To say Dr. Riley, Mrs. Westley & the teachers are out of touch is soo wrong, they live this issue everyday of their lives.Please, I ask all of you to VOTE YES !!We have been very priveleged all these years. Our kids deserve it.

I understand the urgency of just "VOTING YES", but I think it may be better to make some hard decisions and fix the issue instead of funding them. I'm reminded of the Brewster's Millions "none of the above". That is how I feel, both options are unacceptable.

I've talked with a lot of the "VOTE YES" people. I reiterate my point that they are great people that have the courage to step-up and try to make this happen. Unfortunately, I think emotions are just getting in the way.

I met Kristina for the first time at one of the informational coffees (Kirstina...I apologize if we have crossed paths previously...I'm really bad with faces...personality defect) and really enjoyed talking with her then and another time since. However, when challenging this same group of people with some of my questions, they really don't have any answers. I guess it’s really not their job to have these answers, butthe ultimate response is "I know, but just VOTE YES"...or "I know, but VOTE YES and we'll figure it out later". Kinda like trying to brainwash us with the catch phrase :) Hey, this is an “election” of sorts and I guess that is fair game.

I'm going to brush off the emotional posts and try to stick to the facts. Maybe Jeff D considers me as one of the ones that is “out there”. So be it. I feel like none of the options are good ones right now, and I do really wish I had been motivated enough to get involved earlier when there may have been options beside what are on the table.

It's a good discussion, but I don't think anyone is "out there". That is an emotional response. There is a divide here. Anyone typing "VOTE YES" is using the Kids67 group call to action and obviously siding with them or a member of their committee. Based on some of the names, I suspect these are members/spouses of members. I think these are all great people, at least the ones I know, and I do not doubt their intentions. They are all very emotional and doing what they think is best for the kids. So, my hat is off to all of you, especially Kristina for taking the time to write this letter. You guys have a cause and you need to keep promoting your goals.

On the other side (or maybe another side), are people that have a real problem just voting for these items. I admit, my wife and I are part of this group. I repeat, why should our district need to pay 30% (or 42% depending on how you look at it) per child more than Park view? Something needs to change.

I am a strong supporter of the school and I will do anything that is asked of me if it benefits the kids. I was lucky enough to get to spend a morning teaching the 3rd grade last year about some topics that I specialize in and I had a blast. I would do that every week if they would let me, but I think they have better things to teach the kids :). However, I don't believe that kicking this can is the best answer for our kids (and the kids to follow them over the next 20 years).

Wow. Sorry I was out of loop for past week.
. Golf67 extends north of Golf Rd and include Avon, Jennings, the office complex and Kraft.
. Tax rate referenda have been discussed since 1988 but selling and refinancing bonds was the easier way to fund the district. Versus the more difficult referendum route.
. Since the mid90s, tax rate referenda was predicted by all financial planning by our business managers for the decade just ended. But no referenda issue was put forward - again, because other financing options were available. Golf67 continued to live within the tax rate approved in 1967.
.
Increased taxes is inevitable to correct the ship:
.....tax rate increase and accumulate the funds for additions and maintenance.
Or
.....bond issue to infuse the funds immediately
Tax rate increase takes time.
Bond issues cost more money.
.
Unfortunately everything has been impacted by changing boards, changing administration (remember it was stated in a board meeting that Dr. Girard's primary task was a referendum) and changing financial advisors.
.
Golf67 Board has no other alternative to keep off the State Brd of Ed financial watchlist or to avoid cutbacks.
.
Referenda always are emotional and energy draining. That is why boards of education avoid them.

I have to laugh how much time we're all putting into the numbers. It's a good discussion! Most men play fantasy football, maybe we start the fantasy school district league?

I have no info on the past salary negotiations, but looking at the previous 10 years of expenditures on http://iirc.niu.edu, Parkview people expenses rose about 6.4% per year while Golf 67 went up 2.9% per year. For total expenses, other schools seem to be about the same. Parkview spends 81% of their budget on people while we spend 83%, so it's not out of line.

One of the ideas from the facilities/facilities study was to combine with a neighboring school district. 70 and 71 were not interested based on our finances. The idea is built around efficiency. One big school has more efficient spending than two small schools. Parkview and Culver have that advantage with a single building versus our two...one less principal, one HVAC system to maintain, etc. Also, Parkview is more at it's "sweet spot" with class size. The bulk of their classes have 20% more kids. It's only 4 more kids and the total number is manageable. If you added 4 more kids to each of our classes, it would basically be free, and our cost per student would drop. We are at a disadvantage with fewer kids in the district and two aging school buildings. Could we get smarter about a lot of spending? Probably and I agree it needs work. Can we be better than our surrounding districts? Probably not based on our setup.

District 70 went from two schools to one at some point. The current MCC was the previous second school. I can't find when, but they would have expanded and made facility improvements to accommodate the combined classes. That may explain why they only went after $5 million for improvements 5 years ago. Unfortunately, their website does not have that history. Culver did the same in the late 70s combining two into one building with improvements. Parkview has also amassed a significant 100% fund balance since their referendum, so they saved for a few years and are now running a balanced budget. I agree it was managed better through Parkview...go for the referendum early (and luckily during a better economy), before you get into crisis, and don't push facilities expenses off as much. All true, but we can't go back and this is where we are now. I'm sure the current administration feels the same way.

There has been a lot of preparation that's gone into this starting years ago, and it's been public. Is the current plan perfect? No, it will never be, but it's a good draft that will need work, and support, and challenge from Parents like us. Will voting No make the district rework the referendum? Yes, but from what I can see, the changes would be pretty modest based on the needs. In the meantime, the district will make significant cuts that they cannot undo quickly if a future referendum were to pass. We need to understand how we got here, but focus on the future.

Can't disagree. Makes perfect sense that a 2 building model would be less efficient than a 1 building model. Maybe the golf sale was the right move, but the negative consequences for the properties directly adjacent to it were too great (not to mention the potential of the sale being illegal). Too bad we still don't have an option like that.

That might explain part of the issue. However, thinking about this a little bit, you keenly compared the percentage of expenditures between operations and education. Naively I would expect most of the added costs of a 2 building model to fall into the operations line item and not education. However, I'm not going to pretend that I understand the budget beyond the general line item titles. However, if you account for the fact that the average salary of a D67 teacher is about 8K more than that of a D70, maybe that is the extra 30-40% of the educational line item and then the 2 building model adds this same percentage to the operational line item, hence resulting in the same relative percentage between the two.

Agree that a portion may be salary differences between the schools. I think the bigger contributor comes down to natural class that makes the numbers look better. Golf67 averages about 19 versus 23 for Parkview. Adding more kids is basically "free" until you hit the point where you need another teacher. Parkview is closer to their max, while Golf67 may be closer to the min class size. I know my kids classes are about 63, so 3 teachers with 21 each. They could probably manage up to about 25 well, but downsizing to 2 teachers with 32 each would not work well. From what I could extract from other schools, most range in a 12-16 kids per teacher range. Schools closer to 16 were more efficient at ~$11,000 per kid, while the 12 was more like $17,000 per kid.

The other part is where we're at...part of the $1.14 million will go into savings to rebuild that balance. That's some $ per kid that won't be put to use. There are still plenty of opportunities.

Thanks Donald. I've noticed that you consistently inject a firm foundation of historical perspective into these discussions. Do you have any information that can help shed light on the potential impact of north of golf Avon property on the district? I've seen discussion of this (and subsequent dismissal) of the potential of Avon closing on the school budget. I've also seen discussion from Glenview about replacing it with the Audi dealership and other retailers.

Does anyone know what contribution Avon currently makes towards our budget from this location and subsequent impact of its closing (and hopefully replacement by audi)? Not sure if Audi can compensate for the lost revenue, if it falls grossly short, or if this is a good thing for the district financially-wise. Is Audi receiving any deals for this move and is it even confirmed or just rumor?

Has SD67 accounted for this in their projections? I think we need to her from a school board member on this one.

Interesting comments. Perhaps if there is blame to be assigned it should go to the Illinois legislature which has continually refused to adequately provide state funding for local schools so school districts have to rely on local real estate taxes. As homeowners we are responsible for ensuring that the children of our school district receive a quality education because their future depends on it. One previous post reported District 70's tax extension as 2.53 whereas I believe the current number is actually 2.89 ( according to Cook County ). Approval of both Ballot Questions will result in a tax increase of 7.8% which for someone who currently pays $10,000 in real estate taxes would mean an increase of $780 and that equates to a cost of $4.33 per day for a 180 day school year. I do not enjoy paying taxes and I dilsike even more paying higher taxes but I am willing to pay higher taxes to maintain the educational excellence of School District 67.

This is what happens when the school boards lose touch with the reality not to mention the people who elected them - http://mortongrove.patch.com/articles/pool-costs-overflow. It is time to start saying no more!

...and, after all, it's "for the children", so damn the cost!

touch a nerve Lou? You might "feel" that what is on the "wish list" is not optional and inevitable. Not everybody agrees. You say that all understand that the economy isn't such that any family can afford to pay more taxes then you advocate for more taxes.
Inconsistent. Illogical. Emotional. ...but after all, "It's for the children"...

Some thoughts about comments made on schools. People have expressed opinions about their willingness to pay any price for education, so we are not hard-pressed to find examples of "damn the costs". Some who have worked for companies that profit by building schools have been proponents of multi-million dollar expenditures, their viewpoint is understood but does it reflect the majority of district residents? An idea suggested by a commentator has merit. Let there be residency requirements for teachers and administrators so they live in their districts. This will help support the community by having educated residents paying to support the schools, parks, village and library too. Teacher salaries posted online before (not even considering those with double incomes) show they can well afford the housing prices to live here. What I also have trouble understanding is the tendency for so many to simply accept what is offered as the final price? We negotiate for the price of our homes, cars, services, insurance and more. Cannot we do the same for our schools? If we can obtain the same, exact high quality at a lesser price, then that is what we should do. It is the wise move to conserve resources. Money is a thing of numbers and facts which show cold reality while emotion is hotly abstract. There should be balance between these two extremes as there must be in all things especially when making decisions for others.

This discussion is slowly descending into the same partisan bantering that usually results in these Patch discussions. There seems to be two camps, one that is "VOTING YES" and persecuting others for asking questions or not agreeing with them and another that is trying to figure out the facts here. I have some news for the former. You can post all you want, but negative comments concerning those of us asking questions are not going to get you any closer to your goal. I've heard options from a lot of people (that don’t post on patch) and every one of them seem to be emotional against these measures WITHOUT asking any questions.

I'm trying not to be one of those people. I am trying to ask questions and ascertain the facts involved here devoid of emotional bias. So, go ahead and banter. I'm sticking to the fact-finding mission.

What I believe to be facts are:

1. D67 is going to pay a lot more per pupil to educate our children than D70. Two significant factors drive this imbalance: a) two building model vs. one building b) higher average salaries of teachers. No excuses, No blame.

2. Regardless of past decisions (which have been catastrophic), if the district continues to operate status quo, there is no question that it needs additional revenue and the only source of this money is the taxpayer.

These next two are less fact and more assumption at this point:

3. No one has answered the question about future budget projects and the effect of the Avon closure, specifically, whether it is going to be detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. I know that people with this answer read patch, so I'm going to assume that the answer to this question is that it has not been considered (or it has and the outcome is not positive). We need to know the real answer here. Anyone voting on this issue needs to know whether or not we are going to be back in this exact same boat next year. If so, maybe we need to batten down the hatches and consider the problem as a whole instead of pretending that all will be ok if the current measures pass. If the answer is positive, we need to know that also as it may affect what funds we really need (and frankly it strengths the case for passage).

4. If you approve funding, you remove impetus for change. This last point I fell very strongly about based on my personal interactions some of the decision-makers and how well they received alternative solutions (at least in discussions I've been involved with).

OK, resume bantering. But, it would be much appreciated if anyone can comment on #3.

Lastly, to be fair, there seems to be a third camp of people that is against this regardless of the answers. They are probably as emotional as the people voting yes, regardless of the answers.

If you Google the district, there is salary comparisons chart for 2010 Vs 2009 published out there. The raises the teachers received during the depths of the recession are obscene. At that time when many the taxpayers were loosing their jobs or having their pay and benefits frozen or perhaps loosing their home's, our district was handing out many salary raises that were in the double digits or in the high single digits. One received a 20% increase the year before they retired (can we say bloated pension). People need to wakeup! Much like the federal and state government the day of reckoning has come and throwing more money at the problem will not fix it. Voting NO may force the district into bolder initiatives like perhaps merging with another district where more efficiencies can be realized.

Thanks for all the discussion. Jeff, I think we should run for school board or maybe a higher position :) Not that anyone cares, but I'm made my decision.

I've decided that I'm going to vote yes on the tax rate levy measure. Not because of the "VOTE YES" campaign or the "just do it for the children" call to arms, since I feel that these campaigns are emotionally driven. However, as I previously mentioned, I do believe that the district needs an infusion of funds to increase their yearly budget. I hope that if the rate increase passes, the district acts responsibly and makes fundamental changes to run a tighter, more fiscally responsible ship, with a budget that produces a healthy surplus for future capital expenditures. Some of the programs may still need to be cut and I think tough decisions still would need to be made. The 2013 teacher contract negotiations should be interesting (calling a strike right now). Will the district take actions like this? Doubt it. Do I favor continuing the current status quo if these measures are successful? Absolutely not. I’m not voting yes in support of the District’s arguments or proposals, I am only voting yes to increase the annual income, which I believe is needed (wish this was an option on the ballot).

I've also decided to vote no on the bond measure. I whole-heartedly disagree with borrowing 8 million (paying back ~20 million) for the proposed items. My hope is that if the bond measure fails and the rate increase passes, the district will make better decisions and be forced to make some changes. Yes, some of the changes may be difficult, and yes, we may need to continue to put bandages on some of the facilities until we can afford to replace them, but I think the district needs to fix this broken ship and not be handed an 8 million dollar loan to accomplish their stated goals. I believe that these goals and priorities need serious revision. Yes, fix (and eventually replace) critical equipment like HVAC, build a new gym if we have the money, but no, don’t renovate offices, change bus patterns, etc. until we have the money. Yes, not everything will happen in one year without the bond bailout, but I think this country has had enough bailouts for this decade.

What is going to happen? I’m guessing both will fail, but that is just based on discussions I’ve had with neighbors, etc. I guess we’ll find out in a few weeks.

Not sure if anyone's still reading, but have some new info. I confirmed that the Avon property north of Golf road does NOT contribute to Golf 67, but goes to Glenview 34. The township is carved out quite oddly...it excludes those properties but includes Jenning's dealer and the Kraft property.

More more info...taking the $1,140,000 from the tax increase and saying we'll start spending about another $2000 per student each year is not correct. This tax increase does not actually increase the per pupil spending, it's maintaining it. We just won't be draining down the savings balance anymore.

It looks like through the 1990s, we built up a $6+ million fund balance which was over 100% of our expenses (vs about 25% today). The decision then was to maintain taxes low for the community, refinance existing debt as possible, increase expenses to maintain a high level of education, and draw down the balance. The results for the school were good, and we've got great test scores, but the balance is reaching minimum finally. We could have done a referendum 10 years ago to maintain the level of education, but keep a more balanced budget (like what Parkview did). Maybe the district did get a bit ahead of itself, but we ended up with the educational results we wanted. You can argue that either way has its flaws. Fast forward 10 years, and 3 changes of administrations, those details seem to get lost in transitions.

Hey Jeff. I disagree, but maybe I'm just looking at this from a more simplistic perspective. In the end, D67 tax payers are going to have to pay ~5K/year/pupil more than D70. I'm not concerned about the source of these funds (bond referendum vs tax levy vs current budget). In the end, our budget needs more money to "survive" as people have portrayed the situation. D70 did a 5 million dollar round of capital improvements and I BELIEVE this was all done without a borrowing the money over 20 years and needing to pay back 20 million in principle + interest. They requested a rate increase to increase their annual income and then worked their budget so that this included both operating, educational, and capital improvement costs. The problem with D67 is that the first two of these three are much higher and they have no room for capital needs, hence the need for both a tax levy and a bond referendum.

D67 just has costs that are too high and they need to fix this first and foremost. Once they do this, they should then be able to then include capital improvements costs/savings in their annual budget. I'm sure that there is an existing capital improvement line item in the budget, but it needs to be increased.

People keep mentioned the "educational" excellence as part of this issue, but I discount that completely. I would not hesitate to accept the level of excellence that D70 provides, which is one justification of using them for my baseline comparison.

My hope is that if the tax rate increase passes, it will be enough for them to make some changes and eventually get everything done. May not all happen at once, but it will eventually if they make some good decisions. I'd even be in favor of another rate increase if it is really necessary, but I think certain things can be cut....anything is better than a bond. I'm actually OK with some of the items that are destined to be cut via their grand plan if the bond referendum fails. If we don't have the money for these things, then we shouldn't have them if the district can't put a priority on them over other items.

However, I believe that both items are destined to fail if I"m reading the pulse of the community accurately. I think that mis-worded poll gave some support to this impression. If this happens, I solely blame the district, as if this were all presented differently, it would have a better chance of passing.

Even more info...Doing some legwork on Parkview, I'd say they were maybe more lucky than good. From the old trib local articles, in March 2004 D70 did a 0.75% increase to generate $2.2 million per year. Triblocal estimates that would be about $220/year in tax increase for a $200,000 house. From my calcs and tax bills, that total change in taxes is slightly more than what the proposed two referendums are for Golf 67 now. That was a large increase in 2004 for D70 just for operating expenses. D67 is looking for a 0.58% increase which is limited by the new tax rate increase limit laws.

D70 also had the advantage of selling property. In 1990, they sold Borg school to MCC for $1.83 million cash (worth ~$3 million today). They also sold Grove school before that but I couldn't find details. So they were spared a facilities referendum, and were able to use that cash in future years to do a renovation and addition. They did what the car dealership sale would have done for us...cash infusion and smaller operating referendum. Unfortunately, ours had legal issues around it and didn't work out (and I'm not even trying to go there, so don't start the bantering).

So it's not the happy ending story, and it's very, very easy to say we should have made changes years ago, cut back then, gone for a referendum, etc. This is more about maintaining what we have.

I guess a difference in understanding among people is whether the only cuts are food and clothing. I don't considering a number of the proposed cuts either of the above. I also don't think certain activities require the current budget (like after school items) and I believe that there are other ways to achieve the same outcome with less spending.

District needs to make some hard decisions. Approval of both measures gives them a pass from doing so. Some people believe that change will still occur if both measures are passed. I think that is a pipe-dream. If they have the funding to continue bad/wasteful spending, why stop? Motivated parents like some on this post can say "vote yes...and we'll make changes later", but I think that is a crock. I'm not going to kid myself and pretend that I have any influence over these matters. I can try, but I feel like the district is experiencing the same partisan disparity in ideals as is the rest of the country.

I'm bowing out. I've made my decisions and I feel very confident in them. Others still on the fence can continue the debate.

It's been fun! Thanks! A

Okay. We'll agree to disagree. I'm not doing this for the politics. I would like everyone to make a decision they are comfortable with based on the fact, and I've tried to bring facts into the discussion. I have seen plenty of commentary from many, but no solid facts on where the wasteful spending has been. Ultimately, that discussion may be opinion as well depending on your side.

Can we make a difference? Yes. But it takes a lot of effort volunteering, helping with the PTA, attending school board meetings, participating in studies, running for school board, etc., everything that many people in the posts above want to push for, but no one has stepped forward with in the past. The status quo won't change if we don't speak up. We can help change Golf 67 district, not the whole school system. Voting NO will force many tough decisions, and have bad results. We've kicked this can down the road long enough, and can't avoid a referendum any longer.

Thanks! I think I'm done too. J