Retired Cdr. U.S. Navy Challenges IL School Board on Taxes

My name is Thomas Banfield. I am a resident of the Garlands Retirement Community and I am the Chairman of the Garlands Members Advisory Committee.

I would like to preface my comments by stating that we at The Garlands understand the benefits of the fine Barrington school system. We are proud of it. As taxpayers we pay for the cost – which is fine—as long as we think that the expenses are cost efficient and that the tax is fairly distributed.

When we received our real estate tax bill this year we saw that it was about 15% higher than last year. 

In looking into the reasons, we found that it was because the Lake Co. Tax Rate went up 15.3 %. So we examined the tax bill to see how much of the Lake Co. increase was attributed to each of the taxing bodies. 

We found that the tax rate for the Barrington 220 School District went up 17.2 %.

This caused us great concern, so we met with the Superintendent of Schools and the President of the Board of Education. They were very helpful in explaining the multiple elements making up the tax calculations and how the Board operates in preparing the budgets.

We found that School Districts are allowed to increase the Tax Levy each year by the amount of the CPI-U and new growth. This then allows the Board to increase costs by similar amounts each year.

The planned increases in total expenditures as detailed in the 220 District 2012-2013 Final Budget as of 4/13/2013 are:   

FY 2012 $2.0 million, up 1.6%; 

FY 2013 $4.7 million, up 3.7%; 

FY 2014 $5.5 million, up 4.2%; 

FY 2015 $5.8 million, up 4.2%; and 

FY 2016 $6.7 million, up 4.7%.  

This brings me to the main thrust of our comments. Being able to increase costs each year creates what we call a “mindset” that it is OK to increase costs each year by 1, 2 or 3 %. This is an inflationary mindset that, in view of the troubling overall forecasts of assessment evaluations and government funding, is not a sustainable mindset.

The total assessed valuation in Lake County decreased last year by as much as 10% in some areas. One out of seven households in the area suffered loss of employment or under-employment in recent years. School District 220 did not reflect any recognition of these two facts. According to the US Government, wages and salaries increased by 1.7% last year. Thus the income of our citizens is not keeping pace with inflation and is not able to afford the rate of increase in taxes of School District 220.

We believe that instead of increasing costs each year by 1, 2 or 3 %, the School Board should be looking to decrease costs each year by 1, 2 or 3 %. 

How can the Board bring this about?

Changing the mindset:

1. When someone wants to adopt a new and necessary program costing $1,000, $10,000 or $50,000, they need to eliminate an existing program(s) that is no longer vital to the school that costs $1,000, $10,000 or $50,000.

2. When the Board first meets to work on next year’s budget, ask each Board member to come up with 5 ways to cut costs.

3. Ask the Superintendent to come up with 5 ways to cut costs.

4. Ask the PTO to come up with 5 ways to cut costs.

5. Ask the teachers’ union to come up with 5 ways to cut costs.

6. Ask the teachers to come up with 5 ways to cut costs.

7. Ask the Student Advisory Council to come up with 5 ways to cut costs.

8. Put out a suggestion box asking the students to come up with ways to cut costs.

If carried out, these suggestions have the further benefit of stimulating all the named parties to become more cost-conscious than before.

In summary, we are concerned that the current mindset of the School Board is inflationary and unsustainable. While we have presented ways in which the private sector would try to cut costs, we ask the School Board at least to hold expenditure increases below the cost-of-living.

This concludes my comments. 

Thank you for your consideration.