PTELL machinations, games, and other "fun"

Two very interesting articles for your consideration popped up in the Illinois print media the last couple of days. One is from the Pontiac Daily Leader and deals with Pontiac Township High School District's new levy. The other is from Journal Gazette reporting on Matoon's School District and their new levy rate.

The articles are instructive about how some taxing authorities feel regarding the concept of capped spending.

The district [Pontiac] is "asking for almost every single penny we can," the board of education heard in a review of the 2006 levy by Amy Smith, director of the Livingston Area Vocational Center, who worked on preparing it. The district "will not see a lot of extra money" because of the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL), or tax caps, she said. The increase in EAV means the district can levy about $77,000 more than in 2005; without being limited by PTELL, the board could have levied $240,000 to $250,000 more than in 2005, Smith estimated.

In other words, PTELL prevented them from spending another $170, 000 - darn it! Even more astounding is the attitude reflected here, and unusual in it's frankness:

. . . board President Scott Bauknecht . . . added that, in the future, the board will have to ask voters for a tax-rate increase in a referendum.

Superintendent Harlen "Butch" Cotter reminded the current board members that past boards also tried to keep the overall tax rate down, and resisted taking some actions, such as selling bonds, to get the tax rate up, before PTELL became effective in Livingston County, for taxes levied in 2000. PTELL allows a taxing district to receive an increase in tax extensions on existing property, plus an additional amount for new construction. The increase on existing property from one year to the next is limited to 5 percent or the national consumer price index, whichever is less. The CPI for 2006 levies will be 3.4 percent.

"We made that call years ago, said Bauknecht, who was on the board when voters in the county approved PTELL in 1999, noted after Cotter's comment. The hope of past boards was that when the district needed a higher tax rate, voters would give it to the board, Bauknecht added.

So they didn't inflate their needs before PTELL as so many taxing authorities did. They did the right thing counting on asking the taxpayers for money if they needed it. The taxpayers have said no. Now they're looking on this as a mistake and are listening to advice to circumvent what the wishes of the taxpayers seem to indicate. More of the same comes from Mattoon:

MATTOON -- A request for about $11 million in property tax revenue drew mixed reactions from school board members and residents alike, with supporters of the 2007-08 tax levy ultimately prevailing during a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday.

Opponents of the 6-percent total increase -- what officials said the district can expect in property taxes -- said it defies the intentions of local residents who overwhelmingly passed the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law (PTELL) four years ago to curb tax hikes.

. . . Administrators said they are not trying to circumvent the requirements or “spirit” of PTELL, because this law does not apply to the property tax revenue sought to repay the money borrowed for Mattoon’s two new elementary schools.

Not including the funds for paying these bonds, the new request for tax revenue is higher than last year’s by 3.4 percent, which effectively is the cap imposed by PTELL. This figure also accounts for the estimated taxable value of land in the district, said administrators.

. . . board Vice President Charles Young said . . . “Ask the people for the money, rather than finding ways to just take it,” Young said Tuesday. “When we find ways to maneuver around PTELL, we risk ruining (the public’s) trust.”

Ahh, that last seems somewhat sane.

If the School Administrations and School Boards would concentrate as hard on holding the line on spending as they do on worrying about "tax caps" and how to get around asking for money we could begin to make some real progress in taxation.

I think my favorite snippet is from the Gazette:

Superintendent Larry Lilly said . . . “If we don’t approve the levy that’s presented, we’re going to have to take a hard look at (reducing) people and programs.”

This, of course, is the over used threat that's supposed to scare taxpayers with children and families of school employees.

We fall into both categories and we say, "REDUCE AWAY! ! ! You can start with pensions and benefits!"