Hello! I have not posted in a while, but now that I am a retired D41
board member, I should have more time to post and provide what I hope
will be useful information and thoughts to the community.
Recently,
D41 is looking into adding innovation labs to their schools. As an
engineer, I am excited to hear this. However, the recently proposal
seems to have ballooned significantly and I have some concerns on what
it really is trying to solve.
Below is my letter to the Board of Education:
----
To the members of the Board of Education,
I
am writing this letter in regards to the proposal of the plan to add
innovation labs at all the schools. During my tenure on the board, I
was a frequent proponent of adding science labs, rather than the
courtyards, parking lots and underground water detention which were
initiated each year. I am very excited to now see talk of innovations
labs. That said, I am concerned with the most recent proposal and I
have some questions/concerns I think the board should be aware of.
At
the Sept. 9th, 2012 Finance meeting, the first proposal emerged for
adding in the STEAM labs to all the elementary schools. The cost of
this proposal ranged from $900k-$1.9M. Later that evening at the
Regular meeting, there was information provided on a series of meetings
with FGM that fall which would work on 21st spaces to be fitted within
the existing footprint of the schools. This work would continue thru
Dec. 2012 at a cost of $78k. After that, the board was to be presented
with the results of this effort in the spring of 2013. Here is my
concern, if the current proposals ($8M-$10M) are to build additions,
renovate admin offices and add in underground water retention, where did
that come from? What did the district get for their $78k?
Unfortunately, as we saw with the courtyard and other projects, what was
original a small number has ballooned into a large number. I would
encourage the board to go back and look at the results of that effort
last fall and understand what renovations would have been made from that
proposal as opposed to the current one which includes office
renovations and water retention. Until all portables are removed, can
the district say in good conscience they are doing everything they can
as offices are renovated and water retention is put in?
Thank you for your time and efforts as board members.
Regards,
Dan Smith, Jr.
------
What
are your thoughts? As always, the board needs to hear from its
customers. I would encourage anyone to contact the board or show up to
the meeting on Monday, Aug. 26th and have your voice heard.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Sunday, November 27, 2011
The school year is almost to the halfway point!
Hard to believe, but the fall semester is almost over. This fall has been a busy one for the board as we go about our business. We are now at the time of year where we see how our actual finances performed to our previous budgets and get ready to finalize the Tax Levy to be implemented the following year. Additionally, we have been having discussions on what the appropriate fund balance (cash on hand for a rainy day) should be for our district.
At our Nov. 14th, 2011 board meeting, I learned during a PMA presentation (the district auditing firm) the district had ended the fiscal 2010/2011 year with a $3 million dollar surplus. This was approximately $2 million dollars more than had been expected when compared to the budget. This gave the district a fund balance as a % of revenues of approximately 37%. This was useful information to me, especially since earlier in the evening we had been discussing at the finance meeting a proposed policy change that would put a fund balance target number in writing.
The policy committee had proposed a target of 33%, which it appears we are currently exceeding. In my opinion, the 33% level is too high. The ISBE gives out the highest financial rating to districts that have a 25% level, which we are already exceeding. Why is the % important? Here is the way I look at it. 89% of the revenue the district receives is from Property Taxes. Unlike our state government, property taxes have a historical record of being paid and on time. Typically, the pay rate for property taxes is 99%. That source of revenue is pretty rock solid. So as a district, we are virtually certain to receive that money. The other 11% of our revenue comes from local, state and federal government sources. The state has been slow on paying their bills and has recently began to cut back on some programs (transportation). If we assume all that money went away, the district would have reserves to make up that revenue for a couple of years. In my mind, that should be enough time to come up with contingency plans for this shortfall. That is why I am comfortable with a number in the 20%-25% range.
At our Nov. 28th, 2011 meeting, the board has set aside some time for a discussion the tax levy which will be finalized next month. According to the district, the levy recommendation for 2011 is a 3.69% increase over the previous year’s extension. The district actually expects an increase of 2.59% under the Property Tax Limitation Act. The total District 41 taxes per $100,000 of fair market value (EAV = $33,333) are estimated to be $1055.84, which is an increase from $960.43 in 2010. I look forward to discussing the levy at our meeting.
As always, I look forward to hearing from residents of D41. Feel free to contact me and please say hello if you attend one of our board meetings. Our next meeting is Monday, November 28th, 2011 at the Central Services Office, just south of the corner of Main St. and St. Charles in Glen Ellyn. Our board meeting packet information is available here:
11/28/2011 Packet info
At our Nov. 14th, 2011 board meeting, I learned during a PMA presentation (the district auditing firm) the district had ended the fiscal 2010/2011 year with a $3 million dollar surplus. This was approximately $2 million dollars more than had been expected when compared to the budget. This gave the district a fund balance as a % of revenues of approximately 37%. This was useful information to me, especially since earlier in the evening we had been discussing at the finance meeting a proposed policy change that would put a fund balance target number in writing.
The policy committee had proposed a target of 33%, which it appears we are currently exceeding. In my opinion, the 33% level is too high. The ISBE gives out the highest financial rating to districts that have a 25% level, which we are already exceeding. Why is the % important? Here is the way I look at it. 89% of the revenue the district receives is from Property Taxes. Unlike our state government, property taxes have a historical record of being paid and on time. Typically, the pay rate for property taxes is 99%. That source of revenue is pretty rock solid. So as a district, we are virtually certain to receive that money. The other 11% of our revenue comes from local, state and federal government sources. The state has been slow on paying their bills and has recently began to cut back on some programs (transportation). If we assume all that money went away, the district would have reserves to make up that revenue for a couple of years. In my mind, that should be enough time to come up with contingency plans for this shortfall. That is why I am comfortable with a number in the 20%-25% range.
At our Nov. 28th, 2011 meeting, the board has set aside some time for a discussion the tax levy which will be finalized next month. According to the district, the levy recommendation for 2011 is a 3.69% increase over the previous year’s extension. The district actually expects an increase of 2.59% under the Property Tax Limitation Act. The total District 41 taxes per $100,000 of fair market value (EAV = $33,333) are estimated to be $1055.84, which is an increase from $960.43 in 2010. I look forward to discussing the levy at our meeting.
As always, I look forward to hearing from residents of D41. Feel free to contact me and please say hello if you attend one of our board meetings. Our next meeting is Monday, November 28th, 2011 at the Central Services Office, just south of the corner of Main St. and St. Charles in Glen Ellyn. Our board meeting packet information is available here:
11/28/2011 Packet info
Monday, September 12, 2011
Time to kick off the school year
At the start of this school year, I am now almost 2 ½ years into my 4 year term as a member of the board of education. When I ran in 2009, one of the things I stated I wanted to see increased, were the ways the district and the board can engage in more dialogue with our community. This blog is one way I see to communicate in a non-formal setting, outside of our business meetings with members of the community.
From time to time, I will post information on local and federal issues that will be affecting our district. Additionally, I will be sharing updates on board business as it occurs at our meetings. Our board meetings are usually held at the Central Services Office on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of the month and are open to the public. Please stop by and say hello!
We are now a couple weeks into the 2011-2012 school year and the remaining portion of my term will be busy. Contract discussions with our teachers’ union will begin this year as we work on the new contract which will begin with the 2012-2013 school year. We will also conduct our search for a new superintendent as Dr. Riebock is set to retire when her contract ends at the completion of the 2012-2013 school year. Additionally, the board is busy moving forward with the Master Facilities plan and figuring out a permanent solution that materializes out of our work..
I hope to hear your thoughts on the information you see posted here or any other issues with regards to District 41.
Please feel free to comment here (I do filter the comments before they are posted to keep out spam and to make sure they are appropriate) or send me an email.
Regards,
Dan Smith, Jr.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
My Background
I have lived in Glen Ellyn with my wife, Wendy, since 2003. We have two sons , Collin (8) and Josh (5). Both of our sons will attend Lincoln Elementary this fall. We enjoy a variety of activities in and around Glen Ellyn. Collin is in cub scouts and soccer and Josh is looking forward to beginning kindergarten soccer.
I am a New Product Development Project Manger. I have led cross functional project teams and managed budgets of up to $3,000,000. As a project manager, I know team work is very important and am constantly looking for ways to integrate team building exercises into daily practice.
I am a New Product Development Project Manger. I have led cross functional project teams and managed budgets of up to $3,000,000. As a project manager, I know team work is very important and am constantly looking for ways to integrate team building exercises into daily practice.
As far as my own education, I received my B.S. in Physics from Illinois State University, a B.S. in Engineering from the University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana and a Masters in Mechanical Engineering from the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago. While attending both ISU and U of I, I played trumpet in the Marching Band and am a big supporter of music programs in our schools.
I was elected to the Glen Ellyn District 41 Board of Education in April 2009. I became interested in D41 activities when I noticed the number of portables increasing around the district. I did not see this as a long term solution and wanted to see what I could do as a board member to help fix this problem. I also have a desire to reach a long term sustainable economic model for our district. The district should not be in a situation where they have to go back to the public every 10 years or so with hat in hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)