November 7th Referendum isn’t entirely a NO Vote.
Q1. Shall Prairie Grove Consolidated School District No. 46 use excess property tax proceeds on hand to reduce the district's bond and interest levies as long as the District's cash reserves are greater than four months? VOTE YES… What took them so long? Lowering our liabilities does not seem to be a priority for the School Board. They should have been doing this since 2002.
Q2. Shall the Board of Education of Prairie Grove Consolidated Community School District 46, McHenry County, acquire, improve, build and equip a school building and issue bonds to the amount of $25,000,000 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof? VOTE NO…the justification is not there to support this size of a referendum. We can wait and we can save ourselves a lot of money in the process.
Q1. Shall Prairie Grove Consolidated School District No. 46 use excess property tax proceeds on hand to reduce the district's bond and interest levies as long as the District's cash reserves are greater than four months? VOTE YES… What took them so long? Lowering our liabilities does not seem to be a priority for the School Board. They should have been doing this since 2002.
Q2. Shall the Board of Education of Prairie Grove Consolidated Community School District 46, McHenry County, acquire, improve, build and equip a school building and issue bonds to the amount of $25,000,000 for the purpose of paying the costs thereof? VOTE NO…the justification is not there to support this size of a referendum. We can wait and we can save ourselves a lot of money in the process.
posted by Candidate at
9:00 PM
13 Comments:
Enough! This school accounts for 77% of my tax bill.
By
Anonymous, at 6:26 PM, October 23, 2006
Then move!!!! - It's not better anywhere else.
By
Anonymous, at 2:09 PM, October 24, 2006
Dear Friends and Neighbors:
In the comment string to last weekend’s NW-Herald article “Quarters cramped in D-46” was a posting questioning my voting record as a school board member. I did respond to the author of the comment with the letter below. I felt I should post it on this site as well in case any of you are having similar questions. The following is my response as it appears in the comment section to the NW-Herald article:
Apparently I do owe the author of the previous comment and possibly other readers an explanation concerning my voting record on the District 46 referendums. Just to clarify, I did vote against this current referendum. It is also true that I originally voted in favor of the previous spring referendum, that vote took place in Nov. 2005. At the time when I first joined the school board after the spring 2005 election (as the only new member to the board), it had already been decided to ask for a building referendum upcoming fall election. The board was already in the midst of choosing an architectural firm, basic concept drawings already existed and the campus concept was agreed upon. The project was explained to me and it did make sense at that time. I was not involved in this project from the beginning and saw no reason to vote against placing the question on the ballot. After all, approval was then up to the voters.
When did things change? It began with the publishing of a series of articles in the Daily Herald regarding school financing, different types of bonds, debt limitation for school districts and other factors. These articles appeared beginning January of 2006. This information together with numerous questions from taxpayers and friends caused me to look deeper into the subject. Next a significant change in our assumptions became evident, these were the delay of the surrounding developments, redesign of Terra Cotta, the difficulty of providing water/sewer to the Tall Grass development and other factors which led to a slower than expected build out and lower enrollment for the district. Subsequently I began questioning the necessity and affordability of a new school building myself and was no longer able to support the spring referendum. I wish I had looked into all this sooner and I am sorry if I disappointed anyone for not doing so, but this is what happened.
As for this current referendum, I did not agree with placing it on the ballot after it had just failed in the spring. The planned developments are farther in the future than they were last spring. Combined with a recession in new home construction, building a new school is still too early. I could have agreed to a smaller and fiscally more responsible project like adding on to the current buildings which would have allowed us to monitor the market, enrollment, EAV and plan for a future school to be built when actually needed.
It seems that the author of the comment is also questioning some of the other votes that took place. I do not know what you are referring to, but please contact me in person if there are still open issues. I am committed to always representing all of our taxpayers equally and to the best of my ability.
I would like to add that I am saddened to see the community so divided and encourage everyone to stop the accusations and the name-calling. Let’s discuss the issues and then ultimately it will be up to our voters.
Sincerely,
Charlotte Kremer, District 46 School Board Member
By
Anonymous, at 11:37 AM, October 25, 2006
Charlotte Kremer - what a puppet you are. Your defense for voting "yet" then "no" doesn't work. You should start making decisions on your own and not by your fellow "noers".
It's fortunate that you only represent a small percentage of the voting population. You have violated your oath as school board member and you little blurb above means nothing.
As far as your solutions to adding on to our current school? I'm appaled you have not done your homework - putting 4th graders with 8th grades is unacceptable. Fact - We are overcrowded now. Fact - interest rates at their lowest in history - Fact SB857 will save our taxpayers money.
By
Anonymous, at 3:07 PM, October 25, 2006
you forgot a few...
Fact - Housing developments surrounding D-46 have been put on hold.
Fact - The housing market is in a 15 year low.
Fact - The student enrollment has remained below annual projections.
Fact - The D-46 student-teacher ratio is about 24 to 1, other districts are much higher with less budget.
Opinion - This referendum can wait. Vote No.
By
Anonymous, at 9:42 AM, October 26, 2006
Dear Anonymous, I suspect your name calling is prompted by the fact that Charlotte has not been compliant with the “yes” position. Is that true?
Definition: pup‧pet- [puhp-it] - a person, group, government, etc., whose actions are prompted and controlled by another or others.
Charlotte Kremer is far from being a puppet. She is the one person who has stood up against the 6 other board member and taken a stand that reflects the interest and inputs of the community. She is attacked often by people in the community who do not seem interested in the reasoning behind her positions; instead, they attack because she will not conform to their sole objective of building a new school despite the risk. Example: Margaret Ponga accusing Charlotte of illegal activities as a board member in public at a school board meeting. Of course, Margaret offered no evidence and did not even describe the criminal acts that Charlotte supposedly committed. The rant at the school board meeting by Margaret was probably only intended to raise reasonable doubt….or to intimidate Charlotte. Charlotte, much like Larry Snow in Huntley, is actually a hero for the citizens of this community….not a puppet.
By
Anonymous, at 10:14 AM, October 26, 2006
“Yes” supporters need to be more sophisticated than simply attacking the character of people that do not support their position. Instead of attacking Charlotte Kremer, would it not be better for all to justify why we need a school immediately rather than building on to the existing school more gradually…. Or even better yet; lay out a plan that is believable that shows how we will have the funds to operate the school after if it is built and how the school would be impacted if the developments were delayed. Or ultimately; provide all of us with evidence on why the citizens of the district should trust the current school board with $25 million.
By
Anonymous, at 10:16 AM, October 26, 2006
I was at the board meeting when Charlotte Kremer was attacked by Mary Ponga. Unbelievably, the school board included Margaret’s comments in their approved minutes as if the claims were somehow reliable. The people of District 46 are tired of fuzzy math and attack politics used by “yes” supporters and the School Board…we get enough of that with national politics. We would like to believe the school board is acting in a manner that protects our best interest, and the interest of our children. Anonymous, instead of investing time to attack Charlotte Kremer, why don’t you start asking harder questions and increase your expectations of the other School Board members (Steve Todd, Heidi Jessup, Mannish Shah, Karen Bowman, Todd Burnidge). These people owe us all more…we do not deserve to be a community at war.
By
Anonymous, at 10:21 AM, October 26, 2006
Vote No to District 46 Referendum - Nov 7th
Where do I actually FIND the "facts"?
I'd like to see the actual referendum and also a point by point list of why I should vote no (which is the direction in which I'm leaning). Everyone keeps saying "Check the facts!" I'd love to - where are they?
By
Anonymous, at 8:43 AM, October 31, 2006
Mary Kaye,
if you go 3 articles down to "six months later and $7M more" you will find some information and if you read through the comments (currently 26) to this posting you will find more facts and opinions from both sides. Hope you'll find it interesting.
By
Anonymous, at 8:57 AM, October 31, 2006
Mary Kaye,
The facts are this:
1. Current enrollment has dropped from last year so all the school's projections on students coming from "regular growth" are incorrect. There is new housing construction but kids from those new homes do not outnumber the kids that are graduating from D46. Many sections of our community are maturing so there are less young children entering the school. In 2002, enrollment was 1049, in 2006 enrollment is 1054.
Also, the Jr. High was designed to be expanded. If that was done first, we'd be able to assess the influx of children while not risking the well-being of our kids. Also, it's affordable. The YES people turn a blind eye to operating a new school. Be assured that if we are short money, current kids will bear the burden in cut programs and overcrowded classes. Building a new school too soon risks too much for the taxpayers and the kids. It is years too soon to consider building a new school.
By
Anonymous, at 7:42 PM, October 31, 2006
Yup, did exactly what you said Chris... I voted Yes and then No, in that order.
By
Anonymous, at 7:40 AM, November 07, 2006
Very funny... I guess you think we can't read. You can only hope that's what happens.
By
Candidate, at 5:35 PM, November 07, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home