MONIC A SHEEHAN

One View

Only two funding scenarios follow best practice with referendum bonds, the other three proposals tack on debt certificates and non-referendum bonds, which would bypass voters for funding approval and reduce the referendum asks. One scenario includes no referendum bonds, aimed at circumventing voters entirely

The presentation highlights a serious problem: D200 is over-taxing residents. By levying more tax dollars than needed for operations, building maintenance and Life Safety projects annually, the district is generating a surplus, adding to its already mountainous cash reserve. The over taxation is made clear in a footnote in a chart (see link), “Funding Options for Project 2,” and in D200’s Five-Year Financial Projections updated on Oct. 31. Over-taxation and the resulting operating surpluses are needed for one key reason — to have funds available to re pay debt certificates for Project 2. This practice of over-taxation needs to end, and debt certificates should be removed from funding consideration.

The chart misrepresents the financial impact of the proposals, as it states that debt certificates would have a $0 tax impact on taxpayers, when in fact the board would have to continue levying higher-than-necessary taxes annually to repay them.

Contrast these funding proposals with the straightforward funding plan of another Hennessy client, the District 115 school board. They’re following best practice in funding a major capital project, willingly placing an identical-dollar-amount referendum on April’s ballot: $105 million for major facility improvements to Lake Forest High School, according to its website. Their funding proposal includes only referendum bonds, no