This is a countdown of the top 10 stories of 2022 written by Cat Petersen and/or Kevin Woodard. These are stories in the sense of “stories we followed.” Each of these “stories” had multiple stories written about them and published on our web site.
Number 2. Unit 5 Referendum
In April Unit 5 was facing a $13 million annual structural budget deficit for 2023/24. Many believed the district would be seeking approval to raise property taxes with a referendum on the ballot in November. Unit 5 held three public meetings seeking input.
At those meetings Superintendent Dr. Kristen Weikle gave five reasons why the budget issue exists. They included the 2008 Referendum for new school construction, the real estate crash of 2009, decreases in state funding, unfunded mandates and growing behavioral and social needs of students.
The District did not quantify in its presentation the impact in dollars these items have on the cost of their annual operating budget. And in fact the reasons didn’t explain what the problem with the budget really is.
Some of the reasons given were beyond the district’s control. Real estate values had been low in past years but had since recovered. The state began cutting its funding levels several years ago and there were unfunded mandates. The problem is the district never adjusted its spending habits. Instead it borrowed money by issuing bonds to pay for the costs.
Two of the reasons are things the district has more control over. First the bonds that resulted from the 2008 referendum will be paid off in about five years. Second, the spending on behavioral and social needs of students is something the district determined and can control in the future.
In May Unit 5 held a second round of meetings to get more public input. They gave the same reasons for their problem. And they still did not provide numbers showing why the deficit they were now looking at was down to $11 million. It was becoming evident that these meetings were more about gaining public support then providing real hard data for discussion.
At these meetings participants were asked to rank priorities regarding what to cut if cuts were necessary and what they would like to see expanded if additional revenues allowed.
Unit 5 Leaning Towards Asking for $14.5 Million Tax Increase
Options for cuts were; increase class sizes, reduce program offerings, reduce extracurricular activities, shorten school days, decrease staff, close school buildings and increase fees.
Options for opportunities presented include; lower class sizes, expand program offerings, increase student resources, implement accelerated education, enhance 21st century learning, improve student drop off and pick up, improve safety and security, increase space in buildings and install turf at athletic fields.
Attendees were then asked to rank funding levels between an $11 million budget increase and a $23 million increase. Such increases would raise property taxes for a homeowner of a $180,000 property from $284 a year to $543 a year. No options were provided for a stand still budget or smaller increases. The process led to budget options for further public discussion.
In June Ed Sullivan of EOSULLIVAN Consulting, the Unit 5 School District consultant, reported back on findings from the community input sessions saying the community favored passing a referendum to increase the annual funding for the district by $13 million.
By now it was clear Unit 5 would be running an emotional campaign based on feelings in an attempt to sell a tax referendum to the public. Numbers would not be presented to make their case. The public was not going to be seeing any budget forecasts for 2023/24 showing alternative spending levels and how budget impacts might directly impact students.
At Cities 92.9 we were frustrated. We sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Unit 5 to obtain copies of any such documents they had in house.
At the July Unit 5 School Board meeting members indicated they favored pursuing a $14.5 million tax request. It appeared they were planning to put a referendum on the November 8th ballot for that amount. This level of increase would increase property taxes in McLean County $375 a year on an owner of a $180 thousand home.
At about the same time Cities 92.9 received the response to our (FOIA) request. Unit 5 responded by sending a five year forecast. That document provided the insight we had been looking for.
Unit 5 Approves Resolution to Put $12 Million Tax Hike on Ballot
Looking at Unit 5’s budget it is readily apparent what their problem is. It’s the cost of salaries and benefits for staff. That cost for FY 2022 was $104.1 million of the total $120.2 million budget. That’s 87% of the budget. Realistically there isn’t enough savings to be had in any other areas to make much of a difference in the budget deficit.
That may be the reason why the only thing Unit 5 put fourth publicly regarding a solution was raising taxes because the number of positions they would need to cut is alarming. In order to balance it’s budget by making across the board cuts Unit 5 would have to eliminate 200 jobs.
At its August meeting the Unit 5 School Board approved a resolution that would put a referendum on the Nov. 8 ballot that would raise property taxes to provide the district $12 million more each year. Unit 5 said this amount would provide basic funding and provide some opportunities.
In the interim, before bond monies could potentially be received, the district will continue using borrowed funds to pay for operations through 2024/2025 and balancing the structural budget deficit by using reserve cash. According to Unit 5, without the additional funding they will have to increase class sizes, reduce programs, and reduce extra curricular activities.
The funding that would be received from successfully passing a referendum would not be available until 2025/2026.
In September Unit 5 held informational meetings regarding the referendum. It was at one of those meetings that we learned the referendum was actually asking for $20 million dollars a year.
The total dollar amount of the 2022/23 budget is $202 million. The total of the annual budget if such a proposition was approved would be $221 million. That increase would be 9.4 percent.
At an informational meeting in October Unit 5 pushed the envelope between providing information and asking people to vote for the amendment when it allowed Yes For Unit 5 signs to be displayed and distributed just outside the room where the meeting was held at Normal Community High School. After the meeting the signs were handed out by Patrick Mainieri, Treasurer and Spokesperson for YesForUnit5.org a group that supported the tax referendum.
Unit 5 is allowed by law to provided information regarding the referendum but is not allowed to get into the politics of asking the public to vote for it. Allowing these signs to be displayed outside the meeting room but in the school during the meeting and allowing them to be handed out after the meeting may not have crossed that line but it certainly wasn’t a good look.
Also in October The McLean County Republican Party announced it was opposing the tax referendum. According to their October newsletter, “A typical knee jerk reaction is to demand more to support bureaucratic programs because ‘nothing is too good for our kids,’ despite how much Unit 5 is already spending. Others say, ‘Enough is enough! There is no guarantee that increased funding will improve the educational outcomes,’ which is true.”
At that month’s board meeting Weikle gave her informational speech again for anyone who might not have heard it up to that point.
At the last informational meeting, which was held on line, Weikle came as close as she would before the election, to hinting at how serious Unit 5’s problem is when she said that even if all extra curricular activities were cut it would only put a dent in the budget deficit.
Cutting All Extra Curriculars Wouldn’t Solve Unit 5 Budget Deficit
Unit 5’s Tax Referendum asking for $20 million a year failed at the polls on November 8th. But it’s never over until it’s over.
At the Normal School District board meeting in October we learned they were seeking to communicate with people who voted no on the tax measure to see why they voted no and what might change their minds.
Cities 92.9 talked with Barry Hitchins, President of the Unit 5 School Board and he told us, “We just need to take our time to reach out to people to find out, and really we are looking for people who voted against it, to get a better understanding of why they voted against it and if there was more information or discussions we could have with them to improve the outcome that we would like to see as a district.”
We asked Hitchins if the timeline would allow for a referendum on the April ballot and he explained, “So the next election is April fourth. That’s the consolidated election. The deadline to put a public question on the ballot for the April fourth election, our board would have to take action I believe by January 17th. So we have got essentially two months to figure out how we want to proceed.”
