By BILL DWYER

As an ad hoc Fiscal Action Committee prepared to meet for a fourth time this Wednesday evening to discuss the if, when, ways and means of a possible property tax referendum, the District 90 school board spent much of its regular board meeting Monday night going over best- and worst-case scenarios related to a looming budget crisis.

The bottom line, it is becoming clear, is that the board will either have to ask voters for increased property tax revenue, or make what are described as "draconian" cuts to the district’s educational programs.

The Fiscal Action Team, comprised of a cross-section of village citizens, will have a final recommendation for the school board at its Nov. 14 finance committee meeting. The board will then take action on that recommendation at its rescheduled monthly meeting on Nov. 29.

Finance Committee Chairman Ronald Atkins, who also is on the Fiscal Action Team, led the board through a review Monday of the realities attached to any decision that would not increase revenues. Those consequences would be seen in the 2006-2007 school year.

Current projected revenues and expenditures indicate that the district would just about break even in the 2006-07 school years, and face $3.8 million and $8.3 million deficits the following two years.

"This is just putting it out there, making sure we’ve all seen it," Atkins said of listing the likely consequences of adapting to present revenue projections.

The cuts, which would come from discretionary programs, include the elimination of 16.5 teaching positions, the elimination of the music and art programs, language classes, technology instruction and field trips, as well as such non-state-mandated positions as school nurses, social workers and professional development programs.

"Would you have many programs left?" board member Lori Owens asked a bit disbelievingly at one point. "No," replied Supt. Marlene Kamm. "You’d devastate the program." Kamm also noted that the cuts, needed to adapt to static revenues, would mean class sizes in the 35-40 student range, and possibly higher.

Referring to River Forest residents who have staunchly opposed any increase in property taxes, Atkins said, "The question I have is, ‘How firmly do you believe that?’"

Atkins then asked District Finance Director Anthony Cozzi to review the two options the board will have if it decides to go before the voters next year with a property tax referendum.

The first option would be to ask for an increase in the percentage the district can tax property. That rate is currently $2.99 per hundred dollars of assessed valuation. Any increase approved by voters would then be phased in over the next four years.

If, Cozzi hypothesized, the referendum called for a 25-cent increase, the rate would increase by that amount each year for four years.

The problem, Cozzi and others repeatedly pointed out, is that the tax rate the district is currently receiving is 2.07, not 2.99.

Therefore, he said, a rate increase of, say, 25 cents, would bring it to 3.07 over the next four years. The rate would never reach the 3.24 approved by voters.

In order to achieve that rate, Cozzi said, a "break-even point" of $0.30 would required. That percentage increase would result in an eventual 3.27 tax rate before the realities of the tax cap once again pushed actual yearly revenues downward again.

In the meantime, Cozzi pointed out, the Illinois State Legislature is considering a bill in its fall veto session that would limit the phased-in increases to just three years. That, in turn, would require an even higher rate increase request to offset the lost fourth year.

A second option, said Cozzi, is to ask for the 5-percent annual rate increase limit to be increased considerably—on a one-time basis—to a certain percentage deemed necessary. Cozzi declined to speculate on any specific number, saying that the Fiscal Action Team would have to decide on both the option and any percentage increase. He also stressed that such an option would be one-time only, after which the rate of increase would again be tied to the Consumer Price Index, which over the past several years has hovered around three percent.

Several board members expressed concern that the public is not aware of the facts related to the district’s finances.

"There’s not enough communication with the public about how we’re doing and what the financial demands of running a school district are," said Kelly Welindt.

Juliann Geldner, herself a lawyer, termed the referendum language "convoluted," and expressed concern that voters would struggle to grasp the many confusing details attendant to the issue and only see the tax rate increase.

"One of our challenges is to educate our consumers, our constituents," she said.

Atkins agreed, calling the issue of communications "huge."

contact: bdwyer@wjinc.com