|
Post by title1parent on Nov 16, 2008 8:14:43 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1281760,6_1_NA16_REPORTS_S1.article Report card for D204 online November 16, 2008 Sun staff State of Illinois Report Cards for Indian Prairie School District 204 and each of its schools are now available on the district's Web site, www.ipsd.org. The state report cards contain comparison information about the district's finances as well as test score information. "Indian Prairie continues to operate in a highly cost-efficient manner while providing outstanding educational opportunities for students," states a District 204 E-News bulletin e-mail to residents Thursday. The district's average operating expense of $9,222 per pupil is below the state average of $9,907. The report card also includes comparison information on salaries. The average teacher's salary of $63,240 is slightly higher than the state average of $60,871, and the average administrator's salary of $104,330 is slightly lower than the state average of $105,117. To view the report cards, visit ipsdweb.ipsd.org/Subpage.aspx/SchoolReportCards.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Nov 16, 2008 18:12:31 GMT -5
Why do we taxpayers stand for this? Our property taxes are among the highest in the region, and we spend LESS than average? It tells me we are spending way too much on other things.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Nov 16, 2008 18:59:25 GMT -5
Why do we taxpayers stand for this? Our property taxes are among the highest in the region, and we spend LESS than average? It tells me we are spending way too much on other things. stand for what exactly? That we have an excellent school system that ranks high in the State and we spend less than others to accomplish it? I can stand that quite well thank you......... I surmise if we were to spend the "State Average", our taxes would be even higher.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Nov 16, 2008 19:10:21 GMT -5
What exactly is in the operating costs? It sounds to me like if that is the running of the "business" so to speak and we are doing that efficiently, that would be a good thing. It looks like we spend more than average on student instruction and less than average on administration.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Nov 16, 2008 22:02:57 GMT -5
We are paying disproportionately high taxes yet the money is not going to the schools. I am not saying we should be throwing more money at the schools, because we are already getting good results, as you state. I am saying that our overall taxes should be lower thanks to the apparent efficiencies within the school system. Instead, we are paying more.
How is an area like Arlington Heights, which is more or less on the same economic level as Naperville, able to spend 14k+ per student, yet charge residents less for property taxes? I know people in Elk Grove and AH who have houses that are worth approximately what mine is and their taxes are literally half of mine.
I often hear that businesses pay more taxes in Cook than in Dupage and that that is part of the reason. If that is the case, shouldn't we be attracting more business?
As I've said before, we are headed for mass exodus from this area if the spending and taxes aren't lowered. A 13k tax bill for a 450k house is not only unreasonable but unsustainable.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Nov 17, 2008 9:22:08 GMT -5
Asmodeus, you have brought up some very good points regarding taxing issues and apparent differences within different suburban areas.
1) Taxes (real estate) are substantially less in Cook county when compared to Dupage or Will county. The main reason for this as you have alluded to is that businesses pay an much larger percentage of real estate tax as compared to home owners.
2) Dollars spent per student can vary for a number of reasons, one that comes to mind is unit district vs non unit district. As a rule a non unit district's spending per student is more.
3) The demographics of a community will also have a direct impact on how much a taxpayer will spend on school districts. The communities that have been noted (Elk Grove, Arlington Hts.) have been built out for decades and have less students per household. This would mean that the tax burden for schools is spread out over many more households and higher taxed businesses.
4) Attracting more businesses because real estate taxes are lower have helped in our district and others. Many new businesses have relocated to this area in the last 2 decades. Many other businesses have invested heavily to upgrade existing facilities and stayed in our area. This may have temporarily slowed down due to economic pressures but should resume once things pick up.
5) The tax bill you speak of seems very high. In Will county (portion of 204 district) average tax rate is 2.2%-2.5% of assessed value. The math would hold out that you are being taxes at an assessed value of between $520,000- $590,000. If you reside in the Dupage area of 204 your tax rate should be a tad less percentage wise. Either way your recourse would be with your local tax assessor office. These folks are very helpful and can be understanding in these tough economic times.
|
|
|
Post by chicoryowl on Nov 17, 2008 10:21:42 GMT -5
We are paying disproportionately high taxes yet the money is not going to the schools. I am not saying we should be throwing more money at the schools, because we are already getting good results, as you state. I am saying that our overall taxes should be lower thanks to the apparent efficiencies within the school system. Instead, we are paying more. How is an area like Arlington Heights, which is more or less on the same economic level as Naperville, able to spend 14k+ per student, yet charge residents less for property taxes? I know people in Elk Grove and AH who have houses that are worth approximately what mine is and their taxes are literally half of mine. I often hear that businesses pay more taxes in Cook than in Dupage and that that is part of the reason. If that is the case, shouldn't we be attracting more business? As I've said before, we are headed for mass exodus from this area if the spending and taxes aren't lowered. A 13k tax bill for a 450k house is not only unreasonable but unsustainable. You bring up some good points about overall taxation. However, in regards to the school district, I am glad they continue to fare well on the report card. Also I think "mass exodus" is overstating matters.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Nov 17, 2008 11:23:35 GMT -5
We are paying disproportionately high taxes yet the money is not going to the schools. I am not saying we should be throwing more money at the schools, because we are already getting good results, as you state. I am saying that our overall taxes should be lower thanks to the apparent efficiencies within the school system. Instead, we are paying more. How is an area like Arlington Heights, which is more or less on the same economic level as Naperville, able to spend 14k+ per student, yet charge residents less for property taxes? I know people in Elk Grove and AH who have houses that are worth approximately what mine is and their taxes are literally half of mine. I often hear that businesses pay more taxes in Cook than in Dupage and that that is part of the reason. If that is the case, shouldn't we be attracting more business? As I've said before, we are headed for mass exodus from this area if the spending and taxes aren't lowered. A 13k tax bill for a 450k house is not only unreasonable but unsustainable. IIRC in DuPage and Will Counties. Both Business and Residential pay on 33 1/3 % of assessed market value. in Cook Residential is 16% of EAV Market value and Commercial is over 50% of EAV Market Value (not exactly sure on the commercial rate, but it is much higher). and actually the majority of the monies ARE going to the schools or we would be paying even more in taxes. Added. EAV is 33 1/3% of "market value" in DuPage and Will 16% of Market value in Cook.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Nov 17, 2008 11:32:18 GMT -5
I do agree that 13k taxes on a 450k house is too high.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Nov 17, 2008 12:34:58 GMT -5
Asmodeus, you have brought up some very good points regarding taxing issues and apparent differences within different suburban areas. 1) Taxes (real estate) are substantially less in Cook county when compared to Dupage or Will county. The main reason for this as you have alluded to is that businesses pay an much larger percentage of real estate tax as compared to home owners. 2) Dollars spent per student can vary for a number of reasons, one that comes to mind is unit district vs non unit district. As a rule a non unit district's spending per student is more. 3) The demographics of a community will also have a direct impact on how much a taxpayer will spend on school districts. The communities that have been noted (Elk Grove, Arlington Hts.) have been built out for decades and have less students per household. This would mean that the tax burden for schools is spread out over many more households and higher taxed businesses. 4) Attracting more businesses because real estate taxes are lower have helped in our district and others. Many new businesses have relocated to this area in the last 2 decades. Many other businesses have invested heavily to upgrade existing facilities and stayed in our area. This may have temporarily slowed down due to economic pressures but should resume once things pick up. 5) The tax bill you speak of seems very high. In Will county (portion of 204 district) average tax rate is 2.2%-2.5% of assessed value. The math would hold out that you are being taxes at an assessed value of between $520,000- $590,000. If you reside in the Dupage area of 204 your tax rate should be a tad less percentage wise. Either way your recourse would be with your local tax assessor office. These folks are very helpful and can be understanding in these tough economic times. You are right, SSSM. There are so many variables that make each city different. Plus, in each city, the cost for the home one pays taxes on is different. We may pay higher taxes here than other areas but we can get more home for the money here than in those suburbs closer to the city. Also, look at all the suburbs west of us that had lower taxes but they are now skyrocketing due to building more schools and having more of an influx of children. I still think this is a great place to live and would gladly pay these taxes for the type of schools we get. People are continuing to want to come to this area because of the schools and home values.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Nov 17, 2008 16:51:19 GMT -5
I've seen that argument before but I don't see why house "quality" (as opposed to market price) would be correlated with tax levies. And what would be the point in saving money on a better house that's farther away if the savings are eaten up by taxes? (Over 30 years I will have paid more in taxes -- 400k at current rates -- than I did for the house!)
I've said this many times, but our schools are not significantly better or worse than others in similar demographic areas. Schools in Elmhurst are just as good. Show me a suburb with similar demographics to D204 that doesn't have good schools. (Though that doesn't mean schools can't excel in certain areas -- e.g., D204 has an excellent special needs program from what I hear.)
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Nov 17, 2008 17:31:02 GMT -5
I've seen that argument before but I don't see why house "quality" (as opposed to market price) would be correlated with tax levies. And what would be the point in saving money on a better house that's farther away if the savings are eaten up by taxes? (Over 30 years I will have paid more in taxes -- 400k at current rates -- than I did for the house!) Asmo, I am no tax expert and this is my opinion only but consider this.... Again, it's hard to compare homes when you are talking different cities. I won't argue with you about the fact that there is a value to living closer to Chicago. But I don't think when you compare apples to apples you are getting screwed by living in 204. For example, on the internet, I found a home in Naperville/204. It is 3701 square feet and 4 bedrooms, 4.5 baths, 3 car garage and finished basement. It is selling for $499,900 and has taxes of $11,253. When I try and find a similar home in Elmhurst, I find one that is 3719 square feet and 4 bedrooms and 4.5 baths with a 2 car garage and unfinished basement. It is selling for $799,900 and has taxes of $14,000. The cheapest 4.5 bath home I found in browsing had taxes of $13,120. I guess what I am trying to say is that yes, you could live in a home in Elmhurst and have lower taxes than here but you wouldn't be living the same life style. Likewise, you could have lower taxes in Naperville too if you wanted by moving to a smaller home. But it's still my opinion that you wouldn't be saving money by living elsewhere if you had the same type of home you live in now. I also don't see the tax savings you mention on comparable homes either. Now if you want to compare a $500K home in Naperville to a $500K home in Elmhurst, then yes, maybe the taxes would be lower in Elmhurst. But the homes would not be of the same quality. I don't know why the taxes would not be similar across the cities and based on price, but I just don't see that as true. But I do see a consistency for what you get for your money and the correlation that you pay in taxes. If you want a nice home in Elmhurst, you pay more in taxes and price, it looks like to me.
|
|
|
Post by rural on Nov 17, 2008 20:19:45 GMT -5
I've seen that argument before but I don't see why house "quality" (as opposed to market price) would be correlated with tax levies. And what would be the point in saving money on a better house that's farther away if the savings are eaten up by taxes? ( Over 30 years I will have paid more in taxes -- 400k at current rates -- than I did for the house!) I've said this many times, but our schools are not significantly better or worse than others in similar demographic areas. Schools in Elmhurst are just as good. Show me a suburb with similar demographics to D204 that doesn't have good schools. (Though that doesn't mean schools can't excel in certain areas -- e.g., D204 has an excellent special needs program from what I hear.) No matter where you live you will pay property taxes so to complain about the amount you will pay over 30 years isn't quite the argument you make it out to be. Now, if you were to be whining about the difference you would have to pay rather than the total, that would be another matter all together. However, I don't think the end number would pack as dramatic a punch as you were hoping for. Also, you must rember there is value to your property tax payment. It's not like you are throwing the money away. You actually are getting something for it. Streets plowed in the winter, parks maintained very nicely, excellent school district, exemplary fire and police forces. . . anyone want to add more?
|
|
|
Post by rural on Nov 17, 2008 20:25:15 GMT -5
I have a question: Won't the bonds be paid up in 20 years? (That is if they aren't refinanced again in 15! Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.)
|
|