Something has to be the largest component of the budget. If it wasn't teacher salaries it would be overhead expenditures, and that would provoke cries of unnecessary bureaucracy. If teacher salaries being the largest part of the budget is so bad, then please tell me, what should be the largest part of the budget?

As the District 15 financial information presentation showed, per student expenditures at $12,865 are the lowest in the NW suburbs (below Arlington Heights 25 at $15,093, Prospect Heights 23 at $15,467, Wheeling 21 at $16,078, and many more even higher than that). To me that looks like the sign of strong financial planning.

Go to Championnews.net to see teachers' salaries. Jeffrey J is absolutely right!

Meg, that website doesn't state anything. First of all, I'd like to think that we can have rational discussions. However, the author of Champion News, Jack Roeser, ran in the 1994 Republican Gubernatorial Primary according to the About part of the page, he proudly brandishes his conservative credentials. If someone else were to promote sources from the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) people here would be screaming bloody murder.

Secondly, that website doesn't actually talk about the teachers salaries, it merely redirects you to another conservative organization that provides the salaries via the ISBE. That website does provide plenty of editorials about the perceived problems and conservative solutions to education.

Finally, I'm not sure what your point of posting this was, though I do have several good ideas. According to the link I followed (Family Taxpayers Foundation), when you take all the educators listed for District 15, that's 906 entries, and average them, that comes out to $74,487.71 The District says the average pay is 73,774. Now I'm not sure what accounts for the difference in the two numbers, but it is a very small difference either way.

No one has yet answered the question of what should be the largest part of the budget? If it's not the teachers, what should it be? Maintenance costs? Overhead? Utilities? What should be the largest component of the budget?

You might want to get the district correct before you start ranting. This is, as the title of the article even says, about District 15. Secondly, you may want to equate yourself with the principle of inflation. Thirdly, the average teacher pay in District 15 is $73,774 according to the 2010 Ed.dat Databook by the Education Data and Consulting Services. If you can present other numbers, I'd be very interested in hearing them.

Did you attend or even look at the District 15 Finance Information Presentation that was last week?

Average District 15 teacher salary in 2009-10 was $75,289 according to Illinois Interactive Report Card (http://iirc.niu.edu/).

This is rank #12 out of the 35 elementary and unit school districts in the north and northwestern suburbs in Cook County (range for these districts was from $56,471 to $89,121).

This is rank #3 out of the 8 districts that feed into high school districts 211 and 214 (range was from $61,171 to $78,785).

Details can be found at http://www.scottherr.org/2011-12/school-district-financial-comparisons/

D15's December newsletter http://www.ccsd15.net/files/_XMLM7_/4ae6411d452eeeb73745a49013852ec4/CONN2011-12web.pdf states the average teacher salary is $73,774 but does not indicate the year.

Were you one of the dozen people who went to the financial planning meeting? Was anyone who commented on this article? Out of control benefits? The Administrators in District 15 make 20,000 dollars less than neighboring districts. Teacher salaries are in-line with, or slightly below, the average for other districts. All of this was explained at the meeting, but it appears we are instead burdened by people who don't care to be educated, who don't care to do research, and who only care to spout off blatantly wrong statements.

But what the hell, it's the internet. Who need facts when loudly shouted opinions will do?

In your hypothetical you and the new house will get taxed the same regardless of the levy increase. Of the levy increase 1.5% of that is strictly to offset inflation. The taxes you paid in 2011 require the 16 addition dollars to buy the exact same things in 2012.

As the article mentions, and the November 17th story also mentioned, Illinois law prohibits raising the levy beyond the rate of inflation excepting for capturing new development. So that house that is built next to yours is new development. In 2011 there was no house to be assessed $200,000 (yes there was property but an empty lot is nowhere near the value of a house on a lot). Now that there is a house it is assessed as part of the levy.

This is where the additional .5% comes in. If it didn't you would have more people using the same service, in this case schools, but paying the tax levy for a smaller population. The per capita tax rate would go down while total consumption of the service increases. The .5% accounts for those new developments so that the per capita tax rate doesn't change.

Scott, a numeric (& complicated) response:
- Tax would be $4600 this year
- Following year would be $4623 with D15 levy as approved at 3% (limited to 1.5% 2010 CPI)
- Following year would be $4615 if D15 had approved the 1.5% levy increase
- Yes, regardless of D15 levy chosen, the new neighboring house would be taxed the same as you; however, they might qualify for different exemptions that would affect their final tax bill
- New growth is taken into account in calculating the D15 tax rate - this tax rate applies to all properties in the D15 boundaries

Some assumptions:
- $200,000 house value
- Located in Palatine and in Palatine Park District area (tax code 29007, total tax rate 7.666, D15 tax rate 2.603)
- $6000 homeowner exemption (Note: Cook County is phasing out "7% Expanded Homeowner Exemption" - max exemption this year is $20,000, min $6000 - this decreasing exemption increases final homeowner assessed values thus shifting some commercial tax burden to residential)
- No levy changes by other taxing bodies
- No changes in assessed values (next year is not a reassessment year so residential won't change much; change in commercial depends a lot on appeals)
- Tax calculation = (($200,000 * 10% assessment level * 3.3000 state equalization factor) - $6000 exemption) * 7.666 tax rate / 100
- New growth estimated at 0.5% within District 15 boundaries - so if D15 levy was 1.5% increase then total levy would be spread over 100.5% as much property as before

David, FYI I'm also being criticized on the Daily Herald article at http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111214/news/712149601/comments/

Next year's deficit is forecast at $9.6 million. Approving a 1.5% levy increase would have increased the deficit to $10.1 million. This is not a small problem and no one has shared a vision on a solution. What would you do to eliminate a $9.6 or $10.1 million deficit?

I was quoted in the DH article saying "Are we going to increase class sizes? Are we going to cut salaries? Are we going to cut programs? Are we going to increase taxes?" My questions are sincere.

Tim Millar and the other "1-3-5ers," as you call them, did not present any ideas either at the meeting.

Negotiations with CTC have just begun, and unless you are aware of a way to force the union to negotiate faster, begun the process sooner, or just caved right in to any and all demands, I'm not sure how you can say that Herr, or any of the board members, have failed or even succeeded to keep their promises. They've barely been on the board for half a year.