Board OKs Dist. 15 budget despite residents' concerns

Despite objections from some residents Tuesday night, the proposed $27 million budget in Marquardt Elementary District 15 sailed through approval from the school board.

Residents said after voting to approve a 2003 tax increase for the district's education fund, they've paid more than expected because the district used the money to boost other funds across the budget, as well.

Dan Hanck, a Bloomingdale resident in District 15, said the district explained the projected costs one way, then taxed residents differently. The district was one of more than two dozen found during a 2005 Daily Herald investigation that used a little-publicized portion of the tax cap law to significantly boost residents' taxes after a successful tax rate referendum.

"I feel that we've been wronged," Hanck said.

In writing Tuesday night, Hanck proposed the district rebate $10 million tax dollars to residents. The amount, he said, is half of the district's projected all fund balance by June 2008.

Superintendent Loren May said promises were made, and promises were kept.

"When we passed the referendum, we were very consistent in what we promised constituents," he said.

Bloomingdale resident Jim Pitts questioned what the students would think of the district's handling of the voter-approved funds, which officials said were destined only for the education fund.

"For the first time in the education of my children, I can honestly say I am deeply disappointed in the actions of the public servants whom I felt represented my interests," he said. "While I recognize these actions may have been technically legal, they are by no means right."

District 15 asked residents to increase the tax rate by 67 cents to help offset a $1.5 million deficit in the education fund in 2003, but the district clearly used a now-changed former application of the property tax cap law to increase spending and property tax requests for other areas, like the operations and maintenance and transportation funds. The district also reinstated its working-cash and life-safety levies.

Though the district now is subject to the new interpretation of the law that places it back under the tax cap, limits tax request increases to the consumer price index or 5 percent, whichever is less, residents said the overall budget level was set higher forever because of the district's requests for the prior four years.